Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Under-Exposed]

OK... Inhale everyone...now breeeeeathe......

Now, for what it is worth, I suspect we are unlikely to get any new insights into what ACTUALLY happened from the Court of Appeal judgment. We ARE likely to get some more publicly-disclosed detail about the basis upon which he was sentenced/is to be re-sentenced (if the appeal is successful). I have seen (on a confidential basis) the Statement of Facts ( a misnomer, as pat of it was really submission) that was presented to the sentencing judge. I suspect it will re-enliven the debate when its details are disclosed, but I don't think it will assist in determining what went wrong.

For me, however, the more interesting aspect of the appeal will be (hopefully) a discussion of the criminality of the conduct, and a clearer statement as to what the delinquency was for which he should be sentenced. While it will not bind any court into the future (either civil or criminal) it may provide a firmer basis for discussing the obligations of a dive buddy.

I think there have been very few winners in this case, other than the ISPs raking in cash from the bandwidth being devoted to the topic!

 

[livinoz]

OK... Inhale everyone...now breeeeeathe......

Now, for what it is worth, I suspect we are unlikely to get any new insights into what ACTUALLY happened from the Court of Appeal judgment. We ARE likely to get some more publicly-disclosed detail about the basis upon which he was sentenced/is to be re-sentenced (if the appeal is successful). I have seen (on a confidential basis) the Statement of Facts ( a misnomer, as pat of it was really submission) that was presented to the sentencing judge. I suspect it will re-enliven the debate when its details are disclosed, but I don't think it will assist in determining what went wrong.

For me, however, the more interesting aspect of the appeal will be (hopefully) a discussion of the criminality of the conduct, and a clearer statement as to what the delinquency was for which he should be sentenced. While it will not bind any court into the future (either civil or criminal) it may provide a firmer basis for discussing the obligations of a dive buddy.

I think there have been very few winners in this case, other than the ISPs raking in cash from the bandwidth being devoted to the topic!

I'm breathing, I'm breathing!

I look forward to further discussion too, when we have that information. All we are doing at the moment, in my opinion, is going around in circles and rehashing what we've said before, and other than the legal argument re precedence there has been nothing new bought up for some time.

 

[alohagal]

Well, I'm going to respond to this and then I think I'm done for a while. You guys are getting decidedly more worked up over this whole thing than I am. Am I sad that a young lady died...absolutely! Do I believe that the outcome of this is going to affect my life one way or the other…not so much! I feel like I’m being attacked because I choose to view this case in a little different light than the rest of you. Being called “inflammatory” and told that I have a “shotgun approach” to discussing this is kind of insulting, as I’m certain it was meant to be. I was simply looking for a little “light sparring” over the matter…a friendly discussion with varying opinions, but it appears that K_girl and bsee65 allow for only one opinion on the matter and that is theirs.

I would like to clear one thing up though. The following comment from the scuba forum that I included earlier - “Gabe had more experience, and he did the 'right thing' (textbook answer) on how he responded, and what he did that day. Overconfidence is what kills scuba divers. Becoming separated from a "dive buddy" is a violation of safety procedures for recreational diving. I'm afraid Tina died "as a result of a diving accident for which she was solely responsible. I know that may not sit well with the family, but such is life. No one put a gun to her head to do it.” - WAS NOT my comment. I found in on another forum and only included it as proof that there are others that don’t feel that Gabe Watson made the wrong decision that day. I DO NOT agree that Tina was responsible for her own death and in hindsight should have included only the bolded sentences of that comment as they were the only portion relevant to my argument. I was not trying to “insight” anyone and I apologize if I did so. Sorry to have stirred up the hive; I hope you guys enjoy agreeing with each other until you finally get sick of talking about it.

I think I may have led you astray. None of us agree with each other on all matters of this case, not even close. Everyone on this thread comes from different points of view. EACH and EVERYONE of us. That is what makes it a darn good viable, intelligent, thoughtful thread.

This is not by any means an anti-Gabe Watson/pro Tina thread or visa versa. And you do many a diservice by stating such. Yes, some think he is likely guilty, others probably not. Yet, still others are concerned with the matter of law only and how it is meeted out in an equitable and just manner. You may want to go back and read the thread from the beginning to get a real feel for where people stand.

Mary

 

[alohagal]

OK... Inhale everyone...now breeeeeathe......

Now, for what it is worth, I suspect we are unlikely to get any new insights into what ACTUALLY happened from the Court of Appeal judgment. We ARE likely to get some more publicly-disclosed detail about the basis upon which he was sentenced/is to be re-sentenced (if the appeal is successful). I have seen (on a confidential basis) the Statement of Facts ( a misnomer, as pat of it was really submission) that was presented to the sentencing judge. I suspect it will re-enliven the debate when its details are disclosed, but I don't think it will assist in determining what went wrong.

For me, however, the more interesting aspect of the appeal will be (hopefully) a discussion of the criminality of the conduct, and a clearer statement as to what the delinquency was for which he should be sentenced. While it will not bind any court into the future (either civil or criminal) it may provide a firmer basis for discussing the obligations of a dive buddy.

I think there have been very few winners in this case, other than the ISPs raking in cash from the bandwidth being devoted to the topic!

Well...isn't that interesting? I hope so! And I too, want to know about the criminality of the conduct and the clearer statement of such. Thank you for your post.

Mary

 

[ItsBruce]

You appear to be stating that the outcome was not the outcome which was Watson pleaded guilty to manslaughter and did take responsibility for her death.

I am responding to this statement without having read all of the new posts. If I missed something or am being redundant, sorry. ...

He made a deal. I do not think that equates with taking responsibility. I think pretty much everyone concurs that failing to effectuate a rescue is not manslaughter.

 

[ItsBruce]

Here is a further insight on the guilty plea:

Had the case gone to trial, it would most likely have been a jury trial. After hearing the evidence, the jurors would have started deliberations. What would those have been like?

Think about the debate that has been going on on SB. I'm not going to try to recite it or analyze it, but just think about it.

Now, take into consideration that those who have been engaged in the discussion on SB are really interested and really care. IMHO, everyone is above the curve on intelligence, wisdom and common sense.

I do not know about the system in Australia, but in the US, jurors for the jury pool are selected at random from the general population. By and large, people whose names come up for jury service don't want to be there. The first thing most people do is try to find a way out of it. The really bright ones often find a way out. Then while selecting the jury panel itself, the lawyers tend to filter out the really bright ones. I've seen it happen many times.

So, considering the potential jurors and the nature of the debate, if you REALLY weren't guilty would you want the jurors debating like we have been and deciding whether you spend the rest of your life in prison if you could plead to manslaughter?

 

[boulderjohn]

Here is a further insight on the guilty plea:

Had the case gone to trial, it would most likely have been a jury trial. After hearing the evidence, the jurors would have started deliberations. What would those have been like?

Think about the debate that has been going on on SB. I'm not going to try to recite it or analyze it, but just think about it.

Now, take into consideration that those who have been engaged in the discussion on SB are really interested and really care. IMHO, everyone is above the curve on intelligence, wisdom and common sense.

I do not know about the system in Australia, but in the US, jurors for the jury pool are selected at random from the general population. By and large, people whose names come up for jury service don't want to be there. The first thing most people do is try to find a way out of it. The really bright ones often find a way out. Then while selecting the jury panel itself, the lawyers tend to filter out the really bright ones. I've seen it happen many times.

So, considering the potential jurors and the nature of the debate, if you REALLY weren't guilty would you want the jurors debating like we have been and deciding whether you spend the rest of your life in prison if you could plead to manslaughter?

Am I wrong in assuming that people who are knowledgeable about scuba would also be excluded?

 

[K_girl]

I originally entered this thread with what I thought was a very important question AND concern for divers based on the outcome of this matter but no one seemed interested in it until another poster (a "regular member") on this thread had an opinion on it. So I'll leave you with my original question which neither you or K_girl bothered to answer the first time.

If you go back in this thread you will see that I have covered this subject extensively and was the first one to bring it up. I see no need to repeat myself.

Here is something new on this subject that I have to add. I have written to the Queensland District Attorney asking that the responsibilities of a diver to a buddy to rescue needs to be better defined in order to prevent divers from putting themselves at risk in order to rescue a dive buddy. I pointed out to him the elements that need to be better defined: means, opportunity, mental capacity and personal safety.

Go back in the thread - you will see that I defined each of these elements even further.

 

[K_girl]

Here is the letter I sent to Cameron Dick, Queensland District Attorney who is appealing the sentence. I sent it on July 22nd and I have not received a reply. I found his e-mail address on the Internet, it is: cameron.dick@queenslandlabor.org

Dear Mr. Dick:

I am a certified rescue diver and there has been much discussion amongst my fellow divers about the Gabe Watson case and the guilty manslaughter plea. First, let me say, I respect and understand your efforts on behalf of Tina Watson's family. However, many divers have expressed a concern over the manslaughter plea in this case setting a precedence to establish an obligation for a dive buddy to rescue. Rescue divers and beginning divers are taught to keep their distance from a panicking diver for their own safety. We are constantly reminded not to allow ourselves to become a second victim.

We feel that an attempt to lengthen the sentence on the basis of "deterrence" needs to be better defined for divers, so that we understand our obligation to rescue fully. I have attempted to come up with a definition that fits this case which is: Watson had the means, the opportunity and mental capacity to rescue Tina without harm to himself and simply chose not to do so.

Means = enough air, equipment working properly. Opportunity = victim is visible and accessible. Mental capacity = capable of correctly evaluating the situation to make a correct decision, even in an emergency. Without harm to self = victim is not panicking and combative, victim has not entered into an area that presents a danger to the buddy.

It would be much appreciated if you could clarify for the diving community, what level of expectation that Australian law enforcement will have for divers to rescue by establishing a "deterrence" with this case.

Thank you,

K.S.
PADI Rescue Diver

 

[scubadude79]

Wrong case, never mind.