Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Under-Exposed]

First reports say that he will spend an extra 6 months behind bars. I imagine that means that they have not changed the head sentence but changes to period after which the sentence is suspended. I doubt this will satisfy anyone!

 

[Under-Exposed]

Here is the judgment. Un fortunately I will not have an opportunity to read it for a few hours.

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QCA09-279.pdf

 

[Under-Exposed]

Ok. 3 judges. One would dismiss the appeal (the second judgment). One thought head sentence OK but suspended after 18 months (the third judgment). The other thought the head sentence OK, but would have suspended dafter 2 years, 3 months (ie half the head sentence) but in order to create a majority verdict lived with the 18 months suggested by the third judge.

And interestingly, they took different views of what the facts established in terms of Watson's culpability.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Interesting indeed... I haven't read all of it yet. I obviously don't have access to the other cases quoted or the level of understanding those in the legal field have.

It is interesting that the Watsons were offered the Orientation dive and declined it twice! I heard that was what constituted "failing to follow their company operational policy" and resulted in their fine after the investigation. Remember it was noted that Mike Ball's SOP was higher than required by industry standards.

 

[Ayisha]

A couple of interesting things from the judgement are below. I can't seem to copy and paste the statements:

In section [87], it states that "the cause of death was asphyxiation". It says that "she did not drown". This is consistent with the early news reports that she asphyxiated and there was no water in her lungs.

In section [91], it says that Tina "was too heavily weighted", which was a subject of question in the previous thread on this matter. Many people argued that the amount of weight she was reportedly wearing had to have been way too much for her apparent size and exposure protection, even in salt water. She was apparently wearing 18 - 20 lbs according to Gabe. We don't know what amount of weight was actually found on Tina.

 

[diving queen]

Where are you alohagal, bsee65 and k_girl?? I thought you three would be chomping at the bit, so to speak, to throw in your three cents about this decision. Strange, don't you think, that three appellate judges can vary THAT MUCH in their decision? I've been away for a while, obviously, but with that said, I am glad to see that you all are lashing out at others the same way you lashed out at me for "rehashing" old information. I don't feel quite as singled out as I did before. It will be interesting to return to this thread three months from now to see if all of you are STILL talking about this.

 

[Under-Exposed]

A couple of interesting things from the judgement are below. I can't seem to copy and paste the statements:

In section [87], it states that "the cause of death was asphyxiation". It says that "she did not drown". This is consistent with the early news reports that she asphyxiated and there was no water in her lungs.

In section [91], it says that Tina "was too heavily weighted", which was a subject of question in the previous thread on this matter. Many people argued that the amount of weight she was reportedly wearing had to have been way too much for her apparent size and exposure protection, even in salt water. She was apparently wearing 18 - 20 lbs according to Gabe. We don't know what amount of weight was actually found on Tina.

This really is a little unsatisfactory to have these kinds of factual assessments being made in an appeal judgment from a sentencing decision based on agreed facts. The agreed fact (and the actual finding of the post mortem, as recounted in the coronial report) was that she had drowned. And it is simply not the case that because you have a regulator in your mouth you cannot drown. The agreed facts also recount that her equipment was checked and found to be normal, and specifically record that she was found to be not excessively weighted.

Notably, the third judge makes specific reference to the family's impact statements as being "coloured" by the belief that he had deliberately killed her, to the charge of murder as having been "given up as having no substance", to him being "wrongly accused in the public eye of murder" and to the fact that he has "borne the unjust charge ... of murder".

 

[Under-Exposed]

Where are you alohagal, bsee65 and k_girl?? I thought you three would be chomping at the bit, so to speak, to throw in your three cents about this decision. Strange, don't you think, that three appellate judges can vary THAT MUCH in their decision? I've been away for a while, obviously, but with that said, I am glad to see that you all are lashing out at others the same way you lashed out at me for "rehashing" old information. I don't feel quite as singled out as I did before. It will be interesting to return to this thread three months from now to see if all of you are STILL talking about this.

I think you mean "champing" at the bit.

 

[ItsBruce]

Fascinating.

The whole thing makes my head hurt.

 

[My-way]

Under-Exposed, it would not be the first time that loose language caused confusion and a lack of clarity in an appellate (or primary Court) judgment wouldn't you agree?

In essence unless the facts were relevant to mitigation or aggravation in terms of sentence to be imposed they are irrelevant and ought not to have been referred to.

By the way, what is a deregulator?