Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

As Under-Exposed stated, the outcome is essentially the same. Here are some excerpts in the appeal decision that I found to have new information:

The facts as stated in the appeal also takes some arguments into account that Watson's counsel made.

.."Much of his experience had not been accomplished in open waters with strong currents, though there was no suggestion currents played any particular part here.."

Watson certainly tried to make the case that the currents were significant in getting Tina into trouble. For some reason, they didn't believe him.

As bowlofpetunias stated, Tina was offered twice to join the orientation dive and turned it down because she was comfortable with Gabe's level of experience.

Appeal confirms that Dr. Stutz saw them together, but what does "in that way" mean?

Appeal says it took him between one and three minutes to return to the surface? That is a huge discrepancy of time and I think one of the things Watson's counsel must have argued, probably based on sampling rate.

The appeal made one of the same arguments I made which was nothing in Watson's statements ever sounded like he was in a state of panic.

 

[K_girl]

Interesting comments by Williams JA in the sentencing portion of the appeal, comparing to other cases like a man killing his pregnant wife by pointing what he thought was an un-loaded gun and pulling the trigger. Or the other case of essentially starving a woman to death to rid herself of evil spirits. This judge says that the Watson case is not as bad as these, but I would disagree. Waton's arrogance in believing in his own rescue skills and making Tina believe in his rescue skills and the arrogance of the man pointing a gun at his wife and pulling the trigger is on the same level as far as I am concerned.

All of the cases the judge sighted would seem to indicate an acceptance that the act was unintentional. I would say that all the evidence regarding intent in this case was ignored which would have been Watson's actions and behavior before and after Tina's death. Those elements were never, ever discussed - and there was certainly plenty of incidents for discussion.

So, what if the guy did intend to shoot his pregnant wife and just said - oops, I thought the gun was not loaded. If they don't examine or consider his behavior and actions before and after the incident to determine intent, doesn't it make it way too easy to get away with murder by simply accepting his explanation? I feel that is exactly what happened in the Watson case.

 

[bsee65]

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".

I found all of those statements bothersome based upon my belief that some form of foul play was likely. It was disrespectful to the family, at a minimum. It may seem to some as though these guys had their heads in the sand when they were discussing the case, and you have to wonder about their expertise in diving and forensic medicine. I was also troubled that the savings of costs would factor into the leniency of the verdict, though this isn't uncommon.

That said, unless the appellate court was prepared to state that the facts were different from what was established in the original plea, there wasn't much chance of anything more significant coming out of this appeal. They couldn't really consider the possibility that Watson had turned off her air or otherwise acted with the intent to cause her demise as a part of the sentence review. Without setting aside the manslaughter plea and forcing a trial on murder, there could be no justification for a sentence large enough to satisfy the family, or, probably of higher importance to them, a statement that the court believes there was active responsibility in this case.

If the "standard" in Australia is parole eligibility after half the sentence is served, then I believe that would have been the appropriate decision here. According to the findings, the sentence was reduced from the typical 6-7 years to four and a half based upon the plea and voluntary return. That would automatically take a year or so off the time to be served without applying further discounts. I can't see any meaningful difference between 12 months and 18, or really even the 27 months the one justice was recommending, so this wasn't a particularly useful exercise. I find it odd that a date for suspension of the sentence is pre-determined rather than a date for eligibility after review, but if that's the way it works for all, that's the way it works.

I think it has been said before. If Watson was guilty of being stupid under water, then any imprisonment seems too severe. If he acted with the intent that his wife die, no sentence is long enough. Without an actual consensus on the facts, I can't see that anyone will feel satisfied at the outcome, but those of us not directly involved should be at peace. Here's hoping that everyone can live with the decision, and that this is the end of criminal litigation related to this case.

 

[Under-Exposed]

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?

My-way...I am naturally suspicious of people who disclose nothing about themselves... but what is it that you think is irrelevant?

 

[Under-Exposed]

I think it has been said before. If Watson was guilty of being stupid under water, then any imprisonment seems too severe. If he acted with the intent that his wife die, no sentence is long enough. Without an actual consensus on the facts, I can't see that anyone will feel satisfied at the outcome, but those of us not directly involved should be at peace. Here's hoping that everyone can live with the decision, and that this is the end of criminal litigation related to this case.

bsee65...I know nothing of you...but I agree absolutely with this comment.

Unfortunately, I suspect there are plenty who will not be able to "live with the decision".

 

[diving queen]

I think you mean "champing" at the bit.

I meant "chomp" which, if you look is up, is a variation of "champ". And, as someone from the Southeast United States, chomp (as a definition of "chewing noisily") seems more appropriate than "champ", which sounds more like I was just declared the winner of a sporting event.

 

[ItsBruce]

A couple of thoughts, but no quoted:

1. As far as other cases cited: Context is everything. Aiming a gun and pulling a trigger would, in most circumstances, be intentional in my book even if the defendant thought the gun was not loaded. It usually falls into the category of what I call "inherently harmful and always wrongful." (The concept comes from child molestation cases where the perpetrator asserts he was trying to show love and affection, not to harm.) However, if the defendant and victim customarily played with a gun as part of their relationship and it was an agreed upon part, then maybe it isn't intentional, etc.

2. Whether Watson was just stupid or acted intentionally, the sentence just feels wrong. However, if you force yourself to recognize that it was the product of intelligent negotiations in which both sides gave up their best outcome to preclude their worst outcome, it makes a bit more sense.

3. Judges generally should not have expertise relative to matters they are judging. It tends to cause improper bias and a disregard of the evidence. Our system of justice says judges and jurors must decide the facts from the admissible evidence and then rule based on the facts they find. It is for the lawyers to present the evidence and educate the judges and jurors based on that evidence. That's why it is so important to have a good lawyer.

If the judges did not have an adequate grasp of the diving issues, that is because the lawyers failed to educate them. Moreover, an appeal is rarely a "do-over" of a trial. In an appeal, the Court looks at whether a lower court followed the law. There are many instances in which I have seen appellate courts say something to the effect: "We would not have made that finding, but we cannot say the trial court failed to follow the law when it made that finding; so we affirm."

 

[bsee65]

Bruce, I agree about the attorneys educating the judges in the context of a trial. During the trial, they would have to ensure that the jurors fully comprehend the scenario, so that should be part of the record for the judges during an appellate review. However, I wonder how much opportunity there is for that information to get into the record when the case goes the way of an early plea? With no requirement to educate a jury, there's no real need for the wordiness of a thorough explanation of the technical facts of the case. At least, not until someone goes over your head on appeal.

As far as the sentence making sense goes, it certainly does under the circumstances. That won't ever make the result objectively fair, though. I agree that an appeal is not a do-over of a trial. As such, and as I tried to say earlier, I can't imagine that it could have resulted in a sentence that would have been satisfactory to those who believe Watson was guilty of murder.

 

[Ayisha]

if the defendant and victim customarily played with a gun as part of their relationship and it was an agreed upon part, then maybe it isn't intentional, etc.

Even then, you'd need more information to figure out if it was intentional. If pointing a gun at his wife and pulling the trigger was a normal "playful" occurrence in their relationship, how was the gun loaded THIS fateful time? Was it the same gun? If so, who loaded it, why and when? If it was a different gun, why would it not have been checked prior to playing this "game"? If it was a usual "game", then the gun should have remained unloaded.

It does seem like the cases cited in the decision are about ill-advised but unintentional accidents.

 

[My-way]

Me: litigator practising in civil and quasi criminal jurisdictions.

In so far as what is relevant or irrelevant my comment stands, I indentified no particular fact as relevant or irrelevant.

It was a statement to address comments about "facts", so called, which are constantly referred to in this thread but clearly have not been proven to requisite criminal standard which is required in order to argue them as aggravating circumstances in the plea in mitigation. The Court of Appeal referred to no aggravating facts in the sentence.

The fact that he was charged with Murder is irrelevant to the sentence imposed (a fact that oes not appear to be accepted by some on this forum). He was by implication acquitted of that charge, in Australia, by the acceptance of plea of guilty to manslaughter by Crown, and importantly, the Court (US District Attorneys have the decision in Heath v Alabama (1985) (and subsequent decisions) to rely on, which is properly open to criticism in my view but that is a whole other series of arguments centre on US Constitutional interpretation and consistency). He therefore is entitled to be considered as innocent of that offence, and indeed was treated as innocent of that offence by the primary Court, and the Court of Appeal.

My questions still stands, what is a deregulator? I think this is particularly relevant to the commentary by Chesterman JA at paragraph 99 in respect of there being no relevant comparable sentencing case from which to draw analogy and provide guidance as to relevant sentence. I consider that the distinction between omission and commission in the terms of this case are without difference and the terminology adopted by the primary Court and picked up by the Court of Appeal are reflective of a lack of understanding of the activity being undertaken and argued as the cause of the unintentional death. The danger in the activity of diving and skylarking with a gun (or drug filled syringe) are equally obvious. This is an area of legitimate criticism of the way the case was argued for the Crown.

I do not single out this Court as being ignorant of the nature of scuba diving in general, a Court in Victoria (albeit a Magistrates’ Court) has also stated, in delivering sentence in relation to a fisheries offence, that there is no legitimate use for a rebreather in scuba diving!.