Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Valwood1]

Maybe I've missed a previous post that answers this question, but: Does anyone know why Alabama even dreams that it has any ability or right to try Watson for an event that wasn't committed in its jurisdiction?

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Which one, Peace Arch (which would be kind of ironic) or the Pacific Highway?

I Think it was the crossing at Blaine (yes with the Peace Arch) but it was a quite a while ago and they may have gone to one of the smaller crossings to avoid the crowds.....

*old lady voice* my memory isn't what it used to be

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Here is the case I was thinking of

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]1985: An American, Charles Ng, was arrested in Canada for a "spree of sexual torture and murder." 2 He fought against his extradition to the U.S. until the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that he could be extradited to California, even though he would face the death penalty. He is currently on death row in a California prison.

I suspect that since the Canadian and Australian system are from the same origins and hold the same position on the Death Penalty that these cases may be relevant

Extraditing accused murderers to the U.S.

I am impressed... I was pretty sure that was the name of the fellow but I sure didn't want to post a name and be wrong on something that serious!

[/FONT]

 

[Under-Exposed]

Here is the case I was thinking of

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]1985: An American, Charles Ng, was arrested in Canada for a "spree of sexual torture and murder." 2 He fought against his extradition to the U.S. until the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that he could be extradited to California, even though he would face the death penalty. He is currently on death row in a California prison.

I suspect that since the Canadian and Australian system are from the same origins and hold the same position on the Death Penalty that these cases may be relevant

Extraditing accused murderers to the U.S.

I am impressed... I was pretty sure that was the name of the fellow but I sure didn't want to post a name and be wrong on something that serious!

[/FONT]

In Australia section 22 of the Extradition Act prevents the Attorney General from surrendering a person for an offence punishable by death unless the other country has undertaken not to try the person for that offence, or to not impose the death penalty, or to not carry out the death penalty if imposed.

 

[ACES50]

Valwood

I don't think at this time the Alabama AG cares whether he has jurisdiction or not. He probably has been brow-beat by the Thomas's and is scared to honestly appraise this case in public. He is, after all, running for re-election and at the same time dealing with his own legal problems. This is just the best way to get the focus off his problems.

 

[bsee65]

It is correct that we will not extradite people where they face a death penalty...but he is liable to be deported, which will achieve the same end

Unless some other country will take him. No particular reason why, once kicked out of Australia, he has to return to the USA.

I wonder what happens if your passport expires while you're sitting in a foreign prison. Can't easily just run over to the consulate to renew, can you?

 

[ItsBruce]

ItsBruce said - same here.

So does that mean that the quote Watson's lawyer gave the press about being blind with no reg and heading straight to the surface can be compared to Watson's statement that he got control and tried to swim down after Tina - at trial? Can they question Watson's lawyer just on that issue as to his statement to the press, or do they have to rely strictly on the reporter? His statement might also be on news video somewhere as well. I would have to say - that statement is very specific in detail and would be extremely difficult to attribute it to a reporter's imagination or inaccuracy, most especially since that detail had some element of similarity in Watson's statement to police and those statements were not public at the time Watson's lawyer talked to the press.

You've gotten in to a very dicy area of the law. As a general rule, a party may not call an opponent's attorney as a witness. It is simply a matter of public policy with the basic premise being that it interferes with the court's ability to conduct a trial. To start, a defendant has the right to select his or her own defense counsel. However, if the prosecution gets to call that counsel as a witness, it effectively deprives the defendant of the right to select counsel. To illustrate, if the prosecution gets to call Watson's lawyer as a witness, who will make the appropriate objections? Who will do the cross-examination? Beyond that, when it comes time for closing argument, who will argue that the lawyer is a credible witness? The lawyer himself?

Beyond, this, imagine the defense calling the prosecutor as a witness. It would be a bloodbath. The defense could point out Mr. King's public statements about wanting to try Watson for murder and would get to insinuate that he made these statements without having done his own investigation and without having any more evidence than that supplied by the media and further that it was all for publicity and to move attention away from his own legal problems. How would Mr. King answer the question: "Isn't it true that when you announced to the media that you were going to try Mr. Watson for murder that the evidence was that when Tina was recovered, her air was on, that the regulator was in her mouth, that you had no one who could say they saw Watson turn her air off or back on, and that all you had was speculation that Watson could have turned the air off and back on.?" "Isn't it true that that the Australian prosecutors decided that they did not have sufficient evidence to go to trial against Watson? So what makes you better than them?" And, even if someone else in King's office was the actual trial counsel, the defense could call the whole office: "Isn't it true you are trying this case because your boss is making you?"

Even if the lawyer's statements to the media would raise this problem because the lawyer would need to take the witness stand to explain the statements, even if it was just to say that he was overstating the matter or had misunderstood what it was that Watson had told him.

It is generally a can of worms that a judge will not let a party open.

OTOH, what Watson himself may have said to the media, or anyone else (other than his lawyer) would be admissible. Which is why (1) no one should ever talk to the police, and (2) anyone who might become the target of an investigation should not talk to anyone other than his or her lawyer.

 

[K_girl]

I've started this thread for the purpose of discussion of the Gabe Watson murder case. There are plans to put Watson on trial in Alabama. Watson was sentenced to 18 months in Australia for the death of his wife, Tina back in 2003, which will soon be up.

I would like to keep the two threads separate so that reference materials can be more easily found.

Please post reference materials, newspaper links, etc. to:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/sc...on-murder-case-issues-statements-sources.html

Please post discussion to this thread.

Thank you.

 

[K_girl]

Originally Posted by K_girl
leadwight - Correction - he was never put on trial. The case was never prosecuted. He pled out. I think the problem is that the Australian government does not want a case that at first, they said was murder, then turned around and said they couldn't prove it, to be proven and successfully prosecuted in another country. That would make their justice system look bad and it would be bad for tourism. Therefore, they don't want to give up the evidence. I don't think they really give a hoot about Waton's rights or double jeopardy. It's just a means for an argument to block a trial from happening in the U.S. Bottom line, they didn't want to spend the money to put him on trial and they don't want to be made to look bad. That is why they are not cooperating and they really just want this to all go away. What better way to do that than withhold evidence?

What a ridiculous thing to say.

This article says it bettery than I:

"..Mr Valeska, who said Alabama co-operated fully with Queensland's prosecution, believes Mr Dick is "playing games" to save face because Queensland never took Watson to a jury and gave him a light sentence.."

Source: Ex-coroner David Glasgow offers to testify in Alabama in Gabe Watson case | Courier Mail

 

[Superlyte27]

If murder was committed in another country, we cannot convict in this country. We are not the world's police or prosecution.