Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

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

Well, apparently, Troy King, the Alabama prosecutor is not aware of that. Troy King is claiming that the planning of the murder occurred here and therefore gives Alabama jurisdiction. The case is being presented to the grand jury in Alabama this weekend. However, I do expect that some sort of double jeopardy argument will be made if the grand jury decides to indict. Shortly after Watson's plea agreement, however, I saw this case discussed on Larry King with a famous defense attorney (sorry, his name escapes me). He said that U.S. law does not prohibit prosecution of our own citizens who commit crimes in other countries (most especially against another U.S. Citizen), nor does double jeopardy apply with regard to plea agreements or convictions made outside our country. He said there was plenty of precedence for this.

So perhaps you meant to say "should not convict in this country," instead of "cannot convict," as a conviction very well could happen.

 

[Superlyte27]

This won't go anywhere. Certainly not a murder conviction. Actually, what I should have said was "will not convict",

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, but in all probability, will not.

 

[ItsBruce]

I have always maintained that there was insufficient evidence to convict Watson of any actual crime. In particular, as I recall, there is no evidence that he turned his wife's air off. As I recall, when her body was found, the air was on and the only eye witness' report, did not give him the opportunity to turn it on (had it ever been off). Clearly, he did not manage to save her, but there is a causation problem there.

So, now my question: If Alabama prosecutes and Watson is found not guilty, how does that make Australia look for having imprisoned him at all?

 

[Superlyte27]

this will never make it to a verdict. I'll bet you a flashlight.

 

[K_girl]

ItsBruce - interesting idea, however, I always wanted to see this case go to trial, no matter what the outcome. I am hoping that through the process of a trial, we will learn more about this case. We never got that chance with the plea agreement.

I think a couple of theories about the "turning off of the air" was floated around and in the media there was an assumption that the bear hug was Watson turning off her air because it was more expedient to describe it that way. In that case, Watson would not have had a chance to turn the air back on (and her air was on when she was found). However, the bear hug could also be interpreted as Watson turning the air back on after having turned it off. The witness did not see Watson's hand on the tank valve as the witness was focused on the fear in Tina's face as she was in the grasp of Watson. The importance of the "bear hug" if you accept the witness testimony, is that it conflicts with Watson's statement that he could not reach her and he was trying to reach her and was swimming down furiously after her. The diver who had Tina in a bear hug, according to the witness, let go of her, let her float to the bottom and swam away from her. You could draw the conclusion that diver was Watson since no one else was with Tina and Watson's statement would also corroborate that no one else was in the vicinity as Tina sank (at a high rate of speed) away from him to the bottom. In addition, the prosecution claimed that Watson's computer did not show a sharp descent to swim after Tina as he had claimed. Watson's computer corroborates the witness statement. So you have two strikes against Watson's statement - the witness and his computer.

At this point, you would have to analyze the police interpretation of the computer data. I suspect this could be an issue at trial. In other words - on Watson's computer, how far down could you go and come back up without the computer registering in what time frame? I did find information about Watson's computer and gave a link to the computer manual in the "Issues" thread. So perhaps the defense could make an argument that the prosecution did not interpret the computer data properly, but then they still have to contend with the witness testimony. In light of the witness testimony, the jury could potentially give more weight to the prosecution's interpretation of the computer data.

I would also say that the witness testimony of seeing Watson have Tina in a bear hug and then letting her go to sink and swimming away from her could be more powerful than the argument that the witness did not see Watson's hand on the tank valve turning it on or off. What I mean by that is, one argument has much more powerful imagery for the mind of the juror than the other and has a greater chance of "sticking."

 

[sydney-diver]

What happened to double jeopardy? If Alabama fails can another state have a go?

 

[mike_s]

What happened to double jeopardy? If Alabama fails can another state have a go?

Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to other countries.


as for another state trying him. what other state has he committed a crime in?

 

[sydney-diver]

Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to other countries.

It doesn't? Wow

as for another state trying him. what other state has he committed a crime in?

Is he being accused of commiting a crime in Alabama? I guess there's the attempt to claim her life insurence and the perhaps the bizare behaviour removing the flowers. Seems fairly tenous to me.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I think it is pretty interesting as I have stated before on this topic how people from a foreign country feel qualified to come to conclusions about the judicial system of another country. It is even more astounding seeing motives attributed to a judicial system/government based on personal biases. I live in this country and find the legal system here to be a bit of a mystery to me because I spent most of my life in Canada. As a lawyer pointed out to me when giving me legal advice on a personal legal matter... Canada and Australia are both based on the British Common Law System so are not terribly different. On what is the US System based?

I have no personal issue with Watson being tried in the States. I can accept that The United States has a right to try US Citizens for acts that break US law against US citizens. I also will not presume to dissect, interpret or judge the US on how they apply their laws to their citizens.

I have followed this case from the beginning in as much as it is possible based on the media hype, (understandable) venomous reactions of both sets of families and friends and the "official information" that has been released. The information available to us IHMO is incomplete and tainted..therefor it is not possible to come to a fair and reasonable conclusion.

I am quite happy to allow the Australian authorities to do their job and allow the US authorities to do the same without my unqualified assistance.

No matter what happens... Tina will remain tragically dead, her family/friends will still have their pain. Gabe, his family and friends will never be able to put this behind them. There can be no winners here and endlessly rehashing the events based on incomplete information will not change that!

 

[knowone]

The name is Christina Mae THOMAS.