Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

In the same article quoted above, one Australian law professor stated that Australia should have always sought assurances from the U.S. federal government and not just Alabama. It will be interesting to hear what U.S. government authorities have to say about their own law. I believe it would have more to do with jurisdiction.

First, Alabama has jurisdiction and was ready to take Watson into custody and begin trial. The U.S. Federal government has had no involvement in the case and not ready to take the case. Second, Alabama is located in the conservative south of our country where the death penalty is more readily imposed than on the federal level. If Alabama tried him, double jeopardy would apply and our federal government could not prosecute. If you remember the O.J. Simpson case, which was huge. Masses of people were screaming all over this country when he was acquitted, however, the federal government did not move to attempt to prosecute him. Lawyers said they best the feds could have done was prosecute him for denying the civil rights of the people he killed. Because of double jeopardy, and because a charge of denying civil rights was not what the public was crying for, the federal government did not prosecute. The feds would not have taken the case away from the state of Calif. because domestic violence is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. So, if they wouldn't do it in the O.J. Simpson case, why would Australia think the U.S. feds would attempt to do it in this case?

In another case in California, Cary Stayner, a man who murdered 4 women, one in Yosemite, nearly decapitating her. Because the Yosemite killing was on federal land, it was a federal case. However, for the federal case, was was sentenced to life in prison. The state of California, however, did impose the death penalty for the gruesome deaths of the three other women. Again, if the federal government would not impose a death penalty for a man who brutally decapitated a woman while trying to kidnap her, you have to ask yourself when they would.

If the Australian law professor had really done his homework, he would have known that the U.S. federal government has only executed three people in the U.S. since 2001 and there are only 60 inmates on death row. The offenses that the U.S. federal government will impose the death penalty:

murder of certain government officials; kidnapping resulting in death; murder for hire; fatal drive-by shootings; sexual abuse crimes resulting in death; carjacking resulting in death; as well as certain crimes not resulting in death, including the running of large-scale drug enterprises.

The Watson case does not meet any of the above criteria.

Source: Federal Death Penalty

I feel that the Australian government is being unreasonable about this and have not taken the time to understand our legal system. Again, Alabama intends to prosecute, the feds do not. If Alabama loses - that's it. It's done. The feds cannot and will not prosecute. The feds will not prosecute this case in the first place because: 1) it is not their jurisdiction and 2) it is not a federal crime.

 

[Trickie Dickie 99]

W

Characterize it any way you want, but the fact is - this was a last-minute move on the part of Australia to prevent Watson's deportation and they are saying that they don't trust Alabama, so this has some nasty political implications any way you slice it.

Yawn...............The Australian Federal Govt doesn't have any agreements with Alabama, it has agreements/treaties with the US Federal Govt; it is therefore up to the US Federal Govt to provide assurances that he won't be on trial for his life; the Australian Federal Govt doesn't deal with foreign States or Councils, it deals with Sovereign countries and Alabama isn't one of those.

And given that most of what the rest of the world knows about Alabama is seen through the prism of such things as the Selma Marches and the fact that the chief legal officer is appointed by popular vote, one does have to wonder about certain aspects.

No one has ever suggested that Uncle Sam is going to hang him, that's just a classic straw man argument.

Anyway, if Washington gives the right assurances to Canberra, there's no problem and personally, if he's found guilty and they did hang him for it, I really don't much care but the fact is that there is a legal process to go through here and go through it they will, just like they do with everything/everyone else.

And if they don't go through it correctly and cross all the "t"s and dot all the "i"s, his lawyer will be straight to the Supreme Court crying lack of process and it will be held up further or he'll maybe even walk, regardless of what the Immigration Dept want; it's a little like Gitmo inmates going through the courts in the USA to stymie their terrorism trials - if the Pentagon/FBI/Federal Attorney General/whoever can be shown to have erred, then the whole thing just falls apart.

This really says it all:

"Donald Rothwell, professor of international law, Australian National University College of Law, said it was a remarkable and unique case complicated by Queensland's "naive" view that it could accept on face value the death penalty assurances from Alabama.

"The only way that legally binding assurances could be given would be at a US government level to the commonwealth. One of the great ironies is that if Gabe Watson had been subject to extradition to the US, he would have enjoyed enormous legal rights. Instead, this case has fallen into a black hole because of its particular circumstances." "

So it's either done correctly or it doesn't happen, so I'd suggest you stop thinking the whole bloody world is against you, stop seeing conspiracies where there aren't any and get used to the fact that just like you, we have a judiciary and legal system that isn't in the pocket of the government. It might not be a perfect system, but like yours, it's the best we've got.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Yawn...............The Australian Federal Govt doesn't have any agreements with Alabama, it has agreements/treaties with the US Federal Govt; it is therefore up to the US Federal Govt to provide assurances that he won't be on trial for his life; the Australian Federal Govt doesn't deal with foreign States or Councils, it deals with Sovereign countries and Alabama isn't one of those.

And given that most of what the rest of the world knows about Alabama is seen through the prism of such things as the Selma Marches and the fact that the chief legal officer is appointed by popular vote, one does have to wonder about certain aspects.

No one has ever suggested that Uncle Sam is going to hang him, that's just a classic straw man argument.

Anyway, if Washington gives the right assurances to Canberra, there's no problem and personally, if he's found guilty and they did hang him for it, I really don't much care but the fact is that there is a legal process to go through here and go through it they will, just like they do with everything/everyone else.

And if they don't go through it correctly and cross all the "t"s and dot all the "i"s, his lawyer will be straight to the Supreme Court crying lack of process and it will be held up further or he'll maybe even walk, regardless of what the Immigration Dept want; it's a little like Gitmo inmates going through the courts in the USA to stymie their terrorism trials - if the Pentagon/FBI/Federal Attorney General/whoever can be shown to have erred, then the whole thing just falls apart.

This really says it all:

"Donald Rothwell, professor of international law, Australian National University College of Law, said it was a remarkable and unique case complicated by Queensland's "naive" view that it could accept on face value the death penalty assurances from Alabama.

"The only way that legally binding assurances could be given would be at a US government level to the commonwealth. One of the great ironies is that if Gabe Watson had been subject to extradition to the US, he would have enjoyed enormous legal rights. Instead, this case has fallen into a black hole because of its particular circumstances." "

So it's either done correctly or it doesn't happen, so I'd suggest you stop thinking the whole bloody world is against you, stop seeing conspiracies where there aren't any and get used to the fact that just like you, we have a judiciary and legal system that isn't in the pocket of the government. It might not be a perfect system, but like yours, it's the best we've got.

Beautifully said! This case may be earth shattering to some but it just doesn't justify special treatment! Seems to me Alabama had Watson in their Jurisdiction for 6 years and didn't proceed then so waiting for due process now shouldn't be that big an issue

 

[boulderjohn]

We had a case in Colorado that had some similarities a number of years ago. A man killed a policeman in cold blood and escaped to Mexico. He was later captured by Mexican authorities who refused to extradite him because of the death penalty issue. It was eventually resolved, and he is now serving a life sentence here in Colorado. I think people just need to be patient and let things play out.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

There have been several similar cases with Canada over the years. I don't have the time or inclination to try to research them and provide links ...

 

[K_girl]

Still say - this was all last minute and there was no reason for it. They were getting ready to put him on a plane, for crying out loud. Australia had 18 months to make their demands, to whomever they felt they needed to. At a minimum, you have to say it was not very well handled and that would be terribly frustrating for Tina's family and I feel their frustration.

I hope that eventually, it does happen, but just as Australia doesn't seem to trust Alabama, perhaps Australia cannot be trusted. Afterall, it has been six long years since Tina perished.

 

[Trickie Dickie 99]

Still say - this was all last minute and there was no reason for it. They were getting ready to put him on a plane, for crying out loud. Australia had 18 months to make their demands, to whomever they felt they needed to. At a minimum, you have to say it was not very well handled and that would be terribly frustrating for Tina's family and I feel their frustration.

I hope that eventually, it does happen, but just as Australia doesn't seem to trust Alabama, perhaps Australia cannot be trusted. Afterall, it has been six long years since Tina perished.

Yeah, Australia can't be trusted; you're absolutely right; terrible record on rule of law, can't run an election, crap on immigration, financial regulation, and Australia didn't support the USA in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan or Iraq at all, hopeless allies etc, complete bunch of oxygen thieves; you name it..... and it's also the undisputed unpunished murderer capital of the world and everyone knows it. Really I don't know why I ever bothered coming here.

FFS, just build a bridge and get over it. You'll have your man and you can throw him into the deepest darkest dungeon for the rest of eternity but until then you'll just have to be content with making a wax doll and sticking pins in it, no one here really gives a rats ar5e about him.

And following your flawless logic to it's ridiculous conclusion, it's been 42 long long years since Martin Luther King was killed, so maybe the USA can't be trusted? (EDIT for the benefit of those with a more gullible turn of mind, that was irony and not intended as serious commentary).

If you are going to imply ridiculous conspiracies it's a good idea if you can provide a motivation for it. Just why the hell would anyone in Australia wish to protect this apparently unpleasant man? The Commonwealth Immigration Dept will be more than happy to see the back of him, there is no reason for them to wish to protect him although there is plenty of evidence that the public servants involved don't wish to see their careers and reputations put on the line if a new State Attorney General in Alabama should decide to break a non-binding agreement and lets face it, stranger things have happened. If they do it, they do it anyway but as far as the Dept is concerned, if they have assurances from the highest level in Washington, well in their minds, they cannot be rightly accused of playing fast and loose with a long standing Federal Govt policy.

And why at this late stage? Well it all hinges on legal opinion which is to say the least a moving feast, if the Aus Govt lawyers weren't asked to look at it until late in the piece then perhaps the issue didn't arise. Your own legal system has hardly been a shining example of trustworthiness and efficiency, what with the complete embarrassment caused to friendly governments (including Australia) with the botched conduct of Guantanamo Bay and the associated trials etc. Throw people in the slammer for 5 years, waterboard them and then find they were either completely innocent or the evidence so tainted that it was impossible to charge them with anything substantive, then send them back here or to Britain where they become a cause celebre for every shade of dickhead you could care to mention and costing us $millions in compensation payouts into the bargain; so don't come on here lecturing about the trustworthiness of certain countries and their legal systems because frankly you are stood inside a glasshouse tossing fairly large rocks around.

 

[burna]

Whoa, Trickster, dude, take a couple of deep breaths mate. I don't think K_Girl is having a crack at us, just our government, and lets face it, they do a good job of pissing us off most of the time! Not just those in power either, opposition for the sake of opposition really gets up my nose. Anyhow, that's a whole 'nother camp fire convo.

I can understand K_Girl's frustration, just as they think they'll be able to have Watson face the music in the U.S, suddenly there are delays in sending him home and this on top of the frustration of a seemingly under the table deal with regard to the manslaughter thing. Having 3 levels of government frustrates me especially because I have moved around this country a bit. In a lot of respects, moving interstate is like moving to a whole new country. I can understand it.

I do think though, that the longer the U.S takes providing whatever assurances Australian Immigration want with regard to the death penalty, the more chance some do-gooder judge will give him asylum in Oz. Then he'll bring his [new] wife out, name change, new life somewhere in Oz etc etc all at our hard earned expense.

Like you said, our legal system ain't perfect but it's the best we have but I do get the feeling that immigration is keen to get rid of him with trying to get him to sigh that doc acknowledging that he may face capitol charges in the U.S, although it backfired somewhat with his lawyer, who just happened to be there at the time, blocking it.

K_Girl, I think the major stumbling block is that the assurances given by Alabama are not binding with a change of Governor (or whatever they are) or if he is tried in a diff state then that agreement could also be off. The U.S needs to stop bullsh!tting around and give the proper assurances and he'll be on the next plane.

Anyway, we all want the same thing here [fair justice], everyone just needs to be a bit patient. An extra week or so won't make any diff.

 

[K_girl]

I was right - the fact that Australia said they could not trust Alabama started a real political hot potato. As far as I am concerned - Australia started the whole non-trust issue:

"The Australian can reveal the deportation was to have taken place today, despite a senior Immigration Department official admitting federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland "did not believe that it was safe to rely upon the assurances" of Alabama authorities that Watson would not be executed after a murder trial on his return to his home town."

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...gn-death-warrant/story-fn59niix-1225951440987

Trickie - You are going overboard with your assumptions here. I am and was against all the wars you mentioned past and present, but really respect Australia's service in all of those wars. I am also against capital punishment. I would rather see Watson stay in Australia than face the death penalty. My point through these posts has been to highlight the fact that he is not going to face the death penalty and there should be a trial. I remain hopeful that will happen, but it just seems that every possible move is being made to stop it. So we wait to see what happens next.

Burna - thanks for the comments, but I would point out one thing. I copied earlier a segment from Troy King's letter that clearly stated that the agreement that Watson would not face the death penalty even as he leaves office. He has bound Alabama to that agreement. It would be silly to have all 50 states in the U.S. agree that they will not try Watson for murder with the death penalty as none of them would have jurisidiction. That would almost be like trying to make France agree that they would not prosecute for something that happened in Germany and there were no French citizens involved. However, if Australia needs reassurance from the federal government, hopefully there would be nothing to stop that from happening. At the same time, there is no federal death penalty for the crime that Watson is being accused of, so that re-assurance is really moot. I also listed the federal crimes for which there is a death penalty. I can see where the Alabama prosecutor may be banging his head up against the wall for reassurance from our federal government when they have no jurisidiction and there was no federal crime committed that falls under a federal death penalty.

 

[ItsBruce]

I was just going to post that I had not realized this thread was active. But, after reading it, I'm just as glad I did not know. I've heard of Alabama "justice" and don't blame the authorities in Australia a single bit over their concerns.

Subject to the foregoing, if Watson is guilty, I'd like to see him get the death penalty. However, as I've said all along, I find it hard to believe that Watson will be convicted of murder. He may be convicted of lying about what happened, but I doubt anything more. I strongly doubt there is even a negligent homicide. The fact that he could have turned his wife's air off and then turned it back on during the "bear hug" means nothing. I have no problem with there being motive. I have no problem with there being opportunity. And, I have no problem with Watson not being worthy of belief. But, is there any evidence that she died of unnatural causes, i.e. something that could not otherwise have happened while diving?

And, if Watson is found not guilty, then after all her family has put him through, ...