Watson Murder Case - Discussion
- Thread starter almitywife
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
ItsBruce
Contributor
This whole thing sounds like a conspiracy by the insurance industry! If you make a claim after a loss, thats evidence you intentionally caused that loss; if someone dies and you are the beneficiary of their life insurance policy, the fact you have sought payment is evidence you killed the insured person ... so pay your premiums, but don't seek benefits.
ItsBruce
Contributor
Bruce: That's just stupid. If you don't seek benefits, that's evidence that you did do it. Why else wouldn't you seek benefits? Besides, you'd think that by seeking benefits you would incriminate yourself, so by not seeking them, you are trying to create a false impression you did not do it ... which only proves you did do it.
ItsBruce
Contributor
That's a stupid analysis.
The thing to do is to put Watson on a balance scale and see if he weighs more than a duck. If he doesn't, that means he will float. If he will float, that means he is made of wood. If he is made of wood, then he will burn. If he will burn, then he is a witch.
Trickie Dickie 99
Contributor
theduckguru
Contributor
Depending on Alabama law, they might not need to prove he murdered anyone - only that he commited an overt act, buying the insurance in Alabama, as plans to kill his wife.
theduckguru
Contributor
ItsBruce
Contributor
That was my understanding, too.
Now, here is an interesting thought: Can Alabama convict Watson of a lesser crime such as involuntary manslaughter?
Murder requires proof of an intent to kill. Involuntary manslaughter is when one does something really stupid that results in another's death, but without the intent of causing great harm. (Voluntary manslaughter requires intent, but entails some form of mitigating factor. If Watson intended to kill his wife, then I can't imagine any mitigating factors would apply. So, I leave it out of my analysis.)
As I understand it, Alabama is claiming jurisdiction based on the assertion that Watson either formed the intent to kill while in Alabama or took steps in furtherance of his plan while there. (IMHO, these are the same thing.)
If Watson is guilty of only voluntary manslaughter, i.e. he did not intend great bodily harm, i.e. he took his wife on a dive beyond her ability, but did not intend a bad outcome, then there can't have been any intent formed while in Alabama. In that case, would Alabama still have jurisdiction?
My guess is that if there is a basis on which to try Watson in Alabama, even if subsequent developments eliminate it, that does not eliminate Alabama's jurisdiction. However, that is only a guess and I can certainly see reasons why that would be wrong.
I suppose I'll leave it to Watson's defense lawyer to decide if it is a good defense for him to admit to voluntary manslaughter (i.e. no intent in Alabama) as a defense to the murder charge.
I've rarely been fearful of losing a case where the facts or law or both are against me. When the facts or law or both are against me, I'm expected to lose. And, when a lawyer wins all of his or her cases, it means he or she is only taking the easy ones. Pretty much any idiot can do that. I'm not afraid of having a "deserved" loss on my record. However, if I was the prosecutor, I would not want the loss of this one to follow me around any more than the loss on the Duke Lacrosse Players' case.
It will be interesting to watch. If nothing else, we will finally get to see just what the evidence really is. I would so much want to see the autopsy report and the coroner's opinion.
ItsBruce
Contributor
Oh, I've got another thought/question:
As I understand it, the deceased was found on the bottom. There was air in her tank. The valve was open. The regulator was in her mouth. Her mask was in place.
My recollection is that when divers die as the result of OOA, the mechanism of death is something like spitting out the regulator and drowning or too fast an ascent. (Correct me if I am wrong here.) How often does the deceased just suck the tank empty and then just peacefully expire?
So, if Watson turned the air off, waited until the deceased had expired and then turned it back on, is that consistent with the way she was found on the bottom?
As I understand it, the deceased was found on the bottom. There was air in her tank. The valve was open. The regulator was in her mouth. Her mask was in place.
My recollection is that when divers die as the result of OOA, the mechanism of death is something like spitting out the regulator and drowning or too fast an ascent. (Correct me if I am wrong here.) How often does the deceased just suck the tank empty and then just peacefully expire?
So, if Watson turned the air off, waited until the deceased had expired and then turned it back on, is that consistent with the way she was found on the bottom?
Similar threads
