Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

I'd be curious to see if there is admissible evidence that he asked her to increase the insurance and to name him as a beneficiary. What her father says that she told him is not admissible. It is no better what her bartender's brother's friend says about what her bartender's brother's said about what her bartender said about what she said.

 

[K_girl]

I'd be curious to see if there is admissible evidence that he asked her to increase the insurance and to name him as a beneficiary. What her father says that she told him is not admissible. It is no better what her bartender's brother's friend says about what her bartender's brother's said about what her bartender said about what she said.

The hearsay issue is NOT what Tina said to her father, but what Tina told her father what Watson said to her.

Tina's father already testified at the grand jury hearing, leading me to believe that what Tina's father had to say did not fall under the hearsay rule. There is a part of the conversation between Tina and her father that is not hearsay which is the advice that Tina's father gave Tina with regard to what to do about what Gabe asked Tina to do. He told her to take care of it after they returned from the honeymoon. If Tina had simply told her father and he had not given her the advice, it would be hearsay. Therefore, I believe Tina's father's testimony will be allowed and not ruled as hearsay. Tina's father's statement could go something like this and would not be hearsay: "I advised my daughter not to up her insurance and change the beneficiary as her fiance wanted until she returned from her honeymoon." As he is allowed to say what his daughter believed Watson wanted her to do. You have context without him making a hearsay statement like this: "my daughter told me that Watson told her to up her insurance, etc. and I told her.. blah blah, blah." It is somewhat technical, but it is how it is done.

In addition, if the prosecution produces the witness or documentation proving that Watson came by Tina's place of work in order to change her life insurance policy (as I quoted in an earlier post), that will give credibility and corroboration to Tina's father's statement. The jury could believe that it is more likely a fact that Watson attempted to change Tina's life insurance before their wedding on not just one, but two different occasions. Once to Tina's face, and again behind her back. This would be an indication of someone who really, really wanted his wife's life insurance changed before their wedding and subsequent honeymoon. Someone who, for some reason, just couldn't wait until they got back.

 

[burna]

You know, if my finance was urging me to increase my life insurance and change beneficiary to him/her before the wedding, I'd be a little nervous. But if the bride & family had already booked everything, sent out the invitations, etc. it'd be hard to postpone.

If that was the motive, that she told him she did and he thot so, I bet he was pissed when he learned the truth.

Nah, I disagree Don. If they were married (or soon to be) I don't see anything unusual about changing the beneficary or even increasing the amount especially if it was only going to cost an extra $10 as someone mentioned, although it certainly wouldn't be something I would consider urgent either.

They may well have had debts together such as a mortgage or honeymoon expenses for example.

I would hope that they have something far more substantial than that to present in court.

 

[ACES50]

K-girl

Sounds like you are suggesting Mr. Thomas change his testimony. Remember, he gave a statement when the Australian police visited Alabama and I read it went something like this, " Mr. Thomas said Tina said Gabe said".

Would that be admissable?

 

[K_girl]

K-girl

Sounds like you are suggesting Mr. Thomas change his testimony. Remember, he gave a statement when the Australian police visited Alabama and I read it went something like this, " Mr. Thomas said Tina said Gabe said".

Would that be admissable?

In that form, it would be hearsay and the portions of his statement about what Tina said Gabe Watson said would probably not be allowed into court. It would be harder to get it admitted, but since I don't know Alabama hearsay law - I couldn't say for sure. The defense would attempt to challenge Mr. Thomas' statement in its entirety as hearsay, but it would be hard to make that stick since what Mr. Thomas said to his daughter in the form of his advice to her is not hearsay. Mr. Thomas has direct knowledge of what he said to her.

Some parts of Mr. Thomas' statement may be stricken for hearsay, but that does not mean his entire statement will be striken from the record as hearsay. Remember, a statement to the police is not testimony in a courtroom. We don't know what form his testimony took to the grand jury in Alabama. I'm not sure if he testified at the Coroner's Inquest. The form I am suggesting that his testimony may take does not contradict any statement he may have made to police. The prosecution would advise him that he is allowed to testify as to what he said to Tina - that is not hearsay. They would advise him that he is allowed to say what Tina believed her fiance wanted. They would advise him that he is not allowed to say what Tina said Gabe Watson said. This is a matter of a technical point. The end result would be the same as if you introduced the events in a linear fashion as you framed it. The only difference is that the jury would have to conclude on their own that the reason Tina believed that Watson wanted her to change her insurance is because he asked her to.

The Defense could make a mistake and ask Mr. Thomas on cross - what makes you think Tina believed that Gabe wanted her to change her insurance? Then, the defense would have opened the door and Mr. Thomas could answer that Tina told him that Gabe asked her to. I doubt that the Defense would make such a mistake.

 

[sydney-diver]

The incident came under investigation when Tina died scuba diving - accident or no accident, that is standard procedure. They also interviewed Dr. Stutz, whose statement generated cause for concern. He saw someone who had Tina in a bear hug, stated there was terror in her face, then that someone let Tina go to drift to the bottom. Then there were statements that Watson made to other divers on the scene, as well as his actions that caused suspicion as well. Pretty difficult to come to the surface without your wife, she dies and not say a word to anyone.

I agree his behaviour after the dive was bizarre. You could perhaps convince a Jury that he was in shock though since it occured after the incident. Before the dive though he returned to the boat about 5 mins into the dive claiming his dive computer was beeping. He fiddled a while and claimed the batteries where in the wrong way and was ready to go (the police tested the computer and as expected it wont beep if the batteries are in back to front). He then continued the dive but headed away from the Yongala. The QLD Police believed this was a tactic to seperate from the group (esp since he kept changing his story)

Edit: PS Here's a report from todays press http://www.smh.com.au/national/watsons-lawyer-still-fears-death-penalty-20101121-182bt.html

 

[burna]

... They also interviewed Dr. Stutz, whose statement generated cause for concern. He saw someone who had Tina in a bear hug, stated there was terror in her face, then that someone let Tina go to drift to the bottom. ...

They mentioned this on the Australian Story program that I linked to (maybe in the other thread?)

What they didn't say, nor has anyone else that I'm aware, is didn't Dr Stutz not think this was unusual behaviour?

Why didn't he rush to her aid?

Didn't he think it was worth mentioning to someone afterwards?

If I remember correctly, in the program I mentioned above they said that Dr Stutz didn't mention any of this to anyone until he was interviewed, as a matter of course, by Police several months later!!!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Yes there are just too many things that don't add up in the case on so many levels!

 

[ACES50]

If you listened to the TODAY show Friday past, you heard the lawyer for Watson say the "bearhug" was by the diver that actually brought Tina the surface, not Watson.

 

[K_girl]

If you listened to the TODAY show Friday past, you heard the lawyer for Watson say the "bearhug" was by the diver that actually brought Tina the surface, not Watson.

That's kind of weird because Dr. Stutz said that the person who gave Tina the "bearhug" let go of her and she drifted to the bottom. That doesn't sound like a rescue to me.