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
mike_s
Contributor
CNN.com said 4.5 years...
this morning when I got to work in the lobby Fox news was on and it said 1 year?
Anyone else see this? wonder which is correct.
K_girl
Contributor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff_H
.......This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.
However, this is not what he pled guilty to - he pled guilty to not doing his duty as a rescue diver - and the court accepted that plea and that explanation. That is the dangerous precedent we are talking about. Almitywife - you are right in what you said that was the prosecution's original case, however, it has been thrown completely out the window, and now all rescue divers are on the hook because of it. Gabe Watson has received a slap on the wrist and Tina's parents have received a slap on the face for their six years of diligence with the Australian authorities trying to get justice for Tina.
I'm with Geoff_H, I'm a rescue diver and this makes me wary of any diving in Australia. I always intended to go dive in Australia, but now I have scratched that destination off the list. So, if the one of the reasons the prosecution offered this plea is because they are playing politics by trying to protect the scuba industry by avoiding the bad publicity - I would say they did not think this through. They could have actually caused more damage to the scuba industry with this horrible, horrible plea.
I can't help but think the prosecution did not thoroughly think through the precedent they are setting and repercussions of this plea. In just two weeks, they decided they didn't have a case worth going to trial for? I don't think so. The faster they settled, the less time, money and effort they have to spend.
Originally Posted by Geoff_H
.......This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.
no, it should make you wary of interferring with your dive buddys equipment, telling numerous different statements to the police and carrying on like a pork chop afterwards towards the victims family
However, this is not what he pled guilty to - he pled guilty to not doing his duty as a rescue diver - and the court accepted that plea and that explanation. That is the dangerous precedent we are talking about. Almitywife - you are right in what you said that was the prosecution's original case, however, it has been thrown completely out the window, and now all rescue divers are on the hook because of it. Gabe Watson has received a slap on the wrist and Tina's parents have received a slap on the face for their six years of diligence with the Australian authorities trying to get justice for Tina.
I'm with Geoff_H, I'm a rescue diver and this makes me wary of any diving in Australia. I always intended to go dive in Australia, but now I have scratched that destination off the list. So, if the one of the reasons the prosecution offered this plea is because they are playing politics by trying to protect the scuba industry by avoiding the bad publicity - I would say they did not think this through. They could have actually caused more damage to the scuba industry with this horrible, horrible plea.
I can't help but think the prosecution did not thoroughly think through the precedent they are setting and repercussions of this plea. In just two weeks, they decided they didn't have a case worth going to trial for? I don't think so. The faster they settled, the less time, money and effort they have to spend.
He will serve 342 days:
The Australian:
K_girl
Contributor
So, a close friend of mine believes that Gabe's plea was arranged ahead of time and that is why he flew back to Australia. Even though Watson's lawyer said the following:
"Gabe Watson's US lawyer Bob Austin said Watson, 31, felt he should not have been charged and wanted the case closed and his name cleared. 'He has gone to Australia to say 'I am here to answer the charges and I am not guilty of those charges',' Mr Austin said. 'He wants to get it over with,' he said. 'It has been going on for five years and it was either fight extradition or go voluntarily.'"
The prosecution says absolutely nothing about the circumstances of Watson's return. So my friend's theory still seems possible. It is actually more believable that he came back to get a good deal rather than wanting to plead not-guilty, face trial, clear his name, but still possibly end-up with a life sentence.
Tina's family was "shocked" at Gabe's sudden return:
"Tina Watson's family had publicly appealed for Watson to return to Australia and progress the stalled case. Her father in the US Tommy was stunned by the development. 'We had no idea that this was coming,' Mr Thomas told The Courier-Mail. 'It came as a total surprise,' he said. 'I am shocked but I am glad that he's there. I just hope that they don't let him leave again.'"
Source: Gabe Watson returns to face trial over wife&squo;s diving death | The Courier-Mail
So if my friend's theory is true - this means that the prosecution did not consult with Tina's family before they made the deal. If that is the case - shame on them! However, if the circumstances are as what was reported, that Watson returned to plead not guilty and clear his name, then the prosecution gave up on this case before they even got started - in just two weeks since his return - and I say still, shame on them!
"Gabe Watson's US lawyer Bob Austin said Watson, 31, felt he should not have been charged and wanted the case closed and his name cleared. 'He has gone to Australia to say 'I am here to answer the charges and I am not guilty of those charges',' Mr Austin said. 'He wants to get it over with,' he said. 'It has been going on for five years and it was either fight extradition or go voluntarily.'"
The prosecution says absolutely nothing about the circumstances of Watson's return. So my friend's theory still seems possible. It is actually more believable that he came back to get a good deal rather than wanting to plead not-guilty, face trial, clear his name, but still possibly end-up with a life sentence.
Tina's family was "shocked" at Gabe's sudden return:
"Tina Watson's family had publicly appealed for Watson to return to Australia and progress the stalled case. Her father in the US Tommy was stunned by the development. 'We had no idea that this was coming,' Mr Thomas told The Courier-Mail. 'It came as a total surprise,' he said. 'I am shocked but I am glad that he's there. I just hope that they don't let him leave again.'"
Source: Gabe Watson returns to face trial over wife&squo;s diving death | The Courier-Mail
So if my friend's theory is true - this means that the prosecution did not consult with Tina's family before they made the deal. If that is the case - shame on them! However, if the circumstances are as what was reported, that Watson returned to plead not guilty and clear his name, then the prosecution gave up on this case before they even got started - in just two weeks since his return - and I say still, shame on them!
K_girl
Contributor
So - is it possible that a large budget for this case would be the motive for the prosecution settling this case so fast? Well, here is food for thought, from story dated 6/22/08.
"IN an unexpected budget adjustment, the Queensland Government has announced it will boost the funding for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) by $21million over the next four years.. She said the extra funds would also better equip the ODPP to prosecute large, major cases, presumably a reference to, among others, the Dr Patel, Gordon Nuttall and Gabe Watson dive death actions.."
Source: Government delivers unexpected budget adjustment for office | Townsville Bulletin News
So, they were ready to spend $21 million dollars on three cases, including Watson. That's a boat-load of money. But -- that was as of 6/22/08 - before the global economic collapse. So, in today's economic climate, could the Australian government really afford to go forward with their plans to expand the budget to prosecute these cases? That's why I think money was the primary reason this case was settled so quickly.
"IN an unexpected budget adjustment, the Queensland Government has announced it will boost the funding for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) by $21million over the next four years.. She said the extra funds would also better equip the ODPP to prosecute large, major cases, presumably a reference to, among others, the Dr Patel, Gordon Nuttall and Gabe Watson dive death actions.."
Source: Government delivers unexpected budget adjustment for office | Townsville Bulletin News
So, they were ready to spend $21 million dollars on three cases, including Watson. That's a boat-load of money. But -- that was as of 6/22/08 - before the global economic collapse. So, in today's economic climate, could the Australian government really afford to go forward with their plans to expand the budget to prosecute these cases? That's why I think money was the primary reason this case was settled so quickly.
Missdirected
Contributor
K, You may want to start a blog about this?
InTheDrink
Contributor
K_Girl, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right: budgets are getting culled all over the place.
The finale of this case is even more stinky that the actual event. Manslaughter indeed. I really struggle to see where there was middle ground in this case. A rescue diver doesn't have professional status so I'm struggling to see where his certification level could be used against him, legally. So either he was incompetent but innocent or he was guilty of pre-meditated murder.
But incompetent and guilty? Does not add up one iota.
postscript: did I read somewhere that the prosecution, in the event on murder, were looking for 5 years? It does all smell of plea-bargaining. A plague on both your houses...
The finale of this case is even more stinky that the actual event. Manslaughter indeed. I really struggle to see where there was middle ground in this case. A rescue diver doesn't have professional status so I'm struggling to see where his certification level could be used against him, legally. So either he was incompetent but innocent or he was guilty of pre-meditated murder.
But incompetent and guilty? Does not add up one iota.
postscript: did I read somewhere that the prosecution, in the event on murder, were looking for 5 years? It does all smell of plea-bargaining. A plague on both your houses...
james croft
Contributor
Plea bargains are done all the time and are a form of grease that keeps the criminal justice system wheels to keep turning. When a prosecutor agrees to allow a person to plea to a lesser charge it has to be okayed by the judge. A judge can decide that such a plea is not warranted under the circumstances and may insist upon the accused being tried on the existing original charge. A high profile case makes any decision to allow a plea agreement a bit dicey for the court. They don't want to be scrutinized and later criticized for allowing a criminal to get by on lesser punishment.
As a result the prosecutor has to decide if he needs to offer a plea agreement based on the strength of his evidence and the witnesses he has. This prosecutor evidently decided he had better go with a sure conviction for manslaughter than roll the dice if he tried the murder charge and possibly lose the case. I am sure he consulted with the victims family prior to making the decision. Once the decision was made and to satisfy the court that it should allow the plea bargain, a theory of negligence needed to be developed. Manslaughter is a death caused by another as a result of gross negligence. They came up with a theory of charging negligence by Watson as a rescuer diver only to cover the elements of manslaughter. This covers the court and allows the judge to OK the manslaughter conviction.
In reality this conviction was a conviction of a lesser offense than murder because a deal had been struck. I rather doubt any prosecutor would prosecute anyone for failure to save anyone.
This plea bargain was an expeditious way to convict him, have him say guilty for causing the death of his wife and that will be good ammo in the civil case that will follow. They just did this to cover the bases and shortstop any appeals, etc.
Unless you plan on killing someone and doing it as sloppy as Watson did I would not worry about any "precedent" being set to prosecute you.
And he will get his butt kicked or worse in jail. There are prisoners in there that think he is as big a lowlife as we do. I know I would kick his butt if I was in jail with him.
As a result the prosecutor has to decide if he needs to offer a plea agreement based on the strength of his evidence and the witnesses he has. This prosecutor evidently decided he had better go with a sure conviction for manslaughter than roll the dice if he tried the murder charge and possibly lose the case. I am sure he consulted with the victims family prior to making the decision. Once the decision was made and to satisfy the court that it should allow the plea bargain, a theory of negligence needed to be developed. Manslaughter is a death caused by another as a result of gross negligence. They came up with a theory of charging negligence by Watson as a rescuer diver only to cover the elements of manslaughter. This covers the court and allows the judge to OK the manslaughter conviction.
In reality this conviction was a conviction of a lesser offense than murder because a deal had been struck. I rather doubt any prosecutor would prosecute anyone for failure to save anyone.
This plea bargain was an expeditious way to convict him, have him say guilty for causing the death of his wife and that will be good ammo in the civil case that will follow. They just did this to cover the bases and shortstop any appeals, etc.
Unless you plan on killing someone and doing it as sloppy as Watson did I would not worry about any "precedent" being set to prosecute you.
And he will get his butt kicked or worse in jail. There are prisoners in there that think he is as big a lowlife as we do. I know I would kick his butt if I was in jail with him.
InTheDrink
Contributor
JC,
Thanks for your post - it rings true and true.
J
Thanks for your post - it rings true and true.
J
Similar threads
