Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

Here are some further thoughts on the post that I was not quite able to write last night:

As far as Watson's alleged conduct after the incident, and in the treatment of Tina's family, it was and is not just a matter of Watson's life and reputation being defiled or destroyed. It was a lot more serious than that. Tina's family was and to an extent still is, trying to have Watson killed, albeit through the judicial process, but killed nonetheless.

Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer of the death penalty. And, if Watson is guilty, I would support its application.

But, if someone were accusing me of murder, particularly if it was an unjust accusation, I would not take too kindly to it. I might be able to intellectualize it as being because of the pain of their loss. I might be able to intellectualize it as resulting from a biased view of limited evidence. But, I would resent it. I would not be nice to them. And I do not think I would ever forgive them for it.

So, what may have transpired between families does not, at least to me, tend to prove or disprove Watson's guilt.

On a more pragmatic note, what may have happened as compared to what those involved say happened, is more significant to me. It goes to the credibility of those who have said what happened. And, that may impact their credibility on other points. It has been reported and argued that Tina's father says that Tina told him that Watson wanted her to increase her life insurance and name him as beneficiary. Apart from it being hearsay, how credible is it if, at the time he purportedly reported that, he had already decided that Watson was guilty of murder? How about if other things that cast Watson in a bad light were shown to be untrue? How about if no one from Tina's work would say that Watson went there trying to get the insurance changed?

I am not accusing anyone of fabricating anything or of even being forgetful or of misperceiving anything. But the reality is that memories and perceptions are fickle things.

Every piece of information must be vetted and examined from all angles. Not only that, but a sound analysis requires also asking what is the effect on this piece of information if some other piece of information is either established or disproved.

For example, assume for the moment that the funeral director denies telling Tina's family that they will be escorted out of the funeral if they accuse Watson of murder during the funeral. What does that mean as far as Tina's family's alleged statement about what they were told? What does that mean as far as anything else Tina's family may say. Or, assume that the funeral director took it upon himself, without anyone else's knowledge, to tell that to Tina's family. What does that mean relative to Watson's culpability?

BTW: I know plenty of people, who, if they thought someone was guilty, would have no compunction against stretching or even fabricating evidence that would support a finding of guilt. I am not suggesting that happened here, or anywhere else. However, just a quick survey: Can anyone who reads this thread honestly say they know no one who would do so?

 

[K_girl]

ACES50 - I am surprised to learn that anyone involved in this case are reading these posts. Thank you for the clarification on some of these points. I can't imagine the pain all of you are going through, but it must be especially painful to read the speculation from those of us who only have information that is available through public means. I can tell you that if there is a trial, and I am beginning to doubt if there will be one, and Gabe is found not guilty, I will accept that verdict as justice having been served.

However, that said, I will continue to comment from your son's released statements to police and still, respectfully, I find a lot of problems with it and I think you probably know what they are.

I think we've come to the place where we understand someone who feels unjustly accused will be upset and someone who has lost a child under suspicious circumstances will want justice to be served. I think it is useless to keep arguing that point. Both families involved have to deal with a great deal of pain - and if you were to switch places with the families - the situation would be the same, only the names would be different. "That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."

There are some here who say that the plea bargain struck with DPP was justice well-served; however, there is a lot of uproar in Australia about the DPP's plea bargaining process that it is not real justice, especially in light of not providing all of the evidence to the judge, but a means to up the conviction rate and save money. I think probably a lot of that happens here in the U.S. as well so I don't think this is necessarily just an Australian situation. What I am not sure about is the U.S. prosecutor being able to withhold vital information and evidence from the judge and not communicate with the victim's family before making the plea bargain.

 

[boulderjohn]

I just wanted to comment on the Rescue Diver certification and what it might mean.

Years ago, when I was myself just a typical AOW diver, I was on a boat heading out to a dive site in Cozumel when one of the other divers made it known that he could help us out if we got into trouble, because he was a Rescue Diver. He was quite proud of it. He was diving with his new wife, who had just gotten her OW certification and was on her first five trip.

She turned out to be a much more skilled diver than he was. The DM pretty much had to hold his hand (literally) throughout the dive. He was one of the least skilled divers I have ever seen. I have no idea what kind of instruction that guy went through that got him Rescue Diver certification--perhaps it had been a decade earlier and he had lost it all.

Similarly, I have no idea whatsoever how skilled a diver Watson was, but I know that you really can't tell from the words on a card.

 

[ACES50]

K girl
How many "released statements" to the police do you think there are?

 

[K_girl]

K girl
How many "released statements" to the police do you think there are?

Four, located here:

Gabe Watson's police interview

If it is of any help, these are the issues I think could be brought-up at trial (if there is one):

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/sc...on-murder-case-issues-statements-sources.html

I will warn you that some of it is prosecution-biased, but if it helps your son, I have no problem with that.

 

[K_girl]

I just wanted to comment on the Rescue Diver certification and what it might mean.

Years ago, when I was myself just a typical AOW diver, I was on a boat heading out to a dive site in Cozumel when one of the other divers made it known that he could help us out if we got into trouble, because he was a Rescue Diver. He was quite proud of it. He was diving with his new wife, who had just gotten her OW certification and was on her first five trip.

She turned out to be a much more skilled diver than he was. The DM pretty much had to hold his hand (literally) throughout the dive. He was one of the least skilled divers I have ever seen. I have no idea what kind of instruction that guy went through that got him Rescue Diver certification--perhaps it had been a decade earlier and he had lost it all.

Similarly, I have no idea whatsoever how skilled a diver Watson was, but I know that you really can't tell from the words on a card.

Don't really know where the reporter got this information, they didn't state their source:

"An experienced diver with a search and rescue dive qualification, Watson had performed a rescue years before when a fellow diver got into trouble underwater."

Source: Tina Watson | Gabe Watson | scuba diving honeymoon death |

I have another source who has told me that Gabe was involved with at least part of Tina's open water training and would yell at her when he thought that she wasn't doing things right. He was quite frustrated with her progress, or lack thereof. This is second-hand, but I do trust my source and know them personally, face-to-face, personally.

 

[ktomlinson]

Is it illegal in the US to fail to provide assistance in a similar situation? I can't imagine why the law would require someone to put their life at risk to save another person. I hope that I would do my part to save someone if the need arose, but would disagree with it being required by law.. There is the rule is diving that one should not create another casualty, and if being rescue certified opens one up to prosecution for not helping then maybe I should reconsider my upcoming rescue class.

 

[boulderjohn]

Is it illegal in the US to fail to provide assistance in a similar situation? I can't imagine why the law would require someone to put their life at risk to save another person. I hope that I would do my part to save someone if the need arose, but would disagree with it being required by law.. There is the rule is diving that one should not create another casualty, and if being rescue certified opens one up to prosecution for not helping then maybe I should reconsider my upcoming rescue class.

This was actually discussed quite thoroughly in another thread on this topic. I am not a lawyer, but I will try to summarize what I learned from that thread. I hope to be corrected if I screw it up.

The law in neither the U.S. not Australia requires someone to come to the aid of someone like this. In this case, though, the judge who accepted the plea bargain in Australia made statements to the effect that he was being sentenced for failing to come to her aid, which concerned people because that is not against the law. There was some question as to whether the judge's statements would act as a precedent, but apparently no precedent can come from a case that ends with a plea bargain.

 

[ACES50]

John
The specific statute in Queensland is s.290.
Give it a read. I was told the law is 110 years old and no one ever been found in violation before.

 

[K_girl]

Is it illegal in the US to fail to provide assistance in a similar situation? I can't imagine why the law would require someone to put their life at risk to save another person. I hope that I would do my part to save someone if the need arose, but would disagree with it being required by law.. There is the rule is diving that one should not create another casualty, and if being rescue certified opens one up to prosecution for not helping then maybe I should reconsider my upcoming rescue class.

I completely agree and that is what is so confusing about the plea deal because either he intentionally killed her or he didn't. And if he didn't, he should not spend one minute in jail. I wrote to Cameron Dick (the Australian prosecutor) about the concern of setting this kind of precedence. I received no answer. Many divers said don't worry about it, this case was a plea deal and no one is going to try and turn it into precedence.