Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

Alabama Hearsay Exceptions (regarding Mr. Thomas potential testimony):

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
(a) Grounds of unavailability.
Unavailability as a witness includes situations in which the declarant –
..(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity..

Source: http://www.clealabama.com/docs/CLEAlabama-AlabamaEvidence.pdf

Pages 67-68

 

[bowlofpetunias]

The only time a beneficiary would have to sign is if they "Own" the policy or are listed as an Irrevocable beneficiary.

Kgirl What you discribe is a standard procedure with Retirement Plans. Since the money is accumulated during the relationship and is meant to provide for both parties it becomes a joint asset. To keep one partner from funneling money to hide it in a "protected account" the "partner" is required to sign off their rights so to speak.

If it is true that Gabe assumed some of Tina's debt and they were assuming a mortgage it is quite reasonable that Gabe would want to ensure there was adequate insurance in his name. What IMHO is not appropriate is to advocate lying to a person's about to be spouse. Anyone encouraging the creation of secrets and lies in a relationship as has been reported is basically helping sabotage the relationship.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Alabama Hearsay Exceptions (regarding Mr. Thomas potential testimony):

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
(a) Grounds of unavailability.
Unavailability as a witness includes situations in which the declarant –
..(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity..

Source: http://www.clealabama.com/docs/CLEAlabama-AlabamaEvidence.pdf

Pages 67-68

Wow that is scary It reads like a person could quote a person as having said virtually anything as long as they are dead and can't contest it!:shocked2:

 

[bowlofpetunias]

This place won't be the same without Bruce's insights!

 

[K_girl]

If it is true that Gabe assumed some of Tina's debt and they were assuming a mortgage it is quite reasonable that Gabe would want to ensure there was adequate insurance in his name. What IMHO is not appropriate is to advocate lying to a person's about to be spouse. Anyone encouraging the creation of secrets and lies in a relationship as has been reported is basically helping sabotage the relationship.

If Mr. Thomas does testify, I am sure that he will give the reason for his advice to his daughter is because she was stressed and short on time preparing for her wedding. It's reasonable, probably most parents would have advised the same thing. Certainly nothing criminal about it. He never intended that Watson would not ever be the beneficiary of Tina's life insurance - he was offering a solution to the extra stress that her fiance and her wedding was putting her under. The insurance could wait, getting things done for the wedding couldn't. So he advised her in a way to help her avoid the stress, just tell him you did and take of it when you get back. I highly doubt that Mr. Thomas' actions will come under the kind of characterization you are trying to create. I also doubt that the defense will try to paint it that way - they could allienate the jury. You make the jury think about this point too much and they could determine that Tina asked her dad about it because she was feeling pressure from Watson and feeling stressed.

The only person thinking - what if something happens to Tina on the honeymoon before we get back - was Gabe Watson. Niether Tina nor her father were thinking on those terms.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

If Mr. Thomas does testify, I am sure that he will give the reason for his advice to his daughter is because she was stressed and short on time preparing for her wedding. It's reasonable, probably most parents would have advised the same thing. Certainly nothing criminal about it. He never intended that Watson would not ever be the beneficiary of Tina's life insurance - he was offering a solution to the extra stress that her fiance and her wedding was putting her under. The insurance could wait, getting things done for the wedding couldn't. So he advised her in a way to help her avoid the stress, just tell him you did and take of it when you get back. I highly doubt that Mr. Thomas' actions will come under the kind of characterization you are trying to create. I also doubt that the defense will try to paint it that way - they could allienate the jury. You make the jury think about this point too much and they could determine that Tina asked her dad about it because she was feeling pressure from Watson and feeling stressed.

The only person thinking - what if something happens to Tina on the honeymoon before we get back - was Gabe Watson. Niether Tina nor her father were thinking on those terms.

I am sorry but I have to say that no one can say what was in Mr Thomas's mind when he gave that advice to Tina.. if indeed he did give that advice. I most definitely would not advise my son to lie to his partner period! It seem to me that both sides have said things that may indicate people where saying/doing things that would likely contribute to stress and division in that relationship. Whether I like my daughter in law or not as long as she is my son's partner I will respect and support that! I raised him to believe that lying was morally wrong. I would certainly not encourage him to do something that I believe wrong! I am far from perfect and I must admit I did teach him there are times it is not appropriate to say what you think. My advice to him has always been. If you give an answer be honest if you don't want to reveal something refuse to answer or distract but your integrity is something you should not throw away easily!

I would suggest that the Defense may not be able to afford to use kid gloves in dealing with Mr Thomas. If they do nothing to call into question any of his statements, actions or interpretations they may be seen as basically endorsing or accepting them as fact! If he takes the stand which I assume the Prosecution with need to do to bring his "evidence" into the case the Defense will have no option but to discredit him. I found it interesting that Thomas has stated he will accept whatever "sentence" the jury brings as justice being done. Does that imply that if Mr Watson doesn't get found guilty and therefore "sentenced" justice will not be done?

Once again no one can determine that Gabe was the only one thinking something could happen during the trip. I know people who re write their Wills and review their insurance before they travel. People would not buy Travel Insurance if they didn't think there was a big enough chance that something could happen to require it.

IMHO one can not attach sinister motives to someone wanting to attend to "financial housekeeping". The Insurance Industry rely on "tapping" into the trigger events present in upcoming Marriage, Debt assumption and Travel. If Gabe can prove that he was assuming debts because of Tina I think it will be VERY hard to convince a reasonable person there was something sinister in Gabe wanting her to name him as a beneficiary or increase insurance.

The information that has been bandied about in the media.. if it is accurate indicates that Watson's family was not lacking in funds. If Watson had a reasonable job and parents who had resources it doesn't make sense for him to take the risk of marriage to kill for the insurance money. If he could rely on his family to pay for a honeymoon as has been reported (if true) it seems to me he could likely get money for other things as well or wait to inherit with no risk!

I just don't think it is appropriate to assume that what is said by one side is accurate and somehow .. Off limits to question their motives but assume negative of the other side. I am not saying we should take as gospel anything coming from the Watson Camp but in all fairness I don't think it is appropriate to take as gospel everything coming from the Thomas Camp either.

 

[ACES50]

Morning Petunia
Thank you for your reasonable and balanced thought processes.
Actually Mr. Thomas said he would accept a jury decision as long as it is a "just decision". I have the same concerns you express. What will he do upon acquittal?

 

[K_girl]

I would suggest that the Defense may not be able to afford to use kid gloves in dealing with Mr Thomas. If they do nothing to call into question any of his statements, actions or interpretations they may be seen as basically endorsing or accepting them as fact! If he takes the stand which I assume the Prosecution with need to do to bring his "evidence" into the case the Defense will have no option but to discredit him. I found it interesting that Thomas has stated he will accept whatever "sentence" the jury brings as justice being done. Does that imply that if Mr Watson doesn't get found guilty and therefore "sentenced" justice will not be done?

From many things being said here, there should not be a problem if the defense admits that Watson wanted to change Tina's insurance before the wedding or asked her to change it or even went to her place of work to do it behind her back. So why beat-up on Mr. Thomas? Jurors don't like it when you beat-up on the parents of a dead girl. That would make no sense.

Mr. Thomas also said that all he wanted was Watson to face a jury with the evidence and if they found him not guilty, he would be fine with that and justice would be served. If they found him guilty, he would hope that the sentence would be a just one.

MR. THOMAS: "What we want is for him to stand before a jury for the very first time, before that evidence and answer to it. Whatever a judge and jury decide as the outcome of that trial should be true justice. And it doesn't matter to us the sentencing, what that sentence would be as long as it is a just sentence.."

Source: Australia 'Honeymoon Killer': Father of Allegedly Murdered Bride Tina Watson Seeks Justice - ABC News

You incorrectly paraphrased what Mr. Thomas said and tried to incorrectly intepret his meaning - he was profoundly clear.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

From many things being said here, there should not be a problem if the defense admits that Watson wanted to change Tina's insurance before the wedding or asked her to change it or even went to her place of work to do it behind her back. So why beat-up on Mr. Thomas? Jurors don't like it when you beat-up on the parents of a dead girl. That would make no sense.

As I have stated I think the insurance issue is going to be hard to sell as sinister. IMHO however proving that it was done "behind her back" may be difficult... if it was proven it would leave a very bad impression indeed! If I was on the jury that would not sit well with me.

I wish Bruce was around to comment on the necessity/wisdom of the "kid gloves treatment" for Mr Thomas. I just don't think the benefits exceed the dangers there. There is a difference between "beating someone up" and asking reasonable and tough questions. If I was on the jury I would not be put off by the defense challenging any of the witnesses the prosecution called. IMHO it is the job of the legal teams involved to ensure the statements (and the motives for them) before the court are thoroughly examined so the jurors can come to reasonable conclusions. It is the Judge's duty to ensure there is NO beating up of anyone and the lawyers stay within acceptable courtroom etiquette!

I am not sure why it is not acceptable to challenge the parent/friend of a dead person but it is ok to attack the widow/widower or in-laws of the dead person.

Mr. Thomas also said that all he wanted was Watson to face a jury with the evidence and if they found him not guilty, he would be fine with that and justice would be served. If they found him guilty, he would hope that the sentence would be a just one.

MR. THOMAS: "What we want is for him to stand before a jury for the very first time, before that evidence and answer to it. Whatever a judge and jury decide as the outcome of that trial should be true justice. And it doesn't matter to us the sentencing, what that sentence would be as long as it is a just sentence.."

Source: Australia 'Honeymoon Killer': Father of Allegedly Murdered Bride Tina Watson Seeks Justice - ABC News

You incorrectly paraphrased what Mr. Thomas said and tried to incorrectly intepret his meaning - he was profoundly clear.

I don't believe I am misinterpreting his meaning.. I did paraphrase but I don't think I did it incorrectly.

You have said something similar in the past Kgirl see post 155 in this thread "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."

I am having problems with equating putting someone in front of a jury or court as the only way of ensuring justice is done. IMHO forcing an innocent to a trial potentially bankrupting them with legal fees and wrecking their health with stress is justice gone mad! Someone for reasons that could even be a result of their own emotional or mental health issues could launch a campaign forcing the person they are fixated on into court because in their twisted perception that is the only way they feel Justice will be served! We don't have to look far to see what some people would interpret as a prime example of exactly that going on involving a Forum dear to all of us!

I am not saying that is the case with The Thomases I do not know them or the Watsons well enough to know if this applies! I also don't know any of the parties well enough to determine who is giving the most accurate portrayal. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that Thomas believes what he is saying about Gabe I will assume that Watsons believe in his innocence but both are too emotionally involved and hurt to make unbiased decisions.

I have said repeatedly over the last couple years discussing this that there will be no Victors only Victims here. Tina will still be gone, her loved ones (on both sides) will still be denied her presence in their lives Watson's name will never be cleared in the minds of some. Both these families have been through Hell and I don't see that ending soon if ever!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Morning Petunia
Thank you for your reasonable and balanced thought processes.
Actually Mr. Thomas said he would accept a jury decision as long as it is a "just decision". I have the same concerns you express. What will he do upon acquittal?

I am not sure that many will agree with you on this but I appreciate that some recognize my efforts to be fair, reasonable and balanced.

I pray that all involved in this will find the wisdom, peace and strength to do the right thing