Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[mike_s]

the prosecutor did have a slam dunk case with a judge who was prepared to convict without evidence.



......

I would seriously like to see prosecutors and police held more accountable for things like this.

What do you call an attorney that can't hack it in private practice?

Either "Your Honor" or "the Prosecution".

In the Oklahoma case I mentioned earlier, state law almost makes prosecutors immune from any retribution, but in this case it was so bad the defendant did win a pretty big award.

we had a case where the assistant state attorney general prosecutor with held evidence that could have cleared the defendant and he wasn't held accountable. When the family filed a lawsuit (after the charges were dropped), the other judge wouldn't allow it to go to trial.

If I remember, the police who were part of the railroading got away free.

well it's not against the law for the police to lie to you. But they can charge you with giving false information to them if you lie to them.

go figure....

I guess I am saying I don't trust the system to protect an innocent person from a zealous prosecution.

zealous prosecution happens every day.

 

[k ellis]

The prosecutor has to be a filter to determine the likelihood that someone will be justly convicted and then proceed accordingly. Yes, they do make a decision about the guilt of someone before trying them--how else would the system work? To take your statement to the extreme, the prosecutor could put ME on trial for the murder, arguing that it is up to the jury to decide. A prosecutor who puts someone on trial without a reasonable belief that the person is guilty should be removed from office.

Read John Grisham's Book The Innocent Man, which is a documentary about a true story, not a novel. It tells the story about a man in Oklahoma who came within hours of being executed for a crime he did not commit, successfully prosecuted without much more real evidence (if any) than the prosecutor could have come up with to charge you with the crime. Another man was convicted of assisting him in the murder with no evidence against him whatsoever. The only thing they had against him was the police theory that it had to be two people (which turned out to be wrong), and this guy was a friend of the other guy at the time.

The investigation of the police and prosecutor conduct in railroading these two guys showed they did the same thing to two other people in a different crime, two people who are almost certainly 100% innocent. Unfortunately, they have no DNA evidence to get them off, and they are both serving life terms for a crime they did not commit as I type.

The prosecutor's goal was to win convictions--whether the people were guilty or not. As Illinois showed when it called a moratorium on the death penalty after DNA showed that more than half of the people on its death row were innocent, it is all too easy for a prosecutor to get a conviction, regardless of the facts in the case.

We pay prosecutors to identify guilty people and build real cases against them, not put anyone they feel like up in front of an unpredictable jury to see if they can win a case.

BoulderJohn I dont know to much about this particular case as it dates back to before I was born and got into law enforcement but I can tell you that in Tulsa Oklahoma the D.A. is all about wins. As for being out of state I am not to sure how familiar you are with Oklahoma law but there is a law on the books here now that allows concealed carry and states in plain english that when a person has reasonable fear for his life that he may use deadly force. More recently this happend with a guy who was driving down one of Tulsas more heavily traveled streets.

At some point an incident of some sort happend on the roadway between him and another guy that led into a road rage. The first guy I mentioned Ill only refer to as Ken allegedly began to get followed by the second person I wont identify for respect of the family. Ken attempted to keep driving and after it became apparent the second person was not going to allow him to get away Ken decided to pull into heavily populated park with kids and adults doing various activities. When he parked the second person blocked him in and would not allow him to leave and began beating on the windows and by media reports threatened Ken. At one point Ken who was upwards to either 60s or 70s had exited the vehicle and reportedly attempted to walk away. The second person in their 30s then followed and according to witness statements attempted to assault Ken.

Ken used his weapon then and stated he feared for his life due to the guy being half his age and agressively attempting to cause bodily harm. Now these are all media reports and not my own eye witness statements. Oklahoma states in black and white that a person who defends his life with deadly force can not be charged with manslaughter or murder and can not be sued civilaly.

Our brilliant D.A. went ahead and charged him and successfully had all of Kens witnesses and instructors barred from testimoney. With no one on his side he was convicted unfairly and now lives with a felony.

Was he right or wrong? We will never know because he was not allowed any one to back his side of the story and with only the prosecutions witnesses allowed it was a slam dunk.

Oklahoma is very unfair about how they operate and yes having law enforcement back ground I can tell you its not fair a police officer can charge people with anything so long as it has some sort of credibility. I.E. your driving a car and weaving so you get arrested for a DUI. when it goes to court and it comes out you did not even have alcahol in the car it just gets dismissed and officers go on about their buisness.

In the event you do have a justified complaint then its not the officers who pay its the city which is not really even the city but its the tax payers. When this happens and the city starts hurting for cash they dont fix the problems but instead get on T.V. and boo hoo to the public how the city is dieing and need to raise taxes. Now as funny as this sounds it always seems to pass though no one really ever votes for a tax increase.

Oklahoma is pathetic in how they just allow police officers to destroy lives with no real accountability for their own actions. If they win the case a live is destroyed and if they loose then they dont loose a dime but instead the tax payers do.

 

[k ellis]

well it's not against the law for the police to lie to you. But they can charge you with giving false information to them if you lie to them. .

Thats not entirely true. Its illegal to give false information to a federal officer but not to a local or state agency or municipality. The exception to this would be filing a false police report.

 

[mike_s]

Thats not entirely true. Its illegal to give false information to a federal officer but not to a local or state agency or municipality. The exception to this would be filing a false police report.

I would say that could depend on the state/agency/department.

I've seen people charged with providing false information to police in local news police reports.

 

[boulderjohn]

BoulderJohn I dont know to much about this particular case as it dates back to before I was born and got into law enforcement ...

I doubt it. He was proven innocent by Barry Sheck's Innocence Project, after which he was interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today Show.

 

[K_girl]

Source: Watson to return to Alabama to face charges after Australian prison stint | Shelby County Reporter

"Motion seeks Ala man's release in Australia death
Associated Press - December 7, 2010 3:34 PM ET

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Now that the man accused of killing his wife on a honeymoon scuba diving trip to Australia has been returned to Alabama, his attorneys have prepared a motion asking that he be released from the Jefferson County Jail on bond.

Gabe Watson's attorney, Brett Bloomston of Birmingham, said Tuesday the motion would be filed as soon as a judge is assigned to the case.

The 33-year-old Watson was returned to Birmingham Monday night after being extradited from Australia last month to face capital murder charges in Alabama for the death of his wife, 26-year-old Tina Watson.

Assistant Attorney General Don Valeska said prosecutors would oppose the bail motion because the charge is capital murder, even though Alabama officials have agreed not to seek the death penalty."

 

[k ellis]

I doubt it. He was proven innocent by Barry Sheck's Innocence Project, after which he was interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today Show.

well again it predates my experience I did not start in law enforcement until 2001. So I cant give an answer one way or another. I dont doubt though that its possible though without knowing any details first hand. Prison does truely have alot of innocent people inside the walls.

Im not sure what your response meant but honestly it does predate my experience. and also according to the reports I have been able to find it was out of Ada. which is 4 hours from where I am. So if I misled you in anyway I assure you it was unintentional

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Interesting discussion. It seems like US citizens aren't so sure that going through the US Judicial System is any guarantee that Justice will be served!

I want to make my position clear. I have repeatedly stated that I personally do not have enough evidence to conclude he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do not have enough evidence to conclude he is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt either! I am prepared to consider him innocent until proven guilty. I am prepared to entertain the possibility that the "evidence" made available to the public is tainted by people with their own agendas. I am prepared to entertain the possibility that not everyone involved in this case has commendable motives.

I am not prepared to assume ANYONE involved is presenting anything but their own flawed version of truth.

IMHO there should be processes in place to protect the system from unnecessary costs. IMHO that system needs to be able to function without the pressures and bias of people who are too involved and invested in the outcome to come to fair conclusions. That system involves PLEA BARGAINING. I do not believe the American Process is any better than the Australian one! I am sure people will be able to search out and post enough "evidence" to prove what ever position they choose on the subject!

As I have stated before I do not have the time or inclination to backtrack, search the web, and read through masses of information to justify my every point!

I am alarmed at the masses of evidence "leaked, released, reported, presented on talk shows, documentaries and screamed from the rooftops" to prove Mr Watson's guilt in the court of public opinion. I am alarmed at the lack of information released to defend Mr Watson.

I am alarmed at the number of Innocent people whos lives have been ruined by overzealous campaigns to "bring them to justice".

 

[boulderjohn]

well again it predates my experience I did not start in law enforcement until 2001. So I cant give an answer one way or another. I dont doubt though that its possible though without knowing any details first hand. Prison does truely have alot of innocent people inside the walls.

Im not sure what your response meant but honestly it does predate my experience. and also according to the reports I have been able to find it was out of Ada. which is 4 hours from where I am. So if I misled you in anyway I assure you it was unintentional

No biggie. I should have put on a smiley. Here is the part to which I was responding...

BoulderJohn I dont know to much about this particular case as it dates back to before I was born ....

Unless you started in law enforcement when you were very young, I doubt it was before you were born. It was longer ago than I thought, though--the man falsely accused was released in 1999. He was first convicted in the 1980's. I was not in any way doubting anything in what you wrote exact the date of your birth.

Yes, it did take place in Ada. Here is a synopsis of the story.

 

[boulderjohn]

Interesting discussion. It seems like US citizens aren't so sure that going through the US Judicial System is any guarantee that Justice will be served!

When I was young, my mother's name kept getting called for jury duty over and over and over again. And she was selected to be on the jury over and over and over again.

The thought of that absolutely terrifies me and makes me want to be absolutely certain I am never called before a jury of my peers.

On the other hand, the only time I was ever on a jury, the prosecution was totally inept. They should have had an absolute slam dunk case with all the evidence at their disposal. The defense mounted what was really a desperate alternative theory defense. In deliberations later, we jurors talked about how desperately we wanted to ask some tough questions that were just begging to be asked but which apparently escaped the prosecution. We were able to see the holes in the alternate defense theory, but it was up to us. The prosecution never pointed them out.

So, as I see it, American Justice is a roll of the dice. There are all kinds of possibilities if you are on trial. In the Oklahoma case, a zealous and unscrupulous prosecutor and police department met a thoroughly incompetent defense attorney and a jury ready to convict anyone who was accused. In my jury experience (and in my friend's cited earlier), a competent jury made up for incompetent prosecution. In many other cases, an incompetent jury makes anything possible.