Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[mike_s]

Watson was granted bail:

Honeymoon killer Gabe Watson granted bail | The Australian

Reasons were that it was circumstantial case and that Watson had gone to Australia to face charges. I personally don't have a problem with this. This is a very detailed case and I think Watson's attorneys are doing a great job both in terms of getting him bail and re-spinning the media for their client. I think they will press for a quick trial, making it difficult for the prosecution to get the evidence and witnesses together (I think there were 65 of them). I've heard that they are top-notch lawyers.

Also sounds like Valeska "pissed off the judge". This has happened before...

The Alabama judge, Tommy Nail, rejected the argument of prosecutor Don Valeska that the burden lay with Watson to prove his innocence. He also said that the evidence against Watson was circumstantial during an often testy bail hearing in which Judge Nail quarrelled from the bench with Mr Valeska.
​

w.t.f.? this right here just shows that Valeska is a moron.

No matter who it is, they walk into the courtroom an "innocent man". The accused is always "innocent until proven guilty". The prosecution has the burden to prove his guilt. If in the prosecution phase of the trial, the prosecution can't prove without a doubt his guilt, then the defense can move for dismissal of the charges. HAS BEEN DONE NUMEROUS TIMES.

While I think Watson killed his wife, it seems that Valeska has no real proof and his case is purely circumstantial and he's resorting to outlandish tactics for "him" to win. this is standard issue performance for Valeska.

 

[Docc]

Article in this morning's paper says Gabe Watson is home with his new wife.

 

[mike_s]

Article in this morning's paper says Gabe Watson is home with his new wife.

seen a pic of her yet? The one I saw a while back, she looked a lot like the wife he murdered.

just kinda creepy.


Also.... did this new wife not bother to at least read the media 'just a bit' before saying "I do" to this guy?


at the very least, he's a control freak over women even if he doesn't kill her.



EDIT: Found a pic of his new wife. (on the right). Tina Watson (first wife) with Gabe o the left.

 

[ItsBruce]

...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

I'm back and just catching up. I have not read all that has transpired since I went away. (I'll post about my diving and about how I almost got left behind, later.)

Traditionally, it was considered a bad idea to beat up on a witness. However, IMHJO, that no longer holds true. First, the world is not as polite and gentle as it once was. Second, based on any number of television shows, the public is used to seeing witnesses beat up, especially when it results in a complete turnaround in the case. As a result, I don't think jurors get upset. And, I think that they expect to see some degree of drama and are disappointed when they don't get it.

If Mr. Thomas can be shown to be biased, it will do Watson a world of good. ... But, that's just me.

 

[ItsBruce]

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.

I'm commenting as I'm catching up. Many, maybe even most, prosecutors are good, decent, committed people. Many, maybe even most, would drop a case if they concluded it was not meritorious. The same goes for the police. However, there are plenty of exceptions. Recall former District Attorney Mike Nifong?

 

[ItsBruce]

You guys - a prosecutor must determine whether or not they have a case to start with is a no-brainer - I can't believe I have to say that. My point is - we've got people who have proclaimed Watson's innocence without a trial and without what many consider to be a proper review of the evidence. Most certainly, the original prosecutors and detectives in Australia who worked so hard on the case for so many years and knew the case inside-out, believed they had a good case and were in shock that the DPP pled the case out.

Just as we in the public cannot proclaim someone guilty, nor is it up to us to proclaim someone innocent as we do not have all the evidence in the case. I have made both prosecution arguments and defense arguments from what we do have, much of it in terms of Watson's published statements to police and Dr. Stutz' statements . I have not shouted that Watson is guilty - however, I think there is a lot of shouting that he is innocent. The prosecution claims they have additional evidence they have not made public. There was only one newspaper story where the prosecution said Watson went to Tina's workplace, behind her back, to change her insurance. We'll eventually hear whether or not they really do have the evidence they claim to have and whether or not we will actually have a trial.

All that Tina's family is saying is that there is evidence that merits there should be a trial in this case. These points have been made over and over again.

As far as Boulderjohn talking about bad prosecutors - he may actually have a point with regard to the outgoing prosecutor, Troy King and probably the reason he was voted out of office. We'll see if the next Alabama attorney general believes that they have a case or not.

I really must try to wait until I read all the new posts ... but ...

1. I am not in the camp that proclaims Watson's innocence. Given the circumstances of Tina's death, only Watson really knows for sure and what he knows and what he says may be at odds. And, he is certainly biased. While I am not in the camp that proclaims his innocence, I am in the camp that proclaims that based on what I've seen through the media and SB, I find it hard to believe a prosecutor can get a conviction. That, of course, is a whole different thing.

2. In my experience, people become deluded by their own positions. They become so fixated that they manage to dismiss gaping holes in their positions. They tend to twist the facts to fit their theories rather than adjust their theories to address the facts. For example, once the police have a suspect, they look only for evidence with which to convict and ignore evidence that tends to acquit, and rarely look for other possible culprits. I cannot recall how many times I've seen a lawyer conclude a witness is lying and proclaim that everyone will see the lie, only to have the jury conclude the witness is credible and is telling the truth.

 

[K_girl]

Welcome back ItsBruce - thank you for the balance. I have to agree with you.

Mike_S - Valeska is such an idiot. Every school child is taught about the presumption of innocence and that the prosecution has to prove guilt, not the other way around. With him in the prosecution driver's seat against the top-notch lawyers that Watson has, I don't see much of a chance for a conviction here.

 

[Ayisha]

If in the prosecution phase of the trial, the prosecution can't prove without a doubt his guilt, then the defense can move for dismissal of the charges.

bold added

I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't think it's "without a doubt". Isn't it beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[DandyDon]

bold added

I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't think it's "without a doubt". Isn't it beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yep. The Perry Mason show convinced a generation of viewers that it was beyond a shadow of doubt, but I think the correct lingo is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[ItsBruce]

The standard in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that just because there may be some tiny doubt, if it is less than a reasonable doubt, there will be a conviction.

My pet peeve is when someone says "I know he did not do it." There are only a few ways one could really *know* it. One is if the defendant was with the speaker at the time of the crime. Another is when the speaker is the guilty party... which would be why he or she knows the defendant did not do it.