Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[bowlofpetunias]

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.

right on here

Spoiler

as usual Bruce

I have to agree 100% I think we don't have enough information to come to a conclusion. There is some danger in developing a bias that may cloud your interpretation of the information presented.

I think people involved are understandably influenced by the emotions of their connections to the case. Emotionally impacted people can be very eloquent and garner a lot of support by well intentioned people. The Judicial process needs to filter out the emotion and examine cold hard facts very hard when you are dealing with humans who filter and process information based on their personal interpretations!

 

[boulderjohn]

My pet peeve is when someone says "I know he did not do it."

There is some danger in developing a bias that may cloud your interpretation of the information presented.

I think people involved are understandably influenced by the emotions of their connections to the case. Emotionally impacted people can be very eloquent and garner a lot of support by well intentioned people.

When I was being trained to be a school administrator, we were cautioned very much about this in relation to situations that might arise under our leadership.

We were given a case study in which a popular elementary teacher was accused of sexual abuse on a student on what looked to be very flimsy evidence. Everyone "knew" he was innocent and being railroaded by a DA out to get a teacher. Fellow teachers and his administrator gave him public support. Protesters picketed the DA's office carrying signs. There were signs carried outside the courtroom on the first day of the trial, and the courtroom itself was packed with his defenders. All those defenders listened in stunned silence as he changed his plea to guilty and made an emotional, tear-filled apology to the victim in that case and to his other victims in the past.

 

[ItsBruce]

There is a little test I like to use to test peoples' perceptions. I will give you a few sets of numbers. From these, I want you to form a theory as to the specific rule I am using for creating the sets. To help you form or test your theory, you can ask propose sets of your own and ask me if your proposed sets fit the rule. Once you have a theory, send it to me by way of a PM (also include in the PM the sets you had proposed). I'll expect you will be amazed at what I have to report.

Set #1: 4, 8, 16
Set #2: 6, 12, 24
Set #3: 10, 20, 40

Please note that this is not a game, but rather is a demonstration of some very interesting principles relative to decision making that may occur in connection with a trial.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

There is a little test I like to use to test peoples' perceptions. I will give you a few sets of numbers. From these, I want you to form a theory as to the specific rule I am using for creating the sets. To help you form or test your theory, you can ask propose sets of your own and ask me if your proposed sets fit the rule. Once you have a theory, send it to me by way of a PM (also include in the PM the sets you had proposed). I'll expect you will be amazed at what I have to report.

Please note that this is not a game, but rather is a demonstration of some very interesting principles relative to decision making that may occur in connection with a trial.

Interesting.. might work for some but not for me... I am not good with numbers:blush: a bunch (sorry "set") of numbers are just a bunch of numbers to me! Give me words please!:depressed:

In my jobs we have always had to be aware of the risks of being influenced in decision making by personal bias and "filtering". It is amazing how often you can catch yourself being swayed even when you are working hard to avoid it! Anyone who says they never do it is clearly not being honest in self assessment! That is my opinion but there are a lot of studies that indicate the same thing. that is my story and I am sticking to it!

 

[K_girl]

Honeymoon killer Gabe Watson may never face hometown jury in Alabama | News.com.au

"HOSTILE reaction to prosecutors by the Alabama judge who freed "Honeymoon Killer" Gabe Watson has raised doubt about whether Watson will ever face a hometown jury on charges of murdering his bride Tina in Queensland in 2003.

Watson's family and friends packed the Birmingham courtroom of chief criminal circuit Judge Tommy Nail, who granted Watson a $100,000 bond despite failing to establish his likely innocence as required by state law..

Under Alabama law, a person accused by indictment of a capital offence must overcome the presumption of his guilt to be entitled to bail.

Judge Nail made no such determination but his icy reaction to prosecutors indicated he doubted the merits of the case before seeing its evidence.

"Motive is not sufficient to convict somebody," Judge Nail lectured prosecutors. "You must have evidence."

The facts in the Watson case have never been revealed in an Alabama court..

Prosecutors are in a delicate position as they move forward. Their newly elected boss, Luther Strange, could ask the judge to dismiss the case or Judge Nail could dismiss it himself.

But the judge could also be removed by a higher court for poor decision-making and bias.."

*********
I didn't know that in a bail hearing for murder, the accused has to show evidence of innocence? Is that common or just Alabama?

 

[mike_s]

*********
I didn't know that in a bail hearing for murder, the accused has to show evidence of innocence? Is that common or just Alabama?

never heard of that quack reasoning before.....


You have to realize.... that's an Australian journalist with most likely no knowledge of individual state judicial system writing that story.

(just like 99% of us have know real knowledge of Australian judicial system.....)

 

[DandyDon]

Under Alabama law, a person accused by indictment of a capital offence must overcome the presumption of his guilt to be entitled to bail.

That has got to be poor journalism?! But it is an Aussy source writing about Alabama.

 

[Kern]

I didn't know that in a bail hearing for murder, the accused has to show evidence of innocence? Is that common or just Alabama?

It's as common as law.

G.R. No. L-439

 

[DandyDon]

It's as common as law.

G.R. No. L-439

Seems different to me. Sure if you can show evidence of innocence, cool, but it's not a requirement in a bail hearing to my knowledge. In fact, if you google bail evidence of innocence, this thread is #4 on the list...

If in the Herras Teehankee case (supra), the Supreme Court, losing patience for the errors, grave abuses and dillydallying of the People's Court, ordered directly the granting of bail to Mrs. Teehankee, the petitioner in the present case has a better claim to a similar relief, not only because the prosecution did not present any evidence to show petitioner's guilt, a situation identical to the one in Herras Teehankee, but petitioner volunteered evidence showing, without any contradiction, that he is innocent of the charges against him. In the Herras Teehankee case, there was only an absence of evidence of guilt; whereas in the present case, there is the presence of evidence of innocence.

 

[mike_s]

Here's the Alabama law on it.

Code of Alabama - Title 15: Criminal Procedure - Section 15-13-3 - Persons charged with capital offense


Section 15-13-3 - Persons charged with capital offense.

(a) A defendant cannot be admitted to bail when he is charged with an offense which may be punished by death if the court is of the opinion, on the evidence adduced, that he is guilty of the offense in the degree punishable capitally, nor when he is charged with a personal injury to another which is likely to produce death and which was committed under circumstances such as would, if death arises from such injury, constitute an offense which may be punished by death.

(b) In cases punishable capitally, the defendant is entitled to bail as a matter of right when the state, after the finding of the indictment, has continued the case twice, without his consent, for the testimony of absent witnesses.

In such case, if the indictment is dismissed, the defendant, on application for bail, is entitled to the benefit of any continuance had upon such indictment by the state for absent witnesses; and, if another indictment is not found at the same court at which the former is dismissed, the order of dismissal is to be taken as a continuance by the state for absent witnesses.
(Code 1852, §§683, 685, 686; Code 1867, §§4234, 4236, 4237; Code 1876, §§4842, 4844, 4845; Code 1886, §§4415, 4417, 4418; Code 1896, §§4357, 4359, 4360; Code 1907, §§6337, 6339, 6340; Code 1923, §§3370, 3372, 3373; Code 1940, T. 15, §§195, 197, 198; Acts 1949, No. 199, p. 230.)​

Now... with that stated above is required for crimes that can be punished by death penalty. But remember Alabama waived the death penalty to get him extradited. So... the above might not apply as a whole.


Also remember that the prosecution says this "conspiracy to commit murder" happened here in Alabama. Therefore by admission, their case is conspiracy and there is no solid evidence. It appears that in lack of solid evidence, the judge was compelled to not hold him.