Gabe Watson pleads guilty to diving wife death

[almitywife]

just hit the wire here......

David Watson pleads guilty to manslaughter | The Daily Telegraph (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25590564-5001028,00.html)

A MAN charged over the death of his new wife on a Barrier Reef diving holiday won't face a murder charge after the Brisbane Supreme Court accepted his plea of manslaughter.

The Courier-Mail reports that US national David Gabe Watson, 32, appeared in the Brisbane Supreme Court this morning charged of murdering his bride, Tina, 26, while diving on the Great Barrier Reef near Townsville in October 23, 2003.

Three weeks ago Mr Watson voluntarily travelled from the US and arrived at Brisbane's International Airport and immediately surrendered himself into police custody.

He appeared in court on the same day and was ordered to be held in custody.

Mr Watson's wife of 11 days died on their first dive of a 10-day scuba-diving expedition on the Great Barrier Reef, off Townsville, in October 2003.

Tina's death and the six-year fight for justice by her parents attracted worldwide media coverage for what was allegedly a brutal crime of passion, or a crime motivated by a modest life-insurance payout.

Mr Watson, a bubble-wrap salesman, has since remarried a woman who bears a striking similarity to his late wife Tina.

In mid-2008, coroner David Glasgow found that it was likely Mr Watson killed his 26-year-old wife by holding her under water and turning off her air supply.

Prosecutors late last year filed an indictment in the Townsville Supreme Court against Mr Watson over the death of his wife.

When Mr Watson returned to Brisbane, his US solicitor said he had returned so he could enter a formal not guilty plea.

Today he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and will not face trial for murder.

He will be sentenced immediately.

[vladimir]

This makes me think he did it, even more so than the incident with the flowers at the grave. ;)

[almitywife]

well up until now i will still giving this guy the benefit of a doubt over the death... i wrote him off as a a-hole a while back but i still wasnt 100% of the death though

im surprised... i really thought this was going to fizzle out to a hung jury

[carriemak]

Hopefully Tina's family can rest a little easier.

[vladimir]

well up until now i will still giving this guy the benefit of a doubt over the death... i wrote him off as a a-hole a while back but i still wasnt 100% of the death though

im surprised... i really thought this was going to fizzle out to a hung juryI was surprised anybody thought he was innocent. That long thread we had gave me new insight into the OJ verdict.

[almitywife]

i didnt think he was 100% innocent but i was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. alot of people convicted him just on the bases of how he should have reacted underwater and i wasnt prepared to do that

[mts0628]

The bastard got off easy no matter how you cut it: Manslaughter instead of murder? Come on!?

[deco_martini]

With the few details I saw, this guy looked like Jacques Cousteau meets OJ Simpson. No big surprise.


Drowning is such a terrible way to die though, manslaughter? Sheesh.

[msg]

At least there will be some justice. Unfortunately, his first wife's parents have lost their daughter forever and he will be alive and well. Even though he will be in prison for awhile. Maybe someone in the prison can give him swirly so he can see what his wife went through.

[almitywife]

At least there will be some justice. .....

some but not much...

Watson pleads guilty to honeymoon killing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/05/2590201.htm)
Prosecutor Brendan Campbell accepted the plea.

Watson is being sentenced immediately, with Justice Peter Lyons now hearing sentencing submissions.

Mr Campbell has asked for a five-year jail term for Watson, with the possibility of parole after 18 months.

[driftwood]

Manslaughter might have been all that the prosecutors could prove. If that is the case, then give him the max for manslaughter.

[shawrg]

I hope the judge keeps him in dry dock for the rest of his life.

[msg]

The max for manslaughter still isn't enough for that SOB did. He may not get what he deserves through the judicial system, but prison does have a way of dealing back the bad kharma.

[bsee65]

Parole after 18 months sounds like an awfully short sentence. Hopefully there won't be any parole in this case. Of course, what do the rest of us know about the working of the Australian justice system. In the US, he will probably face a wrongful death suit that will take every penny he has. The manslaughter plea will be used to show that he was, in fact, responsible for her death and the family should win that one easily.

For anyone who thinks the gravesite activity proves anything, I say you're dead wrong. An easy explanation there is that there was animosity between Watson and the victim's family such that he didn't want any of their tributes on her grave. There's nothing in that activity that shows he had anything to do with her death. You can hate him for it, but not convict him.

I'd rather see him spend five years in an Australian jail and come out with no money and no property than see him walk, but this still doesn't quite feel like justice. If this were an episode of Law & Order, we'd walk away from it feeling like he worked the system and got away with it.

[mts0628]

some but not much...

Watson pleads guilty to honeymoon killing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/05/2590201.htm)
Prosecutor Brendan Campbell accepted the plea.

Watson is being sentenced immediately, with Justice Peter Lyons now hearing sentencing submissions.

Mr Campbell has asked for a five-year jail term for Watson, with the possibility of parole after 18 months.

You've got to be Shxxting me Pyle? After nearly six years, denial, and lies, the potential for parole in 18 months? Again, Come on?!

I wonder in this case if something could be done to ensure he never scuba dives again since he admitted doing wrong while active in the sport? Maybe his certifying agency/agencies would revoke his certifications or something more crafty? This would not be too much of a punishment for someone who got away with essentially murder but I dunno...

[vladimir]

Parole after 18 months sounds like an awfully short sentence.Like any plea agreement, it is a pragmatic decision by the prosecutor and the defense in light of the evidence and likelihood of a conviction.

In the US, he will probably face a wrongful death suit that will take every penny he has. The manslaughter plea will be used to show that he was, in fact, responsible for her death and the family should win that one easily.I would guess that he is essentially broke. If I recall correctly, there is good reason to believe the crime was committed for a shockingly small life insurance policy. In the meantime, he's been paying lawyers with whatever money he had.

For anyone who thinks the gravesite activity proves anything, I say you're dead wrong.My reference to the flower incident was sarcasm. I thought it was funny how many people fixated on it when there was so much direct evidence of his guilt.

[fisheyeview]

Hell, after he gets out he can move to Florida. They call this the debtor state because it is so hard to get money out after a judgement. You can't garnish someones wages unless they agree to it. (This does not count for child support, so no dead beat dads need try this.)

[bowlofpetunias]

Interesting... first of all Justice means different things to different people. What I think of as justice and what you do may/will likely be different.

I personally don't think there is any such thing as JUSTICE for TINA... nothing can give her back what was taken from her.. nothing can erase whatever she went through in her last moments!

Now lets talk about punishment. Once again our ideas of that will be different as well. Making him face what he did :dontknow: dropping him into that site and cutting off his air long enough to give him a taste of what Tina went through :dontknow: I am not prepared to let anybody's actions no matter how low cause me to get down as low as them.:no: I would like to see him reminded somehow every day of his sentence (including any Parole time) of what Tina went through.

Justice for Tina's loved ones? As was mentioned this opens it up for a Civil Action in the States. Nothing can bring back Tina but maybe they can get some form of justice by taking the joy out of his life like he has done to them. Tina payed with her life for trusting him. Tina can not be payed back. Tina's family trusted him and lost something precious to them... I think it is now time for them to collect what he holds precious.

The problem here is in the end no one wins... Tina will always be gone, Tina's family will always miss her, Gabe's family has suffered because of his action and Gabe has probably not suffered enough for what happened :dontknow:

The danger is that hate and anger can eat you from the inside. I hope that those involved can resolve those issues without destroying their own mental, physical and emotional health.

[H2Andy]

Like any plea agreement, it is a pragmatic decision by the prosecutor and the defense in light of the evidence and likelihood of a conviction.



this would be a hard case to try. there are no eyewitnesses, and the evidence is not overwhelming

it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury that there just isn't enough evidence to convict on murder, and the likelihood of the way walking is very real

[mike_s]

j

Three weeks ago Mr Watson voluntarily travelled from the US and arrived at Brisbane's International Airport and immediately surrendered himself into police custody


I'm surprised he went back on his own. It didn't like they were going to have an easy extradition with him.

I wonder what made him change his mind on going back....and also made him change his mind and cop a plea?




Mr Watson, a bubble-wrap salesman, has since remarried a woman who bears a striking similarity to his late wife Tina.

.


I saw in media reports he had a new girlfriend who looked like him..... but I didn't know he remarried..... can't figure out why some woman would marry a man caught up in something like this.... especially with all that is on the news about it.

but heck, some girl was stupid enough to get engaged to Drew Peterson after his last two wives were killed by they think him...






Mr Campbell has asked for a five-year jail term for Watson, with the possibility of parole after 18 months.[/I] [/COLOR]


I'm guessing that about any jury could have found him guilty if he went to trial and he could have gotten "life".

does Australia have a death penalty?

[almitywife]

I.....does Australia have a death penalty?

:rofl3:


ummm... that would be a no

but im sure the authorties will feel really really bad about having to put him in jail - we def are a kitty whipped society down here these days

[thanksforallthefish]

:rofl3:


ummm... that would be a no

but im sure the authorties will feel really really bad about having to put him in gaol - we def are a kitty whipped society down here these days


sorry AW :shakehead:

[JB]

Just maybe, maybe, maybe, he is innocent, but has as much faith in the law as I have. In a foreign country which has already found him guilty of murder in the press, informal media, and in the coronial report, he probably doesn't fancy his chances in a trial. The safest way out may be what he is doing. Eighteen months vs 20 years sounds like a no brainer to me. Recently an australian was arrested in Bali and to expedite her release and return home she, likewise, pleaded guilty on the assurance there would be no jail time. I think when you are facing the crap-shoot of a trial, you play the odds and take the risk you are comfortable with. Manslaughter just means he failed to rescue her, not that he actively mudered her with intent eg. pedestrian runs in front of your car you're guilty of manslaughter. The case can't be that good if the prosecutor accepted the plea, he also took the best odds from his point of view. If he was confident of a murder conviction he would have insisted on a trial. There is no absolute truth it's just relative to where you are!

[bowlofpetunias]

Just maybe, maybe, maybe, he is innocent, but has as much faith in the law as I have. In a foreign country which has already found him guilty of murder in the press, informal media, and in the coronial report, he probably doesn't fancy his chances in a trial. The safest way out may be what he is doing. Eighteen months vs 20 years sounds like a no brainer to me. Recently an australian was arrested in Bali and to expedite her release and return home she, likewise, pleaded guilty on the assurance there would be no jail time. I think when you are facing the crap-shoot of a trial, you play the odds and take the risk you are comfortable with. Manslaughter just means he failed to rescue her, not that he actively mudered her with intent eg. pedestrian runs in front of your car you're guilty of manslaughter. The case can't be that good if the prosecutor accepted the plea, he also took the best odds from his point of view. If he was confident of a murder conviction he would have insisted on a trial. There is no absolute truth it's just relative to where you are!

I guess the problem is the speculation will go on about his reasons for his guilty plea just like they will about his guilt....

If he pleaded guilty that by definition means he is guilty. Motives and speculation aside... Gabe Watson pleaded Guilty to Manslaughter the court accepted that plea so he is GUILTY of MANSLAUGHTER

[vladimir]

Recently an australian was arrested in Bali and to expedite her release and return home she, likewise, pleaded guilty on the assurance there would be no jail time. I think when you are facing the crap-shoot of a trial, you play the odds and take the risk you are comfortable with. Were you on that OJ panel?:D

Just kidding.

I would not equate the Indonesian judicial system with Australia's. Is there reason to believe a fair trial is less likely in Australia than in the United States?

[Missdirected]

The bastard got off easy no matter how you cut it: Manslaughter instead of murder? Come on!?

Ah but they really didn't have enough to prove it... So he gets something and all the media mongers are happy. And since we will never know or hear all the evidence that would have been presented we will never truly know if he is guilty or not. Simply because he pleaded guilty doesn't mean he is in truth... In law - yes but not in truth. We will always wonder. How many others have pleaded guilty because the deck, no matter how wrong, was stacked against them? Lots.

[JB]

There is no question that the best place in the world to be tried is Oz, even if you are found guilty the penalty is minimal, and the gaol conditions better than most. That is guilty of a crime of passion like murder, heaven help you if you steal, then they throw away the keys!!!:D

I think whenever a case has been in the media for so long, and discussed and, just look at this board, everybody thinks "he dun it", it would be difficult to get an impartial jury. The statements have been published and dissected at great length.

I guess to me the world is shades of grey, and not black and white, and this is what makes things difficult.

[bowlofpetunias]

Were you on that OJ panel?:D

Just kidding.

I would not equate the Indonesian judicial system with Australia's. Is there reason to believe a fair trial is less likely in Australia than in the United States?

IMHO None what so ever... If I believe otherwise I need to get out of the country:no:

Ah but they really didn't have enough to prove it... So he gets something and all the media mongers are happy. And since we will never know or hear all the evidence that would have been presented we will never truly know if he is guilty or not. Simply because he pleaded guilty doesn't mean he is in truth... In law - yes but not in truth. We will always wonder. How many others have pleaded guilty because the deck, no matter how wrong, was stacked against them? Lots.

Ah but I don't think we have to evidence to come to that conclusion either:shakehead: you are right we will always wonder and even if there had been a trial unless everyone saw all the evidence (unlikely) they couldn't come to conclusions anyway. Even with a trial people would interpret that evidence according to their own bias so... that is why we have a jury/judge decide.

In the end all that remains is the fact that if someone has been deemed guilty by the court system until or unless that decision is reversed they ARE GUILTY of the OFFENSE listed... nothing more nothing less:popcorn:

[djanni]

I've followed this story a bit because he actually lives in my neighborhood. I don't know him, not the same street, don't know the house he lives in, nor have I ever meet anyone who does.

It would be interesting to learn how manslaughter was arrived at. If he did the dasterdly deed he should be hanged by the neck until dead.

Would seem the courts lacked a preponderance of evidence/proof. For him to plead guilty to manslaughter, just to end the saga, doesn't sit right with me.

Bet we never know the truth. Hope I never run into the guy.

[Doc Intrepid]

"I wonder what made him change his mind on going back....and also made him change his mind and cop a plea?"Possibly he felt guilty...?

[bowlofpetunias]

I've followed this story a bit because he actually lives in my neighborhood. I don't know him, not the same street, don't know the house he lives in, nor have I ever meet anyone who does.

It would be interesting to learn how manslaughter was arrived at. If he did the dasterdly deed he should be hanged by the neck until dead.

Would seem the courts lacked a preponderance of evidence/proof. For him to plead guilty to manslaughter, just to end the saga, doesn't sit right with me.

Bet we never know the truth. Hope I never run into the guy.

In Australia there is no Death Penalty

I don't think we can come to conclusions about why he or the court decided on the guilty plea for Manslaughter.

I personally prefer to believe that my country's legal system would not spend so much of my tax money investigating and then trying to bring this man to trial unless they had a strong enough case to have a decent chance at conviction for what he was charged with!

[ItsBruce]

I'm not going to say a word because I can't figure out a good reason to say anything that I'm otherwise inclined to say.

[H2Andy]

not fair!

now you must speak

[ItsBruce]

... How many others have pleaded guilty because the deck, no matter how wrong, was stacked against them? Lots.

Even though I said I wasn't going to say a word, see innocenceproject.org

[Dadvocate]

If he pleaded guilty that by definition means he is guilty. Motives and speculation aside... Gabe Watson pleaded Guilty to Manslaughter the court accepted that plea so he is GUILTY of MANSLAUGHTER

This is a semantics quandary, I would say. I wouldn’t really agree that this is a statement of outright truth, hardly proof of anything other than the distinction that a particular legal system places on such labels. What this conviction means in “reality” using any number of other criteria for any number of people is completely unclear, not the least of whom are Tina’s parents no doubt.

If the press is a mitigating factor in Gabe’s decision to plead out and he is innocent or if he actually did murder Tina and knew this was a far better deal than the risk of a conviction, then he isn’t guilty of manslaughter, he is either innocent entirely and took a lesser sentence because he was scared or he actually is guilty of murder and got off easy with this slap on the wrist. And frankly there could even be some in between ground that doesn’t fall into these neat legal distinctions of guilty or innocent. I suppose one could argue that manslaughter is one of these distinctions.

The only thing we can say for sure is he is “convicted” of manslaughter, an entirely different “reality” if you will, one bent on honoring the process of law more than anything else. People can assume whatever labels they like where Gabe is concerned, just as many of us were doing before this closure of a kind came along. I doubt we’ll ever know much more than that, though I wish we could for a lot of reasons, again Tina’s parents come to mind.

Just out of curiosity. Does Australia have legal limitations on people making money off of a wrongful death case related to a conviction for manslaughter or murder? In other words, if Gabe writes one of those tell all books later on knowing he is projected under double jeopardy laws, will he be allowed to profit from it in Australia after he is out of prison?

This case seems to end just like it started, with a lot of unanswered questions and I am sure miserable people reeling from the ambiguity and the lack of any real and final answers.

And my thoughts go to Tina’s parents one more time.

Cheers!

[bowlofpetunias]

<biting tongue>

[thanksforallthefish]

This is a semantics quandary, I would say. I wouldnÃÕ really agree that this is a statement of outright truth, hardly proof of anything other than the distinction that a particular legal system places on such labels. What this conviction means in ÅÓeality using any number of other criteria for any number of people is completely unclear, not the least of whom are TinaÃÔ parents no doubt.

If the press is a mitigating factor in GabeÃÔ decision to plead out and he is innocent or if he actually did murder Tina and knew this was a far better deal than the risk of a conviction, then he isnÃÕ guilty of manslaughter, he is either innocent entirely and took a lesser sentence because he was scared or he actually is guilty of murder and got off easy with this slap on the wrist. And frankly there could even be some in between ground that doesnÃÕ fall into these neat legal distinctions of guilty or innocent. I suppose one could argue that manslaughter is one of these distinctions.

The only thing we can say for sure is he is ÅÄonvicted of manslaughter, an entirely different ÅÓeality if you will, one bent on honoring the process of law more than anything else. People can assume whatever labels they like where Gabe is concerned, just as many of us were doing before this closure of a kind came along. I doubt weÃÍl ever know much more than that, though I wish we could for a lot of reasons, again TinaÃÔ parents come to mind.

Just out of curiosity. Does Australia have legal limitations on people making money off of a wrongful death case related to a conviction for manslaughter or murder? In other words, if Gabe writes one of those tell all books later on knowing he is projected under double jeopardy laws, will he be allowed to profit from it in Australia after he is out of prison?

This case seems to end just like it started, with a lot of unanswered questions and I am sure miserable people reeling from the ambiguity and the lack of any real and final answers.

And my thoughts go to TinaÃÔ parents one more time.

Cheers!


Short answer is ... you cannot profit from any crime you have committed.

Apparently he has been sentenced to 4.5 years.

[bsee65]

My speculation would be that he went to Australia thinking they didn't have enough to convict him. All the talk was of him going there to plead innocent and clear his name. Once there and in custody, maybe he was confronted with some additional evidence or other factors that led him and his solicitor to believe his chances weren't as good as he thought. At that point, some kind of deal would have been his best bet. This could have been the case whether he were guilty or not.

[Dadvocate]

Bowl of...

Now, now... No need to do that. Disagreements are healthy afterall. And biting your tongue can lead to serious injury, don't you know?

ItBruce

I’d heard about this organization but hadn’t gotten the time to read through it until about now. Thanks for reminding me just before the summer holiday.

Cheers!

[Dadvocate]

Thanks for all...

Thanks for the answer.

So, this means that after he is out of jail, he still cannot profit from Tina’s death. How is this guaranteed? Are there loopholes to this, such as claiming he is innocent of this crime and stating his case in whatever way he wants while also capitalizing on the hoopla surrounding this tragedy? How does one assert “profit” in a case like this? I ask because there seems to be a lot of wiggle room given the lack of certainty in the outcome, enough for Gabe to try at least to put “an innocent man’s” spin on this situation in retrospect. Granted, he would probably need a ghost writer to complete the project. Feasible?

Cheers!

[K_girl]

Interesting thought bsee65. Your hypothesis follows the events.

The question now is - is it going to be voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter? And is there a distinction between the two as there is in the U.S.? If so, it would seem that voluntary manslaughter would make more sense as it is something that is committed in the heat of passion:

"Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances or state of mind. The common example is killing which occurred in passion, or heat of the moment killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding his or her spouse in the arms of another lover."

Source: Manslaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter)

However, there was plenty to indicate that it was pre-meditated long before the dive. But, when deals are struck, the facts of the case - don't matter. This was going to be a big, expensive case for Australia. The motive for the government offering the plea was more than likely, to save the taxpayers of Australia a huge amount of money to try an American-on-American crime that happened to take place in their country.

[K_girl]

News Report:

Senior prosecutor Brendan Campbell asked that Watson be sentenced to five years jail, to serve 18 months. Watson's defence team has asked for a jail term of four years, to serve 16 months.

He said Watson’s actions represented a gross breach of duty in his role as Tina’s dive buddy and as a certified rescue diver.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/05/2590201.htm

Anyone here thinks this is crazy? So now, if you have a rescue certification and you panic, or you are low on air or have any other reason you can't help someone - you are now liable? Isn't this a dangerous precedent the prosecution is setting? I understand that deals are made by lessening the offense - but to say this was a breach of duty as a rescue diver? This should have been voluntary manslaughter at a minimum - and what they are saying sounds like a description of an even lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. If they wanted to make a deal, it should have been - he killed her in the heat of passion, at a higher charge of voluntary manslaughter.

The prosecution is not giving Tina the justice she deserved. I want to know more about the prosecution's reasoning behind this and I want to know if they consulted with Tina's family before making this deal. I want to know how the family feels about the deal.

Was the prosecution trying to save time, resources and money? Or, did they not have the evidence? If they didn't have the evidence - why would Watson agree to spend even 16-18 months in jail? I'm sorry - but I think its about the money, as well as avoiding bad publicity for scuba diving - a major industry in that area. Let's face it, this trial is not good for scuba.

I don't think we will ever know the real story behind this deal. I think it stinks.

[almitywife]

Gabe Watson guilty of manslaughter for wife&squo;s dive death | The Courier-Mail (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,27574,25590552-3102,00.html)

MAN charged with the murder of his new wife on a Barrier Reef diving holiday has been jailed for four and a half years after pleading guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter

of course he will be out sooner with parole

[JB]

He will only spend 12 months in jail. The four and a half year sentence, is suspended after 12 months.
David Watson jailed after killing wife | National Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25591809-29277,00.html?from=public_rss)

[Dadvocate]

Bsee

My speculation would be that he went to Australia thinking they didn't have enough to convict him. All the talk was of him going there to plead innocent and clear his name. Once there and in custody, maybe he was confronted with some additional evidence or other factors that led him and his solicitor to believe his chances weren't as good as he thought. At that point, some kind of deal would have been his best bet. This could have been the case whether he were guilty or not.

K-Girl

Interesting thought bsee65. Your hypothesis follows the events.

Agreed, this could be how it played out. It could also be that this deal was struck before Gabe ever got on that airplane in the US. Knowing you have a 5 year stint versus facing the unknown could be a big motivator, I imagine. It is possible that the prosecution could have made this deal ahead of time and then feigned deniability in the press because they did not want to have to face the general public who might have found the deal distasteful.

It is entirely possible that both parties looked at the financial realities in this case, Gabe for the extradition costs and the prosecution for the same and then the trial to follow. It all fits together quite nicely, so much so that it might well have been scripted beforehand.

Cheers!

[burna]

Short answer is ... you cannot profit from any crime you have committed.





So, this means that after he is out of jail, he still cannot profit from TinaÃÔ death. How is this guaranteed? Are there loopholes to this, ...

Cheers!

Would the Australian law preventing him from profiting from his crime be enforceable if he moved back to the U.S?

I feel sorry for Tina's family. After fighting for so long they must feel very let down with what amounts to not much more than a slap on the wrist.

[ljdiver]

sorry if this was already mentioned (I did a quick look through the thread and didn't see it) but BBC has a little more info:

"Prosecutor Brendan Campbell accepted the plea on the basis that Mr Watson had failed in his duty as her dive buddy by failing to give her emergency oxygen when she needed it.

Mr Watson allowed Tina to sink to the ocean floor without making any serious attempt to rescue her and also failed to inflate her buoyancy vest or remove weights from her belt to allow her to surface, Mr Campbell said. "

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Scuba man jailed for wife's death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8084405.stm)

[CameraFish]

Hey All,

This is my first post to the forums... I actually signed up so that I could jump into this discussion. I'm an Aussie DM and have dived the Yongala a few times, so I've followed this one with interest.

The Townsville Bulletin have a link on their website to the Police interview transcripts and they make very interesting reading. Unfortunately, this forum wont allow me to post the direct link URL until I've made 5 posts, but if you google "Townsville Bulletin Gabe Watson" you should find it.

The difference between murder and manslaughter as I understand it is that murder is a pre-meditated killing. By pleading guilty to manslaughter he is accepting responsibility for her death. If you read the transcripts you will quickly become aware that this guy was totally incompetent as a diver despite his rescue certification. The transcript reveals a worrying ignorance of diving fundamentals. His failing in leaving her for dead (or possibly having panicked, struggled with her and then leaving her for dead as seems likely to me) makes him responsible not only as a certified rescue diver but as a human being.

One can only hope that it is his own recognition of these realities that led him to enter the guilty plea.

[almitywife]

Thanks CameraFish!... dont be a stranger here on :sblogo:

transcript links: Gabe Watson's police interview (http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2008/01/23/10038_hpnews.html)

[Dadvocate]

Welcome to SB, Camera Fish!

I'll be in your neck of the woods very soon! I can't wait!

K-Girl

Anyone here thinks this is crazy? So now, if you have a rescue certification and you panic, or you are low on air or have any other reason you can't help someone - you are now liable? Isn't this a dangerous precedent the prosecution is setting?

This is a very good point. If you can argue that you felt a diver in duress exhibited behavior that you deemed made a rescue unsafe, thus under PADI stipulations not a good rescue situation to engage in, can it now be said that others after the fact can second guess that decision and hold you liable?

I wouldn’t like that all too much if that ended up being the case.

Cheers!

[bsee65]

News Report:

Senior prosecutor Brendan Campbell asked that Watson be sentenced to five years jail, to serve 18 months. Watson's defence team has asked for a jail term of four years, to serve 16 months.

He said WatsonÃÔ actions represented a gross breach of duty in his role as TinaÃÔ dive buddy and as a certified rescue diver.

Source: Watson pleads guilty to honeymoon death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/05/2590201.htm)

The thing that really sucks about this is that it basically says that Watson didn't kill his wife. That quote says it was an accident, but Watson could have, and should have, acted to save his wife's life. He's guilty of failing to assist her, not of causing her death.

Now, if that's what really happened, that he panicked and let her die, then he's taking a hard hit for it. I think the majority here don't believe that and will feel it to be unjust. I know that this explanation makes the verdict and sentence even less satisfying to me as a person who believes he planned and was directly responsible for her death.

[scubafanatic]

.....two observations:

WOW, this guy's actually married AGAIN ??? !!! ...I really hate to say this, but WHEN ( notice I'm not saying 'if' ) something bad happens to this latest wife, I will find it hard to feel sorry for anyone that terminally STUPID....but h*ll, she's gotta be brain-dead already !

...what's the ETA on this guy's 'book and movie' deal ?

[vladimir]

No books, no movies. Maybe a special by Nancy Grace if you can stomach an hour of that trash. The only place he is a celebrity is on the Scubaboard, so I doubt there's a market for his story. Maybe NetDoc will give him his own forum. ;)

[bowlofpetunias]

Bowl of...

Now, now... No need to do that. Disagreements are healthy afterall. And biting your tongue can lead to serious injury, don't you know?

ItBruce

IÃÅ heard about this organization but hadnÃÕ gotten the time to read through it until about now. Thanks for reminding me just before the summer holiday.

Cheers!

Davocate maybe your name should be Devils'Advocate... love playing that role don't you?:blinking:

I tried to respond to this a few hours ago but my internet dropped out when I tried to send. I said it much better the first time..

Check the time of the posts.... my response was to IB post not yours. My slightly twisted sense of humour gets me in trouble. I was trying to figure out a way to ask if my jointing an organization that is trying to correct the wrongs of the (apparently) grievously flawed (according to them) American Judicial System was relative to this thread.

As a dual Canadian/Australian citizen I am not sure they would welcome my help in changing the American Judicial System. Since I am strongly opposed to the Death Penalty and neither of MY countries use it.. maybe I could help with that? It is hard for people to keep launching appeals after that sentence is carried out but I fail to see how that relates to the Australian Judicial System as a whole or this case in particular:blinking:


My speculation would be that he went to Australia thinking they didn't have enough to convict him. All the talk was of him going there to plead innocent and clear his name. Once there and in custody, maybe he was confronted with some additional evidence or other factors that led him and his solicitor to believe his chances weren't as good as he thought. At that point, some kind of deal would have been his best bet. This could have been the case whether he were guilty or not.

OMG now that is a stretch... but hey.. why not a new conspiracy theory:shakehead: Not sure about your judicial system but :shocked2:

Hey All,

This is my first post to the forums... I actually signed up so that I could jump into this discussion. I'm an Aussie DM and have dived the Yongala a few times, so I've followed this one with interest.

The Townsville Bulletin have a link on their website to the Police interview transcripts and they make very interesting reading. Unfortunately, this forum wont allow me to post the direct link URL until I've made 5 posts, but if you google "Townsville Bulletin Gabe Watson" you should find it.

The difference between murder and manslaughter as I understand it is that murder is a pre-meditated killing. By pleading guilty to manslaughter he is accepting responsibility for her death. If you read the transcripts you will quickly become aware that this guy was totally incompetent as a diver despite his rescue certification. The transcript reveals a worrying ignorance of diving fundamentals. His failing in leaving her for dead (or possibly having panicked, struggled with her and then leaving her for dead as seems likely to me) makes him responsible not only as a certified rescue diver but as a human being.

One can only hope that it is his own recognition of these realities that led him to enter the guilty plea.

Welcome to ScubaBoard CameraFish it's a great forum

I've been "following this case for a long time now as well" After listening to the interviews and and reading the transcripts I am not convinced he can plan how to put his shoes and socks on without asisstance never mind plan such a complex crime. Then one of the best defenses is to convince everyone you are too stupid to do it :dontknow:

Dadvocate I stand by my earlier statement. The Australian Judicial System Legally determines guilt or innocence. Mr Watson pleaded Guilty to Manslaughter the Australian Court Accepted and registered that fact. People may speculate about the motives of the Legal System and Mr Watson but that doesn't alter the fact that Legally he is found Guilty of the Manslaughter Death of Tina Watson.

I personally don't believe the Australian System would have charged him and worked to get him to trial if they didn't think they had enough evidence to convict!

[Geoff_H]

Anyone here thinks this is crazy? So now, if you have a rescue certification and you panic, or you are low on air or have any other reason you can't help someone - you are now liable? Isn't this a dangerous precedent the prosecution is setting?

That jumped out and smacked me in the face too. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Gabe Watson - it is clear this sets precedent that you can be held legally responsible for the welfare of your dive buddy, or potentially anyone else in the water given your "Rescue Diver" status.

This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.

[RJP]

This makes me think he did it...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vQXRSydH1Ug/SHSkQYZaZBI/AAAAAAAAAcI/b7s7F-vCB_Q/s400/20080709-MasterObvious.jpg

[almitywife]

.......This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.

no, it should make you wary of interferring with your dive buddys equipment, telling numerous different statements to the police and carrying on like a pork chop afterwards towards the victims family :D

[vladimir]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vQXRSydH1Ug/SHSkQYZaZBI/AAAAAAAAAcI/b7s7F-vCB_Q/s400/20080709-MasterObvious.jpgKeen eye for sarcasm. ;)

[CameraFish]

That jumped out and smacked me in the face too. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Gabe Watson - it is clear this sets precedent that you can be held legally responsible for the welfare of your dive buddy, or potentially anyone else in the water given your "Rescue Diver" status.

This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.

Thanks to everybody for the very warm welcome!

This is very true and it extends beyond the rescue diver status... mention was also made of his duty of care responsibilty as her dive buddy. We have to remember that we are all in this together and all share a responsibility for each other.

It has to be remembered however, that this judgement was made with regard to the actual circumstances of this case and while it may set some level of precedent with regard to our sport (as far as we know... perhaps an earlier precedent already exists) what this guy did was shameful. If you behave in a responsible manner within the limits of your abilities then you should have nothing to fear.

It is of course only my opinion, but I feel that we should in life be held accountable for our actions. This woman died in large part because of his actions or inabilty to act. Further to this he made a decision to plead guilty to the manslaughter thereby indicating that he accepted that he was directly responsible for her death. Perhaps this judgement allows him to make reparations with himself and settle his own guilt. I know if it were me I wouldnt be able to bear to living with myself.

I suppose I'm really just saying... let's keep this in context and not freak out about what this means to us from a legal standpoint... rather let's accept that we are all responsible for each other when we set out into the deep briney. If you had to live with the knowledge that you let a loved one die, the prison sentence would be the least of your worries.

[bowlofpetunias]

That jumped out and smacked me in the face too. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Gabe Watson - it is clear this sets precedent that you can be held legally responsible for the welfare of your dive buddy, or potentially anyone else in the water given your "Rescue Diver" status.

This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.

I think it is premature to jump to conclusions like that at this time. Jumping on a few words from what the Prosecutor said and not knowing when and where in the proceeding they occurred or the importance of them in determining the outcome is a bit dangerous.

I seem to remember from a past exchange where you referred to Australian dive boats as "cattle boats" that you already have a pretty poor view of diving in Australia.... or is my memory playing tricks on me here?

Could it be possible that this is just another way to justify a pre-existing opinion?

CameraFish I am delighted to be able to give you your first Thanks.... A voice of reason :clapping:

[Geoff_H]

no, it should make you wary of interferring with your dive buddys equipment, telling numerous different statements to the police and carrying on like a pork chop afterwards towards the victims family :D

No - none of that is relevant. The facts - as reported with statements from Prosecutor Brendan Campbell indicate he was convicted for failing in his duty as a dive buddy. That is very alarming to me. People react differently under stressful situations and buddys fail others all the time. Some of these incidents lead to death and disability - buddy seperation is frequently a contributing factor to many scuba incidents.

I wouldn't want my insta-buddy wandering off, hurting himself and then for me to get prosecuted in a court and jhailed because I failed him. Remember there are often few witnesses underwater and the facts could be as stark as "You lost your buddy, nobody saw anything and your buddy is dead".

I seem to remember from a past exchange where you referred to Australian dive boats as "cattle boats" that you already have a pretty poor view of diving in Australia.... or is my memory playing tricks on me here?

Could it be possible that this is just another way to justify a pre-existing opinion?

Not in the slightest. I've never been to Australia, and don't have any pre-formed opinions about the diving. I've heard the GBR is great, would love to visit and plan to do so in the next couple of years.

It is of course only my opinion, but I feel that we should in life be held accountable for our actions.

I wonder how many of us really know how we would react in a crisis? My feeling is that very few of us do. It is easy to criticise, but fear, panic and self-preservation are extremely powerful instincts - especially underwater. I would like to think I would react well to a situation like this - but I am not sure - and I am absolutely convinced I would not have reacted well when I had fewer dives under my weightbelt.

I wonder if criminal liability is something we should all think about with this precedent.

[vtxkev]

I havent really followed this story until recently as I wasnt even thinking about scuba back when this happened (don't know what I was thinking), but anyway 4-1/2 years with possibility of parole after 12 months (if I understand it correctly) sounds like a crock of you know what to me. You get more time in jail for selling drugs. Guess Aus is no different then the good ol USA!

[bowlofpetunias]

Not in the slightest. I've never been to Australia, and don't have any pre-formed opinions about the diving. I've heard the GBR is great, would love to visit and plan to do so in the next couple of years.



My apologies the exchange I remember must have been with someone else that used that term. I am glad I asked as I would not want my interpretation of your posts colored by a misunderstanding.

I still think people are jumping to conclusions based on a few words reported in the press.

Gabe at the least influenced Tina's decision to get certified, do a dive that was challenging for her, promised her and her parents he would take care of her based on his qualifications. That is a lot different from an instabuddy on a dive trip!

[Tricia]

Dadvocate wrote:

"Granted, he would probably need a ghost writer to complete the project. Feasible?"

Dadvocate - just thinking of those interviews he gave, you've got me ROFL!! :rofl3:

Trish

[james croft]

Gabe Watson is one reason you should carry a real knife, not EMT shears or a broken steak knife.

[AquaExplorer]

News Report:

Senior prosecutor Brendan Campbell asked that Watson be sentenced to five years jail, to serve 18 months. Watson's defence team has asked for a jail term of four years, to serve 16 months.

He said WatsonÃÔ actions represented a gross breach of duty in his role as TinaÃÔ dive buddy and as a certified rescue diver.

Source: Watson pleads guilty to honeymoon death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/05/2590201.htm)

Anyone here thinks this is crazy? So now, if you have a rescue certification and you panic, or you are low on air or have any other reason you can't help someone - you are now liable? Isn't this a dangerous precedent the prosecution is setting? I understand that deals are made by lessening the offense - but to say this was a breach of duty as a rescue diver? This should have been voluntary manslaughter at a minimum - and what they are saying sounds like a description of an even lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. If they wanted to make a deal, it should have been - he killed her in the heat of passion, at a higher charge of voluntary manslaughter.

The prosecution is not giving Tina the justice she deserved. I want to know more about the prosecution's reasoning behind this and I want to know if they consulted with Tina's family before making this deal. I want to know how the family feels about the deal.

Was the prosecution trying to save time, resources and money? Or, did they not have the evidence? If they didn't have the evidence - why would Watson agree to spend even 16-18 months in jail? I'm sorry - but I think its about the money, as well as avoiding bad publicity for scuba diving - a major industry in that area. Let's face it, this trial is not good for scuba.

I don't think we will ever know the real story behind this deal. I think it stinks.

THAT was what I was waiting for people to see.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter based on NEGLIGENCE.

So we now have precedence, at least in Australia, that a DM/Rescue Diver CAN be prosecuted for failure to render aid.

Scary stuff.....

[Geoff_H]

THAT was what I was waiting for people to see.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter based on NEGLIGENCE.

So we now have precedence, at least in Australia, that a DM/Rescue Diver CAN be prosecuted for failure to render aid.

Scary stuff.....

I agree. It is a stunning precedent, and one that does not sit particularly comfortably with me.

[Grover48]

Since he has admitted guilt, does this open him to a civil suit for damages from her parents ala OJ?

[Missdirected]

Even though I said I wasn't going to say a word, see innocenceproject.org

Will check out later running late for an appointment right now. Is this the project where they are getting people off that were judged guilty but weren't???

[ScubaSteve]

This is just enough to make a person sick to their stomach. The fact that a person could do what has been done, and to possibly get out in 18 months? I know people that have had longer employment parole periods. Just crazy. I would love to hear that some punishment has been dealt DAILY by the inmates.....

[ScubaSteve]

Will check out later running late for an appointment right now. Is this the project where they are getting people off that were judged guilty but weren't???



http://www.innocenceproject.org/img/IPMission.gif

[mike_s]

Short answer is ... you cannot profit from any crime you have committed.

Apparently he has been sentenced to 4.5 years.


CNN.com said 4.5 years...

this morning when I got to work in the lobby Fox news was on and it said 1 year?


Anyone else see this? wonder which is correct.

[K_girl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff_H
.......This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.


no, it should make you wary of interferring with your dive buddys equipment, telling numerous different statements to the police and carrying on like a pork chop afterwards towards the victims family :D

However, this is not what he pled guilty to - he pled guilty to not doing his duty as a rescue diver - and the court accepted that plea and that explanation. That is the dangerous precedent we are talking about. Almitywife - you are right in what you said that was the prosecution's original case, however, it has been thrown completely out the window, and now all rescue divers are on the hook because of it. Gabe Watson has received a slap on the wrist and Tina's parents have received a slap on the face for their six years of diligence with the Australian authorities trying to get justice for Tina.

I'm with Geoff_H, I'm a rescue diver and this makes me wary of any diving in Australia. I always intended to go dive in Australia, but now I have scratched that destination off the list. So, if the one of the reasons the prosecution offered this plea is because they are playing politics by trying to protect the scuba industry by avoiding the bad publicity - I would say they did not think this through. They could have actually caused more damage to the scuba industry with this horrible, horrible plea.

I can't help but think the prosecution did not thoroughly think through the precedent they are setting and repercussions of this plea. In just two weeks, they decided they didn't have a case worth going to trial for? I don't think so. The faster they settled, the less time, money and effort they have to spend.

[deepstops]

He will serve 342 days:

Queensland Supreme Court judge Peter Lyons then sentenced Watson to 4 1/2 years' jail, to be suspended after 12 months.

He will be free in less than a year, with the 23 days he has already spent in custody being taken into account.

[K_girl]

So, a close friend of mine believes that Gabe's plea was arranged ahead of time and that is why he flew back to Australia. Even though Watson's lawyer said the following:

"Gabe Watson's US lawyer Bob Austin said Watson, 31, felt he should not have been charged and wanted the case closed and his name cleared. 'He has gone to Australia to say 'I am here to answer the charges and I am not guilty of those charges',' Mr Austin said. 'He wants to get it over with,' he said. 'It has been going on for five years and it was either fight extradition or go voluntarily.'"

The prosecution says absolutely nothing about the circumstances of Watson's return. So my friend's theory still seems possible. It is actually more believable that he came back to get a good deal rather than wanting to plead not-guilty, face trial, clear his name, but still possibly end-up with a life sentence.

Tina's family was "shocked" at Gabe's sudden return:

"Tina Watson's family had publicly appealed for Watson to return to Australia and progress the stalled case. Her father in the US Tommy was stunned by the development. 'We had no idea that this was coming,' Mr Thomas told The Courier-Mail. 'It came as a total surprise,' he said. 'I am shocked but I am glad that he's there. I just hope that they don't let him leave again.'"

Source: Gabe Watson returns to face trial over wife&squo;s diving death | The Courier-Mail (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25472845-3102,00.html)

So if my friend's theory is true - this means that the prosecution did not consult with Tina's family before they made the deal. If that is the case - shame on them! However, if the circumstances are as what was reported, that Watson returned to plead not guilty and clear his name, then the prosecution gave up on this case before they even got started - in just two weeks since his return - and I say still, shame on them!

[K_girl]

So - is it possible that a large budget for this case would be the motive for the prosecution settling this case so fast? Well, here is food for thought, from story dated 6/22/08.

"IN an unexpected budget adjustment, the Queensland Government has announced it will boost the funding for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) by $21million over the next four years.. She said the extra funds would also better equip the ODPP to prosecute large, major cases, presumably a reference to, among others, the Dr Patel, Gordon Nuttall and Gabe Watson dive death actions.."

Source: Government delivers unexpected budget adjustment for office | Townsville Bulletin News (http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2008/07/22/14803_news.html)

So, they were ready to spend $21 million dollars on three cases, including Watson. That's a boat-load of money. But -- that was as of 6/22/08 - before the global economic collapse. So, in today's economic climate, could the Australian government really afford to go forward with their plans to expand the budget to prosecute these cases? That's why I think money was the primary reason this case was settled so quickly.

[Missdirected]

K, You may want to start a blog about this?

[InTheDrink]

K_Girl, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right: budgets are getting culled all over the place.

The finale of this case is even more stinky that the actual event. Manslaughter indeed. I really struggle to see where there was middle ground in this case. A rescue diver doesn't have professional status so I'm struggling to see where his certification level could be used against him, legally. So either he was incompetent but innocent or he was guilty of pre-meditated murder.

But incompetent and guilty? Does not add up one iota.

postscript: did I read somewhere that the prosecution, in the event on murder, were looking for 5 years? It does all smell of plea-bargaining. A plague on both your houses...

[james croft]

Plea bargains are done all the time and are a form of grease that keeps the criminal justice system wheels to keep turning. When a prosecutor agrees to allow a person to plea to a lesser charge it has to be okayed by the judge. A judge can decide that such a plea is not warranted under the circumstances and may insist upon the accused being tried on the existing original charge. A high profile case makes any decision to allow a plea agreement a bit dicey for the court. They don't want to be scrutinized and later criticized for allowing a criminal to get by on lesser punishment.

As a result the prosecutor has to decide if he needs to offer a plea agreement based on the strength of his evidence and the witnesses he has. This prosecutor evidently decided he had better go with a sure conviction for manslaughter than roll the dice if he tried the murder charge and possibly lose the case. I am sure he consulted with the victims family prior to making the decision. Once the decision was made and to satisfy the court that it should allow the plea bargain, a theory of negligence needed to be developed. Manslaughter is a death caused by another as a result of gross negligence. They came up with a theory of charging negligence by Watson as a rescuer diver only to cover the elements of manslaughter. This covers the court and allows the judge to OK the manslaughter conviction.

In reality this conviction was a conviction of a lesser offense than murder because a deal had been struck. I rather doubt any prosecutor would prosecute anyone for failure to save anyone.
This plea bargain was an expeditious way to convict him, have him say guilty for causing the death of his wife and that will be good ammo in the civil case that will follow. They just did this to cover the bases and shortstop any appeals, etc.

Unless you plan on killing someone and doing it as sloppy as Watson did I would not worry about any "precedent" being set to prosecute you.

And he will get his butt kicked or worse in jail. There are prisoners in there that think he is as big a lowlife as we do. I know I would kick his butt if I was in jail with him.

[InTheDrink]

JC,

Thanks for your post - it rings true and true.

J

[K_girl]

jc - Common sense tells us that under most circumstances, they are not going to actually prosecute every rescue diver in the vicinity of an accident. However, we know that the reason people are hesitant to become dive masters is because of the possibility of being sued. I have a friend who was a dive master and when a friend of his had a coronary and died while scuba diving. The wife came after the dive master for not getting her husband out of the water fast enough and wrongful death. Of course, she didn't win, but he had to get an attorney and put up an expensive fight and it shook him to the core. Now, you have a situation where a rescue diver is being held responsible based on the fact that he did not rescue. Unfortunately, common sense does not always prevail when it comes to setting any kind of precendent like this and it still bothers the holy heck out of me. Officially, Watson is only guilty of not performing his duties as a rescue diver - and that is on the record. He is not guilty of anything else but. And anyone can go back to outcome of that case and use it and that sets precedent. There is not going to be anything on the record like - oh yeah, what we really think happened was he killed her by turning off her air. They can't put that on the record when they make a deal.

[scubafanatic]

...I'm making a prediction here...I feel confident this loser will strike again and pull the same stunt (wife # whatever will have a mysterious scuba accident in Australia)...just wait and see...'loser' now knows the drill, what works to commit murder in Austalia and get away with it...the legal precedent is now set...he's a psycho and has clearly learned all the wrong lessions here...Australia has made a deal with the devil and will once again find itself 'making the news' for all the wrong reasons...just as Bonaire, for example, has earned a reputation for 'theft'...Australia will earn a reputation for 'scot-free' murders....god knows what other psychos / serial killers have been hearing the news and hatching their sick schemes/plots and now have the perfect method/location!

[james croft]

Anybody can sue you for anything. I have been deposed on cases I have investigated and was once involved in a lawsuit by a suspect who had his shoes seized and sent to the crime lab to compare with footprints left by him at a crime scene. He claimed he caught a cold from having to wear jail issued flip-flops as a result. He was looking to sue for $300,000.00. It was a frivilous lawsuit. I don't lose sleep over stuff like that. I just do my job as any reasonable person would do and live my life without being gun shy. If someone tries to cause me damge for a BS lawsuit I will countersue for defamation, etc.

I am not an expert on the law but am a police officer with 29 years of local, state and federal LE experience and have investigated many homicides, many of which are water related. I have investigated manslaughter cases caused by criminal and grossly negligent conduct. In the state where I am an officer, even in plea bargained cases where a defendant pleads guilty, it is routine for the prosecutor, US Attorney or Commonwealth's Attorney to put me on the stand and go over each detail of my investigations, from reading witness statement, confessions and introducing exhibits and evidence and making them part of the record. I summarize the evidence and am cross examined but the facts are not glossed over or not made part of the record.

The facts of this case will be what they are. He whacked his wife and plea bargained the case. It will provide little ammo against any dive professional or rescue diver that is Monday morning quarterbacked by a court or ambulance chasing attorney. Don't sweat it, this conviction won't hurt you in an incident where you act in good faith and do as you were trained.

[Doubler]

In today's modern scuba era, just like schools, in many cases you are passed to the next grade or in the diving world given a C-Card even when you don't meet the criteria. We have all seen AOW divers that really are not and we have all seen rescue divers that are not qualified. This is a perfect case of that. If you look at the picture in most news stories dealing with this accident, yes I said accident, you will notice that he is holding his console in his left hand checking his air or depth and in his right hand he is holding his octopus. Must of had it out for some reason. We have all read post on the board about rescues where the rescue diver forgot to remove the victims weight belt. The guy was an incompetent arrogant A%%, who panicked, let his poor wife drown and then lied about it all later to cover his butt. For the diving public the down side is the precedence that has been set because of this incident. I'm thinking if I go to Australia I am leaving my Rescue and DM cards at home.

[K_girl]

K, You may want to start a blog about this?

Actually, I was putting together a blog about the case. Several people on this board had challenged me to be more balanced and not "bogart" a thread trying to keep a fast read on the issues case. A blog was really the best way to answer those challenges and still keep a clean read.

Gabe Watson Murder Case (http://watson-case.livejournal.com/)

So, does anyone out there think I should continue to put this together anyway? The only purpose I could think of to do that would be to honor Tina and preserve the memory of what happened to her. However, it will be incomplete without a trial. The story will never be told in a court of law. The facts will never be proven in a court of law.

It boils down to this for me. If Gabe Watson is only guilty of not using his rescue skills to rescue Tina - he should not spend one minute in jail, because any diver, even the most experienced divers can make mistakes and panic. If Gabe Watson is really guilty of killing his wife - this deal is an absolute travesty. So, from my perspective, no matter how you look at it - what happened is wrong, just plain wrong.

[Geoff_H]

This is a perfect case of that. If you look at the picture in most news stories dealing with this accident, yes I said accident, you will notice that he is holding his console in his left hand checking his air or depth and in his right hand he is holding his octopus. Must of had it out for some reason.

No offense, but this is a perfect example of somone starting from a false assumption and then drawing completely wrong conclusions.

That photo that you refer to does not depict Gabe Watson. The subject is another diver on the same dive, the rescuer is a divemaster and the person on the floor is Tina. None of them are Gabe, so your assertions about why "Gabe" was checking his depth are just completely and utterly wrong.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45769000/jpg/_45769634_3a329f71-b32a-48ea-9498-cfc4aeedb5c8.jpg

For the diving public the down side is the precedence that has been set because of this incident. I'm thinking if I go to Australia I am leaving my Rescue and DM cards at home.

If you are involved in any incident, I can't see how leaving your C-cards at home is going to help you. It is trivial for the prosecution to query the scuba agencies to determine what courses you took. I am sure your defense lawyer would want to know about it too, and you would have to be an idiot to lie about your cert level in court.

[Geoff_H]

It boils down to this for me. If Gabe Watson is only guilty of not using his rescue skills to rescue Tina - he should not spend one minute in jail, because any diver, even the most experienced divers can make mistakes and panic. If Gabe Watson is really guilty of killing his wife - this deal is an absolute travesty. So, from my perspective, no matter how you look at it - what happened is wrong, just plain wrong.

I agree.

[DEEPLOU]

It may already be mentioned (didn't read all 9 pages) but he is getting all of one year according to what I just saw on AOL.

[catherine96821]

I would not have been confident enough of his guilt to convict him.

Saying he probably did it and taking the chance you convict someone innocent are different

I thought the guy on the charter that was interviewed on TV sounded ridiculous

[fisheyeview]

Yep. 1 friggin year. :shakehead:

[Cave Diver]

This is on Dateline NBC right now.

[catherine96821]

tanks

i want to see

this is why i like to solo

[Missdirected]

This is on Dateline NBC right now.

Just watched the last half hour or so... They seem to have really glossed over a couple of things that I at least would have like to have known... Ah well. It is a news/entertainment show :rolleyes:

[Missdirected]

this is why i like to solo


You're worried JB is going to off you :huh: j/k :)

[Valwood1]

The prosecution's statements regarding a duty to one's buddy, and the apparent special duty owed if one is a rescue diver, set just a terrible, terrible precedent, and are a perfect example of (1) "Hard cases make bad law", and (2) some people don't know when to shut their damn mouths. The prosecutor could have had the manslaughter plea without saying one word about it.

There generally is no duty to render aid -- i.e., you can watch someone drown and you have no legal obligation to help that person. This moron has effectively changed a LEGAL non-duty into a FACTUAL we-ll-look-at-each-case-to-see-if-you-have-a-duty -- i.e., whether or not you have a duty depends on the facts, including your skill level, with all the subjectivity and inconsistency that accompany fact-determinative questions.

And we're really not protected simply because this case is in Australia -- one trend, apparently approved of by some members of the US Supreme Court, is an increase in consideration of "international law" in US courts. We're going to see more of this sort of claim - civil and criminal -- and that doesn't bode well for most of us.

And as far as a US prosecutor not pursuing such a case: maybe not, but, if you're a certified rescue diver who is buddied up with the governor's idiot son, and that guy swims off into oblivion, I'd suggest getting a good lawyer.

[K_girl]

Sounds like to me that the prosecution did not consult Tina's family when making the deal:

Christina's father Tommy Thomas said his family was in disbelief that the murder charge was not maintained. "I'm sure that the entire Australian nation as well as our country back home shares in the shock at what we've just seen, because it's a total injustice ... it's ludicrous," he said. "Today he (Watson) was allowed to take the easy way out. "This is in no way, shape or form a beginning to get justice for our daughter. "It's an embarrassment to everyone involved. "We believe that Gabe Watson murdered our daughter."

So some here said, wait for the details about the charge. Well, here it is, now we know what any of us, as rescue divers are expected to do:

Prosecutor Brendan Campbell told the court the manslaughter plea was accepted on the basis that Watson had failed in his duty as Tina's dive buddy by not giving her emergency oxygen. Mr Campbell said Watson also allowed Tina to sink to the ocean floor without making any serious attempt to retrieve her, and that he did not inflate her buoyancy vest or remove weights from her belt. "He virtually extinguished any chance of her survival,'' Mr Campbell said.

Source: David Gabe Watson jailed for killing wife on honeymoon dive | National News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25590576-421,00.html)

Why did the Coroner bother making the judgment that they did have a case for murder last year if they really didn't? They should have just said they didn't have a case a year ago so Tina's parents could try and move on with their lives. The Australian government led Tina's parents to believe that they were going to persue this case as a murder case. They didn't just let them down, they basically tore these people's heart out once again after six years of fighting for justice for Tina and made the deal without consulting them. Shame.. shame.. shame..

[K_girl]

I just saw on Larry King, talking about this case, Gerregos said he has seen that people have been tried in the states after being tried overseas for crimes that were committed overseas. Double-jeopardy does not apply. Maybe this is Australia's way of transferring the burden of cost for prosecution to the U.S. and get Watson to serve time in the meantime.

I say that we start a writing campaign to get U.S. Authorities to prosecute this case after Watson is released in Australia. Especially since this was an American-on-American crime.

One of the other talking heads said the same thing I did - this case is bad publicity for Australia, giving the government reason to get it over with as quickly as possible. I don't think the Australian authorities would have persued this case at all if it had not been for the persistent pressure from Tina's parents.

Gerregos said the same thing some others have said here, which was that the prosecution will not give away a case if they have a strong case. But that jjust doesn't jive with what they determined last year - when the Coroner's Inquest concluded they did have a case for murder and issued a warrant for Watson's arrest and order to bind-over for trial. Geeze - either you do have a case or you don't. I can't imagine that the Coroner did not talk to the prosecution before they determined whether or not they had a murder case that could be prosecuted. And I can't help wondering why the prosecution gave-up on this case so fast. They didn't even have time to get barely started on it and boom - you got a plea deal. Just doesn't smell right.

[almitywife]

i feel for the family - really i do but please "the entire nation... shares in the shock".... no the "entire nation" does not. except for the diving community there isnt really any outrage down here. the media is more intent of beating up the Chaser boys (political comedy show that was last in trouble for getting thru security while dressed up like Osama for OPEC with George W) for a bad comedy stint that was on tv last week than the Watson case

we are use to the soft sentances that the judges hand out and the prosecutorers are under no obligation to consult with any of the victims family for sentencing

personally i believe when he agreed to return to australia a deal had already been struck

[alohagal]

I absolutely do not believe it was just a coincidence that Gabe Watson suddenly stopped fighting extradition, lands in Australia, and gets the deal of a lifetime from the prosecution. No, this was a done deal before he ever got on the plane from Alabama two weeks ago! Why? Is the question.

[Age]

The prosecution's statements regarding a duty to one's buddy, and the apparent special duty owed if one is a rescue diver, set just a terrible, terrible precedent, and are a perfect example of (1) "Hard cases make bad law", and (2) some people don't know when to shut their damn mouths. The prosecutor could have had the manslaughter plea without saying one word about it.

There generally is no duty to render aid -- i.e., you can watch someone drown and you have no legal obligation to help that person. This moron has effectively changed a LEGAL non-duty into a FACTUAL we-ll-look-at-each-case-to-see-if-you-have-a-duty -- i.e., whether or not you have a duty depends on the facts, including your skill level, with all the subjectivity and inconsistency that accompany fact-determinative questions.

And we're really not protected simply because this case is in Australia -- one trend, apparently approved of by some members of the US Supreme Court, is an increase in consideration of "international law" in US courts. We're going to see more of this sort of claim - civil and criminal -- and that doesn't bode well for most of us.

And as far as a US prosecutor not pursuing such a case: maybe not, but, if you're a certified rescue diver who is buddied up with the governor's idiot son, and that guy swims off into oblivion, I'd suggest getting a good lawyer.

I believe that in any country that applies case law (eg. The US and the UK), this case would be of persuasive precedence and possibily affect the outcome of any case sufficiently similar. However, in Australia the precedence would be binding and the outcome of a sufficiently similar case would be certain

[thanksforallthefish]

So if my friend's theory is true - this means that the prosecution did not consult with Tina's family before they made the deal.

Sounds like to me that the prosecution did not consult Tina's family when making the deal:



:confused: Since when has Tinas family been part of the Australian Legal System and needs to be consulted on legal matters.

Sorry but in my opinion some of you folks are overreacting.

[bowlofpetunias]

THAT was what I was waiting for people to see.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter based on NEGLIGENCE.

So we now have precedence, at least in Australia, that a DM/Rescue Diver CAN be prosecuted for failure to render aid.

Scary stuff.....

Hang on folks... everybody is so fixated on certain words. Gabe was her Dive Buddy that knew her skill level and fear level, booked to do the dives here knowing that info, encouraged her to dive with full knowledge of her skill after reassuring her and her family he was Qualified to take care of her as Rescue Diver! The way I see it, his negligence started before they got on that boat! That is a whole lot different from someone who just happens to be a Rescue diver or DM going on a dive, getting buddied with someone!

I would suggest that the Laws in Australia and what establishes a precedence, how that will play out is not necessarily the way it is in the USA. Our Justice System is based on the BRITISH SYSTEM not the AMERICAN SYSTEM. There are some pretty big differences from the DEATH PENALTY (which we don't allow) on down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff_H
.......This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.

However, this is not what he pled guilty to - he pled guilty to not doing his duty as a rescue diver - and the court accepted that plea and that explanation. That is the dangerous precedent we are talking about. Almitywife - you are right in what you said that was the prosecution's original case, however, it has been thrown completely out the window, and now all rescue divers are on the hook because of it. Gabe Watson has received a slap on the wrist and Tina's parents have received a slap on the face for their six years of diligence with the Australian authorities trying to get justice for Tina.

I'm with Geoff_H, I'm a rescue diver and this makes me wary of any diving in Australia. I always intended to go dive in Australia, but now I have scratched that destination off the list. So, if the one of the reasons the prosecution offered this plea is because they are playing politics by trying to protect the scuba industry by avoiding the bad publicity - I would say they did not think this through. They could have actually caused more damage to the scuba industry with this horrible, horrible plea.

I can't help but think the prosecution did not thoroughly think through the precedent they are setting and repercussions of this plea. In just two weeks, they decided they didn't have a case worth going to trial for? I don't think so. The faster they settled, the less time, money and effort they have to spend.



So, a close friend of mine believes that Gabe's plea was arranged ahead of time and that is why he flew back to Australia. Even though Watson's lawyer said the following:

"Gabe Watson's US lawyer Bob Austin said Watson, 31, felt he should not have been charged and wanted the case closed and his name cleared. 'He has gone to Australia to say 'I am here to answer the charges and I am not guilty of those charges',' Mr Austin said. 'He wants to get it over with,' he said. 'It has been going on for five years and it was either fight extradition or go voluntarily.'"

The prosecution says absolutely nothing about the circumstances of Watson's return. So my friend's theory still seems possible. It is actually more believable that he came back to get a good deal rather than wanting to plead not-guilty, face trial, clear his name, but still possibly end-up with a life sentence.

Tina's family was "shocked" at Gabe's sudden return:

"Tina Watson's family had publicly appealed for Watson to return to Australia and progress the stalled case. Her father in the US Tommy was stunned by the development. 'We had no idea that this was coming,' Mr Thomas told The Courier-Mail. 'It came as a total surprise,' he said. 'I am shocked but I am glad that he's there. I just hope that they don't let him leave again.'"

Source: Gabe Watson returns to face trial over wife&squo;s diving death | The Courier-Mail (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25472845-3102,00.html)

So if my friend's theory is true - this means that the prosecution did not consult with Tina's family before they made the deal. If that is the case - shame on them! However, if the circumstances are as what was reported, that Watson returned to plead not guilty and clear his name, then the prosecution gave up on this case before they even got started - in just two weeks since his return - and I say still, shame on them!

This conspiracy theory is astounding! Sure the authorities are going to make an illegal deal with someone and that person is going to trust that deal and come to a country where they could spend a lot of time in goal if the deal that they can't prove existed is breached? Come on:shakehead: I'd love to know how people have figured out what motivated the Australian Authorities to do this:crafty:

In today's modern scuba era, just like schools, in many cases you are passed to the next grade or in the diving world given a C-Card even when you don't meet the criteria. We have all seen AOW divers that really are not and we have all seen rescue divers that are not qualified. This is a perfect case of that. If you look at the picture in most news stories dealing with this accident, yes I said accident, you will notice that he is holding his console in his left hand checking his air or depth and in his right hand he is holding his octopus. Must of had it out for some reason. We have all read post on the board about rescues where the rescue diver forgot to remove the victims weight belt. The guy was an incompetent arrogant A%%, who panicked, let his poor wife drown and then lied about it all later to cover his butt. For the diving public the down side is the precedence that has been set because of this incident. I'm thinking if I go to Australia I am leaving my Rescue and DM cards at home.

The diver in the picture is NOT Gabe Watson. It is another diver on their honeymoon. The person is a new diver and the shot just happened to catch Tina and her rescuer in the background.

[K_girl]

thanksforallthefish - I can understand you being unhappy about the criticism I am unleashing on the Australian legal process here since you are from Australia. We have injustices that happen in the U.S. as well. We are by no means, perfect.

After watching the Dateline show tonight, I realized that there were many Australian law enforcement who have dedicated years of their lives to this case who must be devastated about this as well. And.. it must be gut-wrenching for them not to be able to speak-out.

The trial was moved from Townsville to another city 700 miles away because of all the publicity. It makes me wonder if a different prosecutor was assigned to the case. If that's the case, maybe the original prosecutor was ready to go to trial and the new one, had a whole different "take" on the case.

I'm just not cold-hearted enough to watch a grown man cry after almost six long years of trying to get justice for his daughter and not react at all. If at least, there had been a trial and a jury found him guilty of a lesser charge, at least you could say real justice was done, but I just can't feel that way about this plea.

[almitywife]

thanksforallthefish - I can understand you being unhappy about the criticism I am unleashing on the Australian legal process .......

i am not unhappy about you "unleashing" on our govt - trust me, the average aussie couldnt give 2 hoots about an american bitching about our processes. i do think you are way too obsessive about this case though..... so your message gets lost in your posts for me

cheers

[bowlofpetunias]

Sounds like to me that the prosecution did not consult Tina's family when making the deal:

Are you asserting that the USA does consult the victim's family? The decision is supposed to be made by someone who is impartial... the family is hardly that!



So some here said, wait for the details about the charge. Well, here it is, now we know what any of us, as rescue divers are expected to do:

Prosecutor Brendan Campbell told the court the manslaughter plea was accepted on the basis that Watson had failed in his duty as Tina's dive buddy by not giving her emergency oxygen. Mr Campbell said Watson also allowed Tina to sink to the ocean floor without making any serious attempt to retrieve her, and that he did not inflate her buoyancy vest or remove weights from her belt. "He virtually extinguished any chance of her survival,'' Mr Campbell said.

These are all basic OW skills and I don't see anything in your quote about his Rescue Diver Certification!


Why did the Coroner bother making the judgment that they did have a case for murder last year if they really didn't? They should have just said they didn't have a case a year ago so Tina's parents could try and move on with their lives. The Australian government led Tina's parents to believe that they were going to persue this case as a murder case. They didn't just let them down, they basically tore these people's heart out once again after six years of fighting for justice for Tina and made the deal without consulting them. Shame.. shame.. shame..

I think this is a huge assumption that there was no case. I feel terribly sorry for Tina's family but telling them there was no case last year would not have ended their campaign to seek what they feel is justice for their daughter's death. What "tore these people's heart out" was Tina's death! K_girl you claim some familiarity with the law and I don't know of any country that consults the victims or their families about how to apply their laws:shocked2:

I believe that in any country that applies case law (eg. The US and the UK), this case would be of persuasive precedence and possibily affect the outcome of any case sufficiently similar. However, in Australia the precedence would be binding and the outcome of a sufficiently similar case would be certain

There are a massive list of factors that make this case unique including but not limited to Gabe's role in Tina's life, Tina's decisions to get certified, where when and how to to dive as well as his assertions of his intent and ability to "take care of her". He made no real attempt to help her and he did not claim panic or that he felt he was in danger at the time... he took his sweet time going to the surface.

If your buddy gets in trouble and you can't help because of danger to yourself and you immediately seek help and advise people of those factor.. the case is already significantly dissimilar and especially if you aren't married to the diver in question and didn't convince them to do the dive. I fail to see justification for the paranoia about legal liability in Australia:shakehead:

[thanksforallthefish]

thanksforallthefish - I can understand you being unhappy about the criticism I am unleashing on the Australian legal process here since you are from Australia. We have injustices that happen in the U.S. as well. We are by no means, perfect.

After watching the Dateline show tonight, I realized that there were many Australian law enforcement who have dedicated years of their lives to this case who must be devastated about this as well. And.. it must be gut-wrenching for them not to be able to speak-out.

The trial was moved from Townsville to another city 700 miles away because of all the publicity. It makes me wonder if a different prosecutor was assigned to the case. If that's the case, maybe the original prosecutor was ready to go to trial and the new one, had a whole different "take" on the case.

I'm just not cold-hearted enough to watch a grown man cry after almost six long years of trying to get justice for his daughter and not react at all. If at least, there had been a trial and a jury found him guilty of a lesser charge, at least you could say real justice was done, but I just can't feel that way about this plea.

Unleash away ... does not worry me in the least.

I am glad that I live in Australia where the legal system is administered by qualified and impartial professionals unlike as it would appear from your posts by bleeding hearts in the US

[bowlofpetunias]

Unleash away ... does not worry me in the least.

I am glad that I live in Australia where the legal system is administered by qualified and impartial professionals unlike as it would appear from your posts by bleeding hearts in the US

Nope they aren't bleeding hearts... we are ....they Kill the people they think are guilty ... ends those incessant appeals for justice from people trying to prove their system failed and they are innocent. We put people in prison and if they manage to prove our system failed and they are innocent.. they are alive to re-enter society

[livinoz]

Australia does NOT have "plea bargaining". In fact Queensland has no formal system of plea bargaining (Geraldine MacKenzie, How Judges Sentence, Federation Press, 2005). The parties may discuss the case before it comes to court however and agree, for example, that there is insufficient evidence for a certain charge and decide not to go ahead on that basis.

Our criminal jurisprudence has always accepted a system which allows an accused, charged with, say, murder, to agree to plead "guilty" to manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence. As the High Court of Australia has stated, the fact that a person has pleaded guilty may be taken into account in mitigation, and the rationale for that rule depends on factors other than remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and not on the basis that the plea has saved the community the expense of a contested hearing.

This thread is getting to the obsessive stage with some posters I think!

Tina's parents may decide to pursue a civil case, that's up to them. I think by going over and over this in the press, on the 'net and on various TV programs they are merely prolonging their own agony. And that's quite different from the fact I sympathize with their dreadful loss.

[deepstops]

So I guess this change of events raises a question: Since he didn't "kill" her, he only failed to save her, does he get to keep the life insurance money??

[Dadvocate]

Bowl of…

Davocate maybe your name should be Devils'Advocate... love playing that role don't you?

You know you may be onto something here, but then you may have it all wrong as well.
I tried to respond to this a few hours ago but my internet dropped out when I tried to send. I said it much better the first time…Check the time of the posts.... my response was to IB post not yours. My slightly twisted sense of humour gets me in trouble.

I see… I tend not to check the posting times before trying to sound clever, so I’ll chalk that one up to my childish need for attention. I’m sure others have already done that anyway. And I can empathize with your disposition in this regard entirely. I suffer the same affliction, as my namesake suggests.

On the recent trend regarding the outcome of this case and possible future litigation:

I am a bit blown away by the suggestion that the US and Australia are covertly in cahoots in this outcome, or that the Australian prosecutors (noting somehow that they were wholly incompetent juxtaposed to the learned professionals of the legal apparatus in the USA) would bend over prostrate and hand out a flimsy manslaughter charge in the hopes that the mighty US judicial system would come riding along later on and charge Gabe with murder when he gets home. I have to admit that I don’t know if this is possible or not given the spirit of what double jeopardy is supposed to imply, though I sincerely hope this is not the case and that this is merely another example of the Larry King show peddling its usual portion of tripe.

I’m also troubled by the implications of this suggestion as well. Does this essentially mean that one is more likely to be convicted of murder (or other crimes) in the US on patchy circumstantial evidence than one is in Australia or elsewhere?

Though some of you might find this potentiality appealing given the desire stated on this board to see Gabe realize some “other” form of justice, I’m personally saddened at the implication that 1) double jeopardy could so easily be thwarted in this day and age in the US and 2) that vendettas are presumably more easily realized in the US than they are in other democratic countries.

If those suggesting this crafty scheme to get Gabe to take a lesser sentence on the likelihood that he will be convicted in the USA are right, then I say my compatriots and I have a whole lot to be concerned about in the larger scheme of things.

Anyone well versed in US criminal law in this case, please clarify if this is true or not.

Cheers!

[Jim Lapenta]

I just know that if I ever want to get rid of somebody and get a slap on the wrist then there's one place I know to head for.

And yes in cases like this and even less serious ones at least here in Pennsylvania it is common to consult the victim or victim's family before making any deals. It is also common to have victims and their families testify as to the effect the criminals actions have had on them. THis many times will result in harsher sentences. Scum bags like the husband don't just hurt the victim. And true justice makes them pay for ALL the harm they have done.

I just hope he becomes some big cons "girlfriend" in the joint and gets what's coming to him in other ways. He sounds stupid enough that he will not have an easy time in there God willing.

[Missdirected]

... ends those incessant appeals for justice from people trying to prove their system failed and they are innocent.

A lil correction, if ya don't mind :) You automatically get to appeal if you are sentenced to death here. Actually, it costs us thousands upon thousands more to sentence someone to death than it does to put them away for life. Why? Legal fees/legal process they are entitled to.

[Valwood1]

The parties may discuss the case before it comes to court however and agree, for example, that there is "insufficient evidence" for a certain charge and decide not to go ahead on that basis.Our criminal jurisprudence has always accepted a system which allows an accused, charged with, say, murder, to agree to plead "guilty" to manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence. .

Actually, that process is plea bargaining, even if Australia doesn't use that term, and it isn't much, if any, different from the process in the US. In the Watson case, one supposes that the prosecution looked at the "facts", found them sufficiently confused and uncertain to insure a guilty verdict of murder at a trial, and decided that "half a loaf is better than none". That's okay.

For me, the only issue is the prosecutor's careless and unnecessary reasoning for accepting the plea bargained lesser charge.

[jeepbrew]

So I guess this change of events raises a question: Since he didn't "kill" her, he only failed to save her, does he get to keep the life insurance money??

So far he has... I talked to his brother yesterday (the family lives near me) and he did get to keep the $$ (but that may change after his plea). One thing all of the media fails to mention is that he didn't need the $45k life insurance money (so I am not sure how that is a motive???). He and his family are loaded. It says he is a bubble wrap salesman and that may not sound lucrative, but his family owns a cardboard box stamping plant and they are worth millions. 45 thousand bucks is pocket change to them. Anyway, I just thought I would answer Brian's question...

[djanni]

What a mess this all is. I'd already hung him but now I'm starting to feel empathy. Think I'll focus on other threads.

[catherine96821]

You're worried JB is going to off you :huh: j/k :)

I don't do cruise ships either

I am incredulous that so many people would convict a guy with so little evidence (there is the argument for solo 0k with a partner)

Thinking he probably did it, even 75% would not be enough for me.

people always discuss insurance right before they marry.....

these group charters and the group judgement is very dangerous

[K_girl]

So far he has... I talked to his brother yesterday (the family lives near me) and he did get to keep the $$ (but that may change after his plea). One thing all of the media fails to mention is that he didn't need the $45k life insurance money (so I am not sure how that is a motive???). He and his family are loaded. It says he is a bubble wrap salesman and that may not sound lucrative, but his family owns a cardboard box stamping plant and they are worth millions. 45 thousand bucks is pocket change to them. Anyway, I just thought I would answer Brian's question...

If this is true - why did Watson try so hard to collect the insurance by suing the insurance company? He actually gave a deposition in the case. The final amount he was trying to get was $75K to include his own mental anguish.

I'm not trying to say that this is evidence of guilt. Just stating the fact that he did try to collect by suing, so he obviously wanted the money badly enough for some reason.

He dropped the law suit because he did not want to incriminate himself. His lawyer also claimed at the inquest that because Watson did not receive any money, there was no motive. Now you are saying that he did receive money? Really? From whom? All I can say is - that is news to probably just about everyone.

Source: Husband claimed insurance (http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2007/11/29/8614_news.html)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23730851-401,00.html

[jeepbrew]

If this is true - why did Watson try so hard to collect the insurance by suing the insurance company? He actually gave a deposition in the case. You know he dropped the law suit because he did not want to incriminate himself. The final amount he was trying to get was $75K to include his own mental anguish.

I'm not trying to say that this is evidence of guilt. Just stating the fact that he did try to collect by suing, so he obviously wanted the money badly enough for some reason.

Source: Husband claimed insurance (http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2007/11/29/8614_news.html)

Beats me. I guess he figured they had the insurance policy for a reason, so why not collect.

I am not friends with David nor do I know him by any means other than aquaintance. I do know a few of the other family members and they are all stand-up people. As to why he would want the money so badly... I know he has had a habit of making dumb $$ decisions in the past but daddy has always been there to bail him out. Either way, what's done is done (and its tragic to say the least) and the guy is going to jail. His lawyer expects him to be out in a year or so FWIW (according to his father).

And like someone else mentioned... where is the evidence that he did anything wrong (other than being a dumba$$)?

[K_girl]

As for the issue of "consulting" with the family. I did not mean to imply that the prosecution should have asked the family's permission to make a deal. After seeing interviews with Tina's father, he said something to the effect of - when we learned of the proceeding today, we had a bad feeling that something was up. I think it would have been at least good courtesy for the prosecution to speak to the family and let them know their reasons for the plea and try to explain it in a way to help them accept it. Instead, the family learned about the plea the same way the rest of the world did.

Because of victim family outcries over the last decade, prosecutors in the U.S. have become more sensitive to this and it has become common practice to help the victim's family through a difficult process of being terribly disappointed. Obviously, Tina's family feels like they have been slapped in the face and not received justice. I think this could have been avoided and it is not good publicity for Australia. Hopefully, Australian prosecutors can learn from this and avoid this in the future. It is really to their benefit to give such consideration.

[alohagal]

Beats me. I guess he figured they had the insurance policy for a reason, so why not collect.

I am not friends with David nor do I know him by any means other than aquaintance. I do know a few of the other family members and they are all stand-up people. As to why he would want the money so badly... I know he has had a habit of making dumb $$ decisions in the past but daddy has always been there to bail him out. Either way, what's done is done (and its tragic to say the least) and the guy is going to jail. His lawyer expects him to be out in a year or so FWIW (according to his father).

And like someone else mentioned... where is the evidence that he did anything wrong (other than being a dumba$$)?

Well...for me the evidence that he did something wrong is that he is going to prison for at least a year. Seems a pretty harsh sentence for being a "dumba$$." I would think that a grieving husband losing his wife on their honeymoon would be punishment enough. How many people on Scubaboard, myself included, could be in prison right now for doing something "dumba$$" while scuba diving. Of course no one has died under my watch...but at what point are we now culpable? Now we have created a slippery slope of defining "dumba$$" I am sure the prosecution had no intent of setting precedent on this case and convicting future divers of unintended negligence under water. More likely it was the best they could do. I certainly would like to know more details of what went into their decision.

I think many of us are disappointed that the "evidence" that was good enough to indict him for murder, was not good enough to take to trial. I know many of us wanted to hear/see/examine the "evidence" in this case via trial. Now that will never happen, unless there is a civil trial.

I think at the very least the family should have been told not to bother to fly all the way to Australia since a "plea deal" or whatever you want to call it, was in the making.

[K_girl]

Remember I said that Gerregos said on Larry King last night that Watson could be tried in the U.S. because double-jeopardy does not apply. Here is what Tina's father is saying now:

‘This is not justice’
“We were convinced and are today that Gabe Watson murdered Tina,” Tommy Thomas, the dead woman’s father, told TODAY’s Matt Lauer Friday from Brisbane. Earlier, he had told NBC News, “This is not justice and this is not over.”

So in the quote below, lists one of reasons for not going to trial. And yet they did not talk to the family ahead of time to find out whether or not they wanted to be spared the trial. This family fought for six years to have a trial. Oh horrible if this is true and it does make me question the prosecution's judgment as to any other reasons for offering this plea.

Local prosecutors said that one reason they accepted the plea deal with Watson was to save Tina’s family from the hardship of going through a trial.

Source: Outrage over sentence in honeymoon drowning - TODAY People (http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/31120879/)

[Doc Intrepid]

Tina is dead, and regardless of what happens it won't bring her back.

Her husband of a few weeks was literally within arms reach of her, according to a witness. She died and he returned to the surface.

It may not prove anything in a court of law, but the testimony quoted in the media is certainly sufficient to suggest that her husband was responsible to some degree for her death. His behavior afterwards was equally bizarre, and occurred in front of a number of random observers.

Feel free to give him the benefit of the doubt - it's the stand-up thing - but he would not have pleaded guilty if the state had nothing on him at all.

So, we're debating the degree to which he's guilty - not whether he's guilty.

[InTheDrink]

Tina is dead, and regardless of what happens it won't bring her back.

Her husband of a few weeks was literally within arms reach of her, according to a witness. She died and he returned to the surface.

It may not prove anything in a court of law, but the testimony quoted in the media is certainly sufficient to suggest that her husband was responsible to some degree for her death. His behavior afterwards was equally bizarre, and occurred in front of a number of random observers.

Feel free to give him the benefit of the doubt - it's the stand-up thing - but he would not have pleaded guilty if the state had nothing on him at all.

So, we're debating the degree to which he's guilty - not whether he's guilty.

I don't think I could agree with the last statement. People may admit to something they haven't done for a million reasons. Particularly when it gets serious. It's one of the reasons that torture is generally bad value for money. Put enough pressure on most people and they'll tell you anything.

I do think the outcome is a farce however. Punishment for incompetence at a non-professional c-card level is news to me. And a year's sentence for murdering your wife seems short to me by about 24 years.

I'm not surprised Tina's parents are in bits and whilst I'm no fan AT ALL of the U.S. justice system and in particular the death penalty (no matter what the crime) I do think this hasn't reflected all that well on the Oz system. It seems kinda dark that they may well have consulted the de facto defendant (Gabe) but not the prosecution (Tina's family). This whole thing increasingly seems like a nightmarish circus.

As for the plea bargain (irrespective of what they call it). Is 1 year really any kind of bargain for the prosecution? If they'd asked for a sentence that would have meant 7 years in jail then maybe, but one year? I mean come on. That sounds like a nice rest to me. The prosecution wouldn't do very well in sales. Or procurement.

[mndvr132]

Bowl of©¼/B]



You know you may be onto something here, but then you may have it all wrong as well.


I see I tend not to check the posting times before trying to sound clever, so IÃÍl chalk that one up to my childish need for attention. IÃÎ sure others have already done that anyway. And I can empathize with your disposition in this regard entirely. I suffer the same affliction, as my namesake suggests.

[b]On the recent trend regarding the outcome of this case and possible future litigation:

I am a bit blown away by the suggestion that the US and Australia are covertly in cahoots in this outcome, or that the Australian prosecutors (noting somehow that they were wholly incompetent juxtaposed to the learned professionals of the legal apparatus in the USA) would bend over prostrate and hand out a flimsy manslaughter charge in the hopes that the mighty US judicial system would come riding along later on and charge Gabe with murder when he gets home. I have to admit that I donÃÕ know if this is possible or not given the spirit of what double jeopardy is supposed to imply, though I sincerely hope this is not the case and that this is merely another example of the Larry King show peddling its usual portion of tripe.

IÃÎ also troubled by the implications of this suggestion as well. Does this essentially mean that one is more likely to be convicted of murder (or other crimes) in the US on patchy circumstantial evidence than one is in Australia or elsewhere?

Though some of you might find this potentiality appealing given the desire stated on this board to see Gabe realize some ÅÐther form of justice, IÃÎ personally saddened at the implication that 1) double jeopardy could so easily be thwarted in this day and age in the US and 2) that vendettas are presumably more easily realized in the US than they are in other democratic countries.

If those suggesting this crafty scheme to get Gabe to take a lesser sentence on the likelihood that he will be convicted in the USA are right, then I say my compatriots and I have a whole lot to be concerned about in the larger scheme of things.

Anyone well versed in US criminal law in this case, please clarify if this is true or not.

Cheers!
I've been a police officer for almost twenty years. Unless they come up with some twist you can only be charged with a crime in the jurisdiction the crime was committed in.

[catherine96821]

double jeopardy?

he could face a civil suit like OJ

[livinoz]

Actually, that process is plea bargaining, even if Australia doesn't use that term, and it isn't much, if any, different from the process in the US. In the Watson case, one supposes that the prosecution looked at the "facts", found them sufficiently confused and uncertain to insure a guilty verdict of murder at a trial, and decided that "half a loaf is better than none". That's okay.

For me, the only issue is the prosecutor's careless and unnecessary reasoning for accepting the plea bargained lesser charge.

No, actually it's not the same at all. Plea bargaining as used in the US is quite a different process, and one where the prosecutor has a great deal of power. It is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority of criminal cases there are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial, and plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court.

In some common law jurisdictions, such as England and Australia, plea bargaining is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors and the defence can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and the prosecutor will drop the remainder. The courts in these jurisdictions have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty.

In the USA, judges are actively involved in plea bargain negotiations; in fact, they are responsible for the approval of the final plea. The judge also simultaneously decides upon a fit sanction. In Australia under the adversarial system, justices will not be permitted to take any role in the in the plea negotiation. This is because of the doctrine of separation powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary which means that there should be no misuse or concentration of power, to avoid the abuse of that power. This contrasts to the USA system in regard to plea bargains.

[K_girl]

The following source states:

The fifth amendment refers to being put in “jeopardy of life or limb.” The clause, however, has been interpreted as providing protection regarding “every indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor.” The clause, it has been held, does not prevent separate trials by different governments, and the state and federal governments are considered “separate sovereigns”. Therefore, one may be prosecuted for a crime in a state court, and also prosecuted for the same crime in another state, a foreign country, or (most commonly) in a federal court.

Source: Double Jeopardy | The Fifth Amendment (http://fifthamendment.us/?page_id=10)

It goes on to say that double jeopardy does apply once a defendant has been acquitted. It also says that defendants cannot be retried once convicted except under special circumstances as a judge may see fit and proper.

Mark Gerregos said he has seen cases where the U.S. Government has tried Americans for crimes they committed in foreign countries, when they had already been tried in foreign countries because double jeopardy does not apply. His interview will be played on Larry King throughout the weekend - so watch for it.

I'm sure it is probably a rare occurrence that most law enforcement in this country has not seen happen, and probably never will.

[Dadvocate]

I've been a police officer for almost twenty years. Unless they come up with some twist you can only be charged with a crime in the jurisdiction the crime was committed in.

That’s the assumption I’m operating under as well. I don’t know of the veracity of this, only that K-Girl cited it as being a potential option to US authorities somewhere down the line, at least as far as what was said on Larry King. It is an interesting dilemma if true.

What “twists” could be applied to have him tried again, that is what I am wondering? The authorities in QLD accepted this outcome for whatever reasons they had. Gabe accepted for his. That should be as airtight as it would be in the States, regardless of how much anyone disdains this decision. Is the “twist” really as simple as saying they were both US citizens, or that the victim is a US citizen? I can’t imagine this is true, though I wouldn’t be surprised if a contingency like this exists. It is a scary proposition in my opinion if true.

If the US has extradition relations with Australia, that in part implies that our respective judicial systems meet mutual criteria in both countries. We wouldn’t send one of our citizens there if we felt he or she were going to be sent to a kangaroo court of some kind.
On the flip side then, doesn’t that imply that the decisions of the courts in these jurisdictions stands for both countries, just as you state? I understand that this decision stinks for a lot of people, but how far are we willing to go to find justice and what are the implications if we do go that road?

Let’s take David Hicks as a test case. He was the first convicted felon held at Guantanamo. He was returned to his homeland in Australia and held there under imposed restrictions on his freedom (agreed to by both Australia and the US). Australia is also looking at the possibility of taking on some of the prisoners to be released later on after the Obama administration closes down Gitmo. Dealings on these inmates will no doubt be exhaustive relying on good relations to see things through.

If we start playing around with whose convictions are good and whose are not, this could affect other issues that would otherwise not be related. I am not saying this is a definite outcome, just that it is important to maintain certain agreements on concepts like double jeopardy in his day and age if not others.

I guess what I am asking is do the ends justify the means for the likes of a person like Gabe Watson? Are we even sure that the outcome of a second trial would be any different than this one is? If so, what does this assurance say about our system of justice compared to other places if we can circumvent what are otherwise foundational concepts in our own jurisprudence?

Cheers!

[livinoz]

The following source states:

The fifth amendment refers to being put in ÅËeopardy of life or limb. The clause, however, has been interpreted as providing protection regarding ÅÆvery indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor. The clause, it has been held, does not prevent separate trials by different governments, and the state and federal governments are considered ÅÔeparate sovereigns? Therefore, one may be prosecuted for a crime in a state court, and also prosecuted for the same crime in another state, a foreign country, or (most commonly) in a federal court.

Source: Double Jeopardy | The Fifth Amendment (http://fifthamendment.us/?page_id=10)

It goes on to say that double jeopardy does apply once a defendant has been acquitted. It also says that defendants cannot be retried once convicted except under special circumstances as a judge may see fit and proper.

Mark Gerregos said he has seen cases where the U.S. Government has tried Americans for crimes they committed in foreign countries, when they had already been tried in foreign countries because double jeopardy does not apply. His interview will be played on Larry King throughout the weekend - so watch for it.

I'm sure it is probably a rare occurrence that most law enforcement in this country has not seen happen, and probably never will.

As Australia and the US have an extradition treaty and many other historical ties, I would be surprised if the US Government would "jeopardize" that and allow Watson to be "re-tried" in a criminal suit after serving his sentence in Australia, no matter how inadequate others deem that sentence to be.

[Under-Exposed]

Has anyone got a copy of the sentencing remarks? I am always loathe to comment on legal things based on media reports, as my experience as a lawyer suggests that they rarely get all the nuances correct. Based on what has been reported, however, I struggle as an Australian lawyer to see how the elements of manslaughter could have been satisfied, and therefore struggle to understand how the Court accepted the guilty plea. The plea of guilty, by the way, will be relevant to the head sentence imposed, but doesn't explain why the bulk of that sentence is to be suspended.
I see that the Alabama A-G is writing to the Queensland Supreme Court and to the Government asking them to appeal, and offering to appear on the appeal, and has already indicated a desire to pursue criminal charges in the US (acknowledging the double jeopardy difficulty).

[livinoz]

Has anyone got a copy of the sentencing remarks? I am always loathe to comment on legal things based on media reports, as my experience as a lawyer suggests that they rarely get all the nuances correct. Based on what has been reported, however, I struggle as an Australian lawyer to see how the elements of manslaughter could have been satisfied, and therefore struggle to understand how the Court accepted the guilty plea. The plea of guilty, by the way, will be relevant to the head sentence imposed, but doesn't explain why the bulk of that sentence is to be suspended.
I see that the Alabama A-G is writing to the Queensland Supreme Court and to the Government asking them to appeal, and offering to appear on the appeal, and has already indicated a desire to pursue criminal charges in the US (acknowledging the double jeopardy difficulty).

I haven't seen a full transcript of the sentencing remarks published, just this summary in the media (with it's inherent problems):

Justice Lyons, in handing down his decision, said Watson "stood convicted on his plea of manslaughter causing the death of his wife Christina", and said he was in "gross" dereliction of his duty as a certified rescue diver and abandoning his diving buddy, "deserving of criminal punishment".

"When Tina encountered difficulties you failed to share your oxygen with her," Justice Lyons said.

"You did not take hold of her again, or stay with her, or follow her as she sank.

"You did not inflate her BCD or remove her weights. You failed to make any reasonable attempt to take her to the surface.

"(Tina) had every reason to look forward to a long and happy life."

However Justice Lyons went on to say there were several mitigating factors he had taken into account in determining the severity of Watson's sentence.

"You returned voluntarily and surrendered yourself into custody," he said.

"In my view, it was quite significant that you did not know the Crown would not charge you with murder, which carries a term of life imprisonment.

"You did not seek to pretend your actions were anything other than they were.

"You spared Tina's family the ordeal of a trial, and saved the community the expense of a trial.

"I regard your conduct as an expression of wrongdoing and remorse, and I don't consider there is any risk of re-offending.

"There is no doubt from all accounts that you loved your wife, and were devastated by her loss.

"The very serious departure in your case from the duty of care you had undertaken makes it necessary to impose a penalty.

"I order that the term of imprisonment be suspended after 12 months, taking into account the 23 days already served."

[livinoz]

Under-Exposed, I see you're an Australian Barrister. It's wonderful to have such expert input here regarding this particular case!

[almitywife]

i think we should move from hanging Watson to hanging the judge.... "failed to share oxygen"

ummm, should explain to the guy that anything after 6mtrs is toxic :D

[almitywife]

Dive killer faces US jail (http://www.smh.com.au/national/dive-killer-faces-us-jail-20090606-bz33.html)

AMERICAN authorities will travel to Australia to appeal against the leniency of the sentence handed to a man who admitted drowning his bride during their Great Barrier Reef honeymoon.

[Dadvocate]

see that the Alabama A-G is writing to the Queensland Supreme Court and to the Government asking them to appeal, and offering to appear on the appeal, and has already indicated a desire to pursue criminal charges in the US (acknowledging the double jeopardy difficulty).

Hi, Underexposed! I agree that it is great to have someone on the list with professional credentials. From your understanding, what are the implications of the US desiring the pursuit of criminal charges for Gabe stateside? Would this be under a federal mandate in order for the Australian government to allow it? I can’t see how they could try Gabe again in the state of Alabama. I could be wrong, given that I seem to be wrong about whether or not this is even possible in the first place.

I’d also like to know if Gabe can petition not to being sent to the US after his sentence is completed based on the fact that he would essentially be tried twice for the same crime? Would he have the right petition the government to send him elsewhere when his time was up? Actually could he fight extradition to his own country based on double jeopardy considerations?

I can’t imagine this will sit very well with Australian authorities. What is your take?

Cheers!

[Grover48]

Will he be allowed to leave Australia before his parole is complete?

Does he remain there as a condition of his parole?

Will his wife be allowed to stay in Australia during his stay there?

[deepstops]

Dive killer faces US jail (http://www.smh.com.au/national/dive-killer-faces-us-jail-20090606-bz33.html)

AMERICAN authorities will travel to Australia to appeal against the leniency of the sentence handed to a man who admitted drowning his bride during their Great Barrier Reef honeymoon.

That's not accurate, he admitted he failed to save her. That's the admission the court accepted.

I'd be very surprised if this goes anywhere here in the States because the Alabama AG admits he screwed up by trusting the case to Australian courts. Double jeopardy is, for the most part, untouchable here.

[bowlofpetunias]

I haven't seen a full transcript of the sentencing remarks published, just this summary in the media (with it's inherent problems):

Justice Lyons, in handing down his decision, said Watson "stood convicted on his plea of manslaughter causing the death of his wife Christina", and said he was in "gross" dereliction of his duty as a certified rescue diver and abandoning his diving buddy, "deserving of criminal punishment".

"When Tina encountered difficulties you failed to share your oxygen with her," Justice Lyons said.

"You did not take hold of her again, or stay with her, or follow her as she sank.

"You did not inflate her BCD or remove her weights. You failed to make any reasonable attempt to take her to the surface.

"(Tina) had every reason to look forward to a long and happy life."

However Justice Lyons went on to say there were several mitigating factors he had taken into account in determining the severity of Watson's sentence.

"You returned voluntarily and surrendered yourself into custody," he said.

"In my view, it was quite significant that you did not know the Crown would not charge you with murder, which carries a term of life imprisonment.

"You did not seek to pretend your actions were anything other than they were.

"You spared Tina's family the ordeal of a trial, and saved the community the expense of a trial.

"I regard your conduct as an expression of wrongdoing and remorse, and I don't consider there is any risk of re-offending.

"There is no doubt from all accounts that you loved your wife, and were devastated by her loss.

"The very serious departure in your case from the duty of care you had undertaken makes it necessary to impose a penalty.

"I order that the term of imprisonment be suspended after 12 months, taking into account the 23 days already served."



Good to see the sane heads are starting to outnumber the angry mob here!

The bolded bit tends to discredit the conspiracy theory and puts the wailing about why didn't the authorities consult Tina's family before they cam over here concept in a different light too. Duly noted that this is from a media report and not the complete statement.

It seems to me that the angry mob has taken in all the "facts" they are willing to accept and have shown little interest in "facts" that are not consistent with their "chosen reality"

Under-Exposed it is great to see someone here who can speak with some knowledge of the relevant Judicial System... welcome to Scuba Board in general it is a great place. Welcome to this thread in particular it is an interesting road and may just have more twists and turns than the tragic event that spawned it!

[bowlofpetunias]

That's not accurate, he admitted he failed to save her. That's the admission the court accepted.

I'd be very surprised if this goes anywhere here in the States because the Alabama AG admits he screwed up by trusting the case to Australian courts. Double jeopardy is, for the most part, untouchable here.

I am crushed that the Alabama AG feels like he screwed up like that..... maybe he should have gotten busy and done something earlier then!

Doesn't the USA advise their Citizens when they travel abroad that they are subject to the Laws of any country they chose to travel in? Perhaps they should just restrict their Citizens from traveling in countries where they don't agree with their Legal Systems just in case something happens.

[Doubler]

The the caption under this photo in the paper I saw stated that it was Gabe Wilson in the foreground. So my conculsions of gauge checking was made based on that caption. That is what I get for relying on a newspaper. I still don't believe he murdered his wife. I think he is a jerk, a lousy diver, a bad actor etc. For the life of me I can't figure out a motive here. I firmly believe he is in prison for repeatedly changing his story to cover his butt and the lobbying effort from the family, though under the circumstances and the repeated story changes I don't blame them.

[alohagal]

"You spared Tina's family the ordeal of a trial, and saved the community the expense of a trial."

I find this remark by the judge to be very telling and partially disingenuous. The family did not want to be "spared", but I have no doubt the local community in Australia certainly did. Those two notions should not be linked together.

As for justice. I would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man punished. I have no clear certainty as to the guilt or innocence of Gabe Watson. That's why a trial was so important. He will forever live with the spector of his "perceived" guilt based on his actions during the incident.

[bowlofpetunias]

"You spared Tina's family the ordeal of a trial, and saved the community the expense of a trial."

I find this remark by the judge to be very telling and partially disingenuous. The family did not want to be "spared", but I have no doubt the local community in Australia certainly did. Those two notions should not be linked together.

As for justice. I would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man punished. I have no clear certainty as to the guilt or innocence of Gabe Watson. That's why a trial was so important. He will forever live with the spector of his "perceived" guilt based on his actions during the incident.

Sadly there were never going to be any winners here. Nothing can bring Tina back or take away what she felt in her last moments that is the tragedy of it.

Nothing will give her loved ones a feeling of justice. I am not sure I would feel any different. They are party to more info than we ever were going to be and have made up their minds.... right or wrong (I am not qualified to decide) nothing but finding Gabe Guilty of Murder is likely to be accepted by them.

Gabe's family has gone through a horrific time as well.... do you expect them to do other than support their loved one? Nothing other than an innocent finding would seem right to them.

The police and judicial system have dedicated a lot of time (and yes $) to this case.... we can not presume to judge what they would think is right or even if their perceptions are coloured by personal issues.

I am not convinced I could find Gabe guilty of murder based on what I have seen either. If he did it on purpose well I can only hope he suffers guilt feelings the rest of his life. If he is guilty of incompetence I think the sentence with consideration of the years of stress dealing with the press, investigators and legal system may be adequate.

I am not sure that a media circus of a trail would have been a kindness to any of the innocent parties... remember that includes Tina's loved ones Gabe's loved ones and the people whose holidays were ruined by this event as well people standing on the jury and the tax payers.

The sad reality is that the lynch mobs are never satisfied, the bleeding hearts are never satisfied, the victims are never satisfied and the dead do not return. The Judicial System is a flawed system dealing with human flaws. We can only try to get dispassionate decisions from non biased (but flawed) humans.

The system is meant to discourage anti social behaviour/acts. News flash folks.. the true psychopaths will always believe they can outsmart the law... that's why we need to lock them up... so they don't re-offend... to protect society. Those that are unlikely to reoffend need appropriate punshment to discourage others from similar acts. I doubt this will ever become a popular activity.. Marry a beautiful young woman, convince her to get a C card, convince her to do a dive and kill her and hope no one sees....

[Dadvocate]

The the caption under this photo in the paper I saw stated that it was Gabe Wilson

If that is true, they even got his name wrong. I’d buy a new paper if I were you.
He will forever live with the spector of his "perceived" guilt based on his actions during the incident.

By some others perhaps, but not everyone. If the specter, or scarlet letter, or what have you exists at all, it will be ambiguous, pretty much like everything else surrounding this monstrous case. Some will simply choose to avoid claiming outright certainty based on the fact that nothing more than media reports has been publicly levied to date. The truth is it might still be a contested issue even if Gabe were convicted after a trial given the same uncertainties. As has been said before, we know too little still to be able to tell.

Alabama's Attorney-General, Troy King, will lead a mission to Queensland to lobby for an appeal, his office told The Sun-Herald yesterday. If that isn't successful, he will push "America's legal boundaries to the limit" and attempt to charge Watson with murder, for the second time, when he is deported back to the US upon his release.

Yes, there you have it. The ends justify the means if the AG is not happy with the outcome. And saying this is his agenda openly also shows that he is willing to stretch credibility quite a ways to get what he wants. It is too bad he has openly admitted this because he has now given Gabe’s team ample cause to fight that extradition with a fervor once he gets out.

Interesting point here:

It is a fact that he would have received at least 20 years here, probably life without parole, because we can demonstrate he killed for the money.

And in other countries he might have been able to bribe his way out of it altogether given his family’s wealth (assuming Jeepbrew’s comments on the family wealth are true). So how is this comment germane? This is not in the jurisdiction of the US. Where would he be tried and on whose dime, would it be state or federal coffers picking up the check?

As of right now, we don’t even know if it can be established that Gabe even killed her beyond reasonable doubt. To assert that this would be the outcome based on greed is very nice chest pounding but a tough one to back up under the circumstances. And how sure can we be that the conviction wouldn’t have been one come to based on all the hype? It seems to have been enough for people here on SB to come to conclusions. Is it a stretch to see this ideal conviction being somewhat slanted given the media circus going on? Perhaps Gabe was smarter than I thought he was going back there when he did.

Honesty, even for the people who are reasonably sure that Gabe is guilty, is this a precedent you want set in order to get him, that our own government may opt to try an American citizen a second time when he or she returns home if and when the case becomes politically expedient in some pundit’s eyes? This is dangerous language, far more so than any references to the precedent set in calling Gabe’s liability “negligence” in my opinion.

The US already has enough challenges to our perception of the rule of law going on right now. This kind of thing is exactly what we don’t need in my humble opinion.

Cheers!

[Under-Exposed]

I won't pretend to be an expert in American Jurisprudence, but there does seem to be some scope to re-prosecute Gabe Watson in the US. The US Supreme Court has previously held that double jeopardy does not prevent a person acquitted of an offence (sorry guys - using the Australian spelling!) being re-tried for conspiracy to commit that offence. And of course the police officers involved in the Rodney King beating were acquitted of the local criminal charges but subsequently tried and convicted under Federal Civil Rights laws. So the same act can give rise to different charges and subsequent convictions notwithstanding double jeopardy. Having said that, murder and manslaughter are two species of unlawful killing, so may not be sufficiently different to enable Watson to be tried a second time. There is, of course, nothing to prevent the civil suit a la OJ Simpson, but as the applicable law will be the law of Queensland it is unlikely to be worth very much (certainly not of OJ Simpson proportions).

[Under-Exposed]

One further thing - while at common law the traditional position was that criminal laws did not have extra-territorial reach (with piracy being a notable exception), most jurisdictions' criminal laws to some extent assert some extra-territorial reach, if only in their application either to conduct of the citizens of a particular country, or to conduct directed towards the citizens of a country (so, for example, Australia and its states criminalise certain conduct by Australians committed overseas which would be a crime if committed in Australia, whether or not it is a crime in the country in which it is committed. It also criminalises certain conduct, whether by Australians or foreigners, committed against Australians whilst overseas).

[livinoz]

Thanks Under-Exposed for clarifying that.

[livinoz]

If the US has extradition relations with Australia, that in part implies that our respective judicial systems meet mutual criteria in both countries. We wouldn't send one of our citizens there if we felt he or she were going to be sent to a kangaroo court of some kind.



Yes, I did see this bon mot, and it's very amusing! Thanks Dadvocate, it gave me a well needed laugh! ;)

[Dadvocate]

[M]ost jurisdictions' criminal laws to some extent assert some extra-territorial reach, if only in their application either to conduct of the citizens of a particular country, or to conduct directed towards the citizens of a country (so, for example, Australia and its states criminalise certain conduct by Australians committed overseas which would be a crime if committed in Australia, whether or not it is a crime in the country in which it is committed. It also criminalises certain conduct, whether by Australians or foreigners, committed against Australians whilst overseas).Thanks, Under-Exposed

Please correct me if I am wrong here. These extraterritorial laws are usually tied to broader issues like terrorism, pedophilia, drug or human trafficking, and the like, are they not?

For instance, Australia would be keen to apply these laws to individuals proven to be connected with the attacks on Australian citizens in the Bali bombings. This would be the context of “attacks” in the clarification you make, and not say a murder on the streets of New York. Is this correct?

For an isolated case of a crime such as murder (which also tends to be illegal in other places), where does the precedence lie for Australia? Also, are these statutes fluid in the sense that it is easy to tack on cases as the government sees fit, or do the crimes that fall under this umbrella (such as the above) need to be spelled out ahead of time in order to apply the extraterritorial scope in a case for prosecution? In other words, is the application of the laws fixed or can their validity be tested on a case by case basis?

I understand that whatever the realities are for Australia may not be the case in the US.

I recall that under the Bush administration several laws were put in place to track down, extradite, and prosecute pedophiles who made their way to the Philippines. A woman I was dating at the time who worked for UNICEF talked at length about how the US government used charity donations and other perks to entice the Philippines to allow these US citizens to be easily extradited and tried in the US. They also worked closely with UNICEF to target certain individuals who fell outside any jurisdiction the UN had. I believe that Germany followed suit soon thereafter, but I could be wrong.

Cheers!

[Under-Exposed]

Finally, for those who are interested, the Queensland Criminal Code has a fairly standard definition of murder (ie unlawful killing with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (plus some other immaterial circumstances)) and then manslaughter is any unlawful killing that is not murder. This includes manslaughter by criminal negligence, which is according to the common law a high degree of negligence amounting to recklessness; mere neglect, being an act of omission, which is wilful only in the sense of not being inadvertent is ordinarily not sufficient. Bizarre co-incidence....the leading authority on punishment for manslaughter by criminal negligence is a case from 1960 called.......R v Watson!!!

[bowlofpetunias]

One thing that was mentioned earlier is extradition to the States after he serves his term. It seems to me that while Gabe is going to spend some times in OZ he will not qualify to stay in the country any longer than his visa allows .. interesting to think of a visa for goal!

Anyway a few years back an American Citizen was arrested in Canada but resisted extradition for years based on the fact that he was sentenced to death in the States. The Death Sentence is not allowable in Canada so his claim was that Canada would be basically sentencing him to Death if they sent him back. I think they finally did work some kind of deal to ship him back. I wonder if this issue would apply here too.

[Under-Exposed]

Thanks, Under-Exposed

Please correct me if I am wrong here. These extraterritorial laws are usually tied to broader issues like terrorism, pedophilia, drug or human trafficking, and the like, are they not?



Speaking for Australia, that is generally true, and the general criminal laws require some element of the offence to have occurred in the relevant state jurisdiction, or to have threatened the peace welfare or good government of the jurisdiction (some rather quaint wording from the colonial office).

Now, although we are getting a little off topic, in the sense that the important issue is probably the basis upon which the conviction was founded, nonetheless there is a specific Federal Offence in the US where a US national kills another US national outside of the US: 18 USC 1119. However, it requires the consent of the Attorney General, and that approval cannot be given where the offender has already been prosecuted for the same conduct in the foreign country. Note of course that this is a federal offence...I don't know what Alabama state law says.

[ItsBruce]

no, it should make you wary of interferring with your dive buddys equipment, telling numerous different statements to the police and carrying on like a pork chop afterwards towards the victims family :D

I know I said I would not comment, but I can't resist.

1. Interfering with equipment: If there is credible evidence of that, I firmly believe it is murder. Not only murder but with what we call an enhancement for "lying in wait."

2. Telling numerous different stories: I've said it before, I'll say it again. Don't talk to the police, except to ask directions if you are lost and there is no one else to ask. If there is an incident, don't talk to anyone.

3. Carrying on ...: Is that why everyone is so against him? For the way he carried on, someone should kick the stuffing out of him, but that is not a basis for convicting himl.

4. Is it possible that the prosecutor recognizes there was no actual evidence Watson turned off his wife's air? That the police think something happened is not credible evidence. Sorry. No one saw him turn the air off. No one saw him turn the air on. The air was on when Tina was found. He never said he turned the air off. He never said he turned the air on.

I am sorry to be ghoulish, but, consider this: How many divers die in diving accidents in the course of a year. In some the mechanism is clear: fast ascent and embolism, etc. For where the mechanism is unclear, does that mean someone must have turned their air off?

Don't divers die from things other than having their air turned off?

Maybe the prosecutor recognized he could not prove murder.

[Dadvocate]

Under-Exposed

Can Gabe be tried in a court other than a US federal court under these circumstances? I doubt Australia would recognize Alabama's sovereignty in a case where some level of US “extraterritorial” jurisdiction is being asserted to get around a double jeopardy limitation.

However, it requires the consent of the Attorney General, and that approval cannot be given where the offender has already been prosecuted for the same conduct in the foreign country.Just to be sure I am clear, the US Attorney General would have tied hands under these circumstances? If I understand you correctly, it seems then that the best the US attorneys can hope for is to convince the Australian authorities to come down a bit harder on Gabe than they have, if indeed that can be done. Overturning the conviction and setting him free is hardly a realistic outcome at this stage I would imagine. Is that a fair assumption in your view?

Once Gabe serves time for this manslaughter charge, he is not in danger of being tried again under US law unless a significant change in the status quo is argued for and granted by both the US lawyers and the authorities in QLD-Australia. Is that right?

It seems that Mr. Watson may well have gotten some very good advice from his council in leading up to this arrangement. Indeed, this could get very, very interesting before it plays itself out. There are a lot of competing interests going into this case, and I imagine that no one is going to give up easily.

Thanks again for your insights. They are very refreshing indeed.

Cheers!

[stevejaz]

Personally, it would seem he is guilty.

Being a certified rescue diver and not doing everything in his power to bring his wife to the surface?

If he's not guilty, then I'd say his plead is the same lack of action that led to this tragedy in the first place.

[ItsBruce]

I believe that in any country that applies case law (eg. The US and the UK), this case would be of persuasive precedence and possibily affect the outcome of any case sufficiently similar. However, in Australia the precedence would be binding and the outcome of a sufficiently similar case would be certain

Again, I can't resist commenting.

Unless Australia is at great odds with the rest of the world that uses the British Common Law, not only would it not be binding in Australia, it would not even be persuasive. All we have is a prosecutor's explanation. There is no decision by the Court. Even if it was incorporated into a decision by the Court, it is a trial court, not an appellate court. Trial court decisions bind only the parties to the particular case in the particular case.

BTW: I hate to again disagree with K-Girl, but, guilty or not Watson belongs in jail ... if for no other reason than criminal stupidity in handling the matter the way he did after Tina's death.

[ItsBruce]

The following source states:

The fifth amendment refers to being put in ÅËeopardy of life or limb. The clause, however, has been interpreted as providing protection regarding ÅÆvery indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor. The clause, it has been held, does not prevent separate trials by different governments, and the state and federal governments are considered ÅÔeparate sovereigns? Therefore, one may be prosecuted for a crime in a state court, and also prosecuted for the same crime in another state, a foreign country, or (most commonly) in a federal court.

Source: Double Jeopardy | The Fifth Amendment (http://fifthamendment.us/?page_id=10)

It goes on to say that double jeopardy does apply once a defendant has been acquitted. It also says that defendants cannot be retried once convicted except under special circumstances as a judge may see fit and proper.

Mark Gerregos said he has seen cases where the U.S. Government has tried Americans for crimes they committed in foreign countries, when they had already been tried in foreign countries because double jeopardy does not apply. His interview will be played on Larry King throughout the weekend - so watch for it.

I'm sure it is probably a rare occurrence that most law enforcement in this country has not seen happen, and probably never will.

This may be a bit beyond my pay grade, but I suspect that he could be retried in the US if he were acquitted in Australia. If he is convicted and serves time, I cannot imagine he could be tried again and sentenced to more time. But, I am no expert on this.

[Dive California]

Wow! This story is so sad.

1st of all anybody that pleds guilty to Manslaughter...was guilty of the murder...just saw an easier way out.

Questions now, how many people will take their spouses to Australia for a quick dive...only to have an accident...pled guilty to manslaughter...come back after a year in jail. I know lots of people that would do a year to get rid of their spouse....lets see one year in jail...or an eternity in hell....hmmmm May see lots of trips booked by couples in California, watch out spouses when your loved one says "hey lets go on vacation to Australia."

[ItsBruce]

I know there is no benefit to me saying this, but ...

I keep seeing comments about "justice for Tina's family." Is it really justice they want or do they just want a target for their their grief?

From what I've seen on SB as "evidence," it would appear there was animosity between Watson and Tina's family even before they were married. Then you have Tina dying under what are clearly suspicious circumstances. Could these factors have caused the family to target Watson for lack of any other target?

It is, IMHO, human nature to want to blame someone or something when something goes wrong. So, I ask, is it really "justice" or just a scapegoat?

[boulderjohn]

This is a very good point. If you can argue that you felt a diver in duress exhibited behavior that you deemed made a rescue unsafe, thus under PADI stipulations not a good rescue situation to engage in, can it now be said that others after the fact can second guess that decision and hold you liable?

I wouldnÃÕ like that all too much if that ended up being the case.

Cheers!

In my reading of all the news articles in this thread and admittedly nothing more since the original discussions, I really don't see this as setting any real precedent for actual rescue operations, even when the potential rescuer decides not to rescue because of the danger involved. If you look at all the quotes together, including the ones where he was observed to have her in a bear hug and then released her to fall to the bottom while he swam to the top, I think it is pretty clear that the manslaughter charged was not based only on the fact that he failed to perform a rescue.

The plea agreement was based on what they thought they could or could not feel safe about proving to a jury (from their point of view) and what the defendant felt was a reasonable risk. With all the facts considered, including the fact that he left the bear hug (in which case inflating the BCD would have been a simple matter requiring almost no skill) and made no attempt to save her, they felt they were safe with a manslaughter charge, and apparently Watson felt that there was enough possibility for a stronger charge that he agreed to it.

If you were in a normal rescue situation and failed to come to the aid of the victim for any remotely acceptable reason, it would be a different story altogether.

I am not an attorney, but I have been told that extreme cases with special circumstances almost never end up being used as precedent for the normal interpretation of the law.

[Valwood1]

Plea bargaining as used in the US is ... one where the prosecutor has a great deal of power. It is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority of criminal cases there are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial, and plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court.

That's all true.

[/QUOTE] The courts in these jurisdictions [UK and Australia and some unnamed other] have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty. [/QUOTE]

Plea bargaining here involves a guilty plea, and a RECOMMENDATION from the prosecutor for a sentence; that recommendation is usually a negotiated item between prosecution and defense. The judge usually accepts both the guilty plea and the sentence recommendation, but is not obligated to do so.

[/QUOTE]In the USA, judges are actively involved in plea bargain negotiations;[/QUOTE]

That is not correct. The negotiations are between the prosecution and the defense.

[/QUOTE] ... the doctrine of separation powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary which means that there should be no misuse or concentration of power, to avoid the abuse of that power. This contrasts to the USA system in regard to plea bargains.[/QUOTE]

The separation of powers doctrine is in the American Constitution, though I cannot say that doctrine originated here. In any case, I don't see how it is germane at all to the issue iof plea bargaining.

[livinoz]

That's all true.

The courts in these jurisdictions [UK and Australia and some unnamed other] have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty.

Plea bargaining here involves a guilty plea, and a RECOMMENDATION from the prosecutor for a sentence; that recommendation is usually a negotiated item between prosecution and defense. The judge usually accepts both the guilty plea and the sentence recommendation, but is not obligated to do so.

In the USA, judges are actively involved in plea bargain negotiations;

That is not correct. The negotiations are between the prosecution and the defense.

... the doctrine of separation powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary which means that there should be no misuse or concentration of power, to avoid the abuse of that power. This contrasts to the USA system in regard to plea bargains.

The separation of powers doctrine is in the American Constitution, though I cannot say that doctrine originated here. In any case, I don't see how it is germane at all to the issue iof plea bargaining.

Yes, typically, defence counsel and the prosecutor negotiate the charges to be brought. But if the bargain pertains to the sentence to be meted out, a judge may also participate unless barred from doing so ( US Supreme Court: Plea Bargaining,  Harold J. Spaeth) Judicial regulation also implies that judges will retain discretion as to whether to accept or reject a plea bargain according to Welling (1987: 329). They may also act as an independent arbiter, unlike the Australian system.

The US Supreme Court was concerned enough about due process violations in plea bargaining, such as "coercion, false pleas, and injustice…. [and alternatively] excessive leniency, reduction of deterrence, and the value of the rule of law as a symbol" ( US Supreme Court: Plea Bargaining,  Harold J. Spaeth ) to make recommendations regarding this, so that is pertinent to concerns about abuse of power. Yes, it probably not be germane to the case; but for that matter none of the posts in this thread regarding US law are relevant in this case, and that was my point. Plea bargaining and the due processes of Law necessarily differ between the two countries.

[Ardy]

This is a very strange result and could be to do with Australia's love affair with all things American. If this had been an Australian he would be in jail for 15-20 years. The other thing was all this chest beating that went on locally about how they had more than enough evidence to confict him and then this.

They are going to review the sentence as it was reported in the papers yesterday but that most probably means he will do 2 years and not the one.

The papers reported that the attorney general of Alabama claimed there was evidence about him upping his wife's insurance before they were married and that he would be convicted of murder and get 20 years in the USA. My question to him would be why didnt you arrest him?

This is a very poor result all round and now someone is sueing Channel 9 locally as they wanted to do a documentary on this and Ch 9 had shown it on the news and therefore ruined their plans.

[alohagal]

Australia does NOT have "plea bargaining". In fact Queensland has no formal system of plea bargaining (Geraldine MacKenzie, How Judges Sentence, Federation Press, 2005). The parties may discuss the case before it comes to court however and agree, for example, that there is insufficient evidence for a certain charge and decide not to go ahead on that basis.

Our criminal jurisprudence has always accepted a system which allows an accused, charged with, say, murder, to agree to plead "guilty" to manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence. As the High Court of Australia has stated, the fact that a person has pleaded guilty may be taken into account in mitigation, and the rationale for that rule depends on factors other than remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and not on the basis that the plea has saved the community the expense of a contested hearing.

This thread is getting to the obsessive stage with some posters I think!

Tina's parents may decide to pursue a civil case, that's up to them. I think by going over and over this in the press, on the 'net and on various TV programs they are merely prolonging their own agony. And that's quite different from the fact I sympathize with their dreadful loss.
Police want end to plea bargaining | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22935307-26103,00.html)
POLICE prosecutors are threatening bans on court work for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in a bid to end plea bargaining, which they say favours criminals rather than victims.
The campaign, backed by the NSW Police Association, aims to force a review of the practice by NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos, News Ltd reports today.
The campaign will start today with a series of workplace meetings held at stations across NSW.
Under the campaign, police prosecutors could refuse to refer less serious indictable offences to the DPP.
As a last resort, the association will also direct police prosecutors to stop appearing in pre-trial court mentions on behalf of the DPP.
NSW Police Association president Bob Pritchard said deals were being made which favoured criminals, not victims.
"SW Police officers are demanding a full review of the plea bargaining system with a view to fundamental reform to end the culture of backroom deals between lawyers at the expense of victims and their families, he told News Ltd.
"It is not just the treatment of those who attacked or killed police officers that concerns us.

"It is the hundreds of hours of preparation and investigative work by officers in a range of other cases that is being traded away in sleazy backroom deals.
Police cars will also fly blue ribbons in support of the campaign.

[thanksforallthefish]

Police want end to plea bargaining | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22935307-26103,00.html)
POLICE prosecutors are threatening bans on court work for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in a bid to end plea bargaining, which they say favours criminals rather than victims.
The campaign, backed by the NSW Police Association, aims to force a review of the practice by NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos, News Ltd reports today.
The campaign will start today with a series of workplace meetings held at stations across NSW.
Under the campaign, police prosecutors could refuse to refer less serious indictable offences to the DPP.
As a last resort, the association will also direct police prosecutors to stop appearing in pre-trial court mentions on behalf of the DPP.
NSW Police Association president Bob Pritchard said deals were being made which favoured criminals, not victims.
"SW Police officers are demanding a full review of the plea bargaining system with a view to fundamental reform to end the culture of backroom deals between lawyers at the expense of victims and their families, he told News Ltd.
"It is not just the treatment of those who attacked or killed police officers that concerns us.

"It is the hundreds of hours of preparation and investigative work by officers in a range of other cases that is being traded away in sleazy backroom deals.
Police cars will also fly blue ribbons in support of the campaign.


That is a different state

[alohagal]

That is a different state
So, the other states are immune from this, then?

[ItsBruce]

I'm a bit confused by the prior post. I do not understand the cast of characters. Who and what are police prosecutors? Who and what is the DPP?

FWIW, for many years I was a staunch opponent of plea bargains. I still don't like it when it turns out to be a bargain for the crook. However, the reality is that if this tool is removed from the prosecutor's toolbox, there will be several very undesirable results.

First, more cases will go to trial. This will mean that the backlog of cases will increase as will the time to get a case to trial. I do not know about Australia, but in the U.S. the right to a speedy trial is a Constitutional level right. If the prosecutor cannot get a case to trial within the statutory time (and the defendant does not waive a speedy trial), the case must be dismissed. Defendants will find a way to abuse the system and get meritorious cases dismissed.

Second, if prosecutors cannot accept a plea to a crime that is less than what they have charged, they will be less likely to charge high. Oddly, this may actually be beneficial in that it will restrict abusive charging which is sometimes done to intimidate a defendant into agreeing to plead guilty to what the charge legitimately ought to be.

[livinoz]

So, the other states are immune from this then?

Yes, each state has it's own Jurisdiction.

This was in the Brisbane Times this afternoon about 15 minutes ago. I can't comment as to its veracity:

Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions has defended a decision to drop a murder charge against convicted honeymoon dive killer Gabe Watson, insisting Crown lawyers had little chance of proving he deliberately drowned his bride of 11 days.

Christina "Tina" Watson, 26, died while scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef in October 2003 after her air supply became cut off 15 metres below the surface.

An inquest found reasonable grounds to charge Watson, 32, with murder, but Crown prosecutors on Friday accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter after he argued he had panicked and failed to assist Tina when she became distressed in the water.

The decision, which resulted in a 12 month minimum jail term for Watson, has sparked widespread anger and calls for an appeal by Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick.

Today, Queensland's most senior prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan SC, stood by the actions of his department in accepting the lesser charge.

He said the chances of securing a conviction for murder had been slim.

"The decision to accept Mr Watson's plea of guilty to manslaughter was made after a careful and thorough examination of the admissible evidence, and was not taken lightly," Mr Moynihan said.

"Given the complex circumstantial nature of the case, Mr Watson's admission that he breached his duty to render assistance to his wife ultimately meant there was no reasonable prospect of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of murder."

Authorities in Watson's home state of Alabama, in the US, have revealed plans to charge Watson with murder upon his release from a Queensland jail next year.

Chief of the Alabama attorney-general's violent crime office, Don Valeska, told The Birmingham News the department believed Watson may have plotted to murder Tina before leaving the US for the couple's Australian honeymoon.

Mr Dick said today he was considering appealing Watson's lenient jail term, but said he would not be rushed.

[livinoz]

I'm a bit confused by the prior post. I do not understand the cast of characters. Who and what are police prosecutors? Who and what is the DPP?

FWIW, for many years I was a staunch opponent of plea bargains. I still don't like it when it turns out to be a bargain for the crook. However, the reality is that if this tool is removed from the prosecutor's toolbox, there will be several very undesirable results.

First, more cases will go to trial. This will mean that the backlog of cases will increase as will the time to get a case to trial. I do not know about Australia, but in the U.S. the right to a speedy trial is a Constitutional level right. If the prosecutor cannot get a case to trial within the statutory time (and the defendant does not waive a speedy trial), the case must be dismissed. Defendants will find a way to abuse the system and get meritorious cases dismissed.

Second, if prosecutors cannot accept a plea to a crime that is less than what they have charged, they will be less likely to charge high. Oddly, this may actually be beneficial in that it will restrict abusive charging which is sometimes done to intimidate a defendant into agreeing to plead guilty to what the charge legitimately ought to be.

That post has got nothing to do with this case as it's in a different state.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions acts on the community's behalf to prosecute people charged with serious criminal offences in Queensland.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory officer, which means the position is created under law to be separate from the government. The independence of the director and their office ensures that criminal prosecutions are free from any improper influence or interference.



A police prosecutor is a lawyer acting on behalf of the police for the prosecution.

[alohagal]

Thanks Livinoz.
There you have it. The prosecutors are saying outright, they did not have enough evidence to prove murder, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[thanksforallthefish]

Thanks Livinoz.
There you have it. The prosecutors are saying outright, they did not have enough evidence to prove murder, beyond a reasonable doubt.


Well seriously what were you expecting??

[livinoz]

Thanks Livinoz.
There you have it. The prosecutors are saying outright, they did not have enough evidence to prove murder, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes. And I'd think that despite the statements by the Attorney-General of Alabama, the odds of turning up further evidence to charge Watson with murder are not looking good, as the investigation covered both continents and took a number of years.

[Dadvocate]

My point is moot.

Cheers!

[alohagal]

Yes, each state has it's own Jurisdiction.

This was in the Brisbane Times this afternoon about 15 minutes ago. I can't comment as to its veracity:

Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions has defended a decision to drop a murder charge against convicted honeymoon dive killer Gabe Watson, insisting Crown lawyers had little chance of proving he deliberately drowned his bride of 11 days.

Christina "Tina" Watson, 26, died while scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef in October 2003 after her air supply became cut off 15 metres below the surface.

An inquest found reasonable grounds to charge Watson, 32, with murder, but Crown prosecutors on Friday accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter after he argued he had panicked and failed to assist Tina when she became distressed in the water.

The decision, which resulted in a 12 month minimum jail term for Watson, has sparked widespread anger and calls for an appeal by Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick.

Today, Queensland's most senior prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan SC, stood by the actions of his department in accepting the lesser charge.

He said the chances of securing a conviction for murder had been slim.

"The decision to accept Mr Watson's plea of guilty to manslaughter was made after a careful and thorough examination of the admissible evidence, and was not taken lightly," Mr Moynihan said.

"Given the complex circumstantial nature of the case, Mr Watson's admission that he breached his duty to render assistance to his wife ultimately meant there was no reasonable prospect of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of murder."

Authorities in Watson's home state of Alabama, in the US, have revealed plans to charge Watson with murder upon his release from a Queensland jail next year.

Chief of the Alabama attorney-general's violent crime office, Don Valeska, told The Birmingham News the department believed Watson may have plotted to murder Tina before leaving the US for the couple's Australian honeymoon.

Mr Dick said today he was considering appealing Watson's lenient jail term, but said he would not be rushed.

Thanks Livinoz,

Having the prosecution state outright that there is NOT enough evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt is the answer many of us have been looking for. No need to look any further for the WHY of the manslaughter plea. I guess the speculation now will be if the US will go forward with charges...and if it is even possible or even reasonable to do so.

[livinoz]

Thanks Livinoz,

Having the prosecution state outright that there is NOT enough evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt is the answer many of us have been looking for. No need to look any further for the WHY of the manslaughter plea. I guess the speculation now will be if the US will go forward with charges...and if it is even possible or even reasonable to do so.


As I said above, if many years of investigation in both countries have not resulted in a finding of "guilty of murder" then I'd think the chances are slim for the US authorities. But that's their decision.

[alohagal]

As I said above, if many years of investigation in both countries have not resulted in a finding of "guilty of murder" then I'd think the chances are slim for the US authorities.

Yes...I was so busy editing my last post...we were obviously thinking the same about the US charges. I posted before I got to read yours.

Anyway...can you keep the "news" from your part of the world coming...if there is anymore.

Thanks;)

[Under-Exposed]

I think it perhaps overstates it to say that there is no plea bargaining in Australia. If what is meant by "plea bargaining" is a formalised system involving negotiation between defence, prosecutors and judges, then that is probably correct. But there is no doubt that in practice cases are disposed of on various bases that have an element of plea bargaining. This may involve an agreement by the prosecution to withdraw a charge, or not present evidence on a charge, if an accused pleads guilty to some other charge (arising out of different facts) or to a lesser charge (arising out of the same facts).

There is no doubt a judge has the capacity to reject a plea of guilty, but the circumstances in which that can appropriately occur are limited. And in circumstances where the Crown accepts the difficulty of securing a conviction on one charge, and another lesser charge is properly available, then the only basis for rejecting the plea of guilty would seem to be some concern by the judge that the accused did not understand the plea being made. It is a power to protect the accused from incapacity or duress.

The effect such a bargain may have on sentence can be profound. For example, the maximum penalties will invariably be different, and what may in one case be mandatory for one charge may simply not be available for a lesser charge. In this way, the practical outcome is to bind the sentencing judge by exclusion.

In a less binding way, the process can result in an agreement as to the submissions that will be made on sentencing by the Crown. While these are not binding on the sentencing judge, it would be unusual (although not unknown) for a judge to decline to accept the Crown's submissions and impose a harsher sentence.

Similarly, there may be agreement as to the evidence or facts to be relied upon by the Crown in the sentencing hearing (a process that would ordinarily effectively bind the sentencing judge, in what is effectively an adversarial and not an inquisitorial proceeding) which may limit the discretion available to the sentencing judge.

The effect of a plea of guilty on sentence is varied, but it is not true to say that saving the expense of a trial is irrelevant. In Saganto v The Queen the High Court (for those who not Antipodeans, that is our highest court) held that a plea of guilty is ordinarily a matter to be taken into account in mitigation; first, because it is usually evidence of some remorse on the part of the offender, and second, on the pragmatic ground that the community is spared the expense of a contested trial. It is also sometimes relevant to the aspect of remorse that a victim has been spared the necessity of undergoing the painful procedure of giving evidence. And no doubt this could also include sparing the victim's family the same pain.

Australia does NOT have "plea bargaining". In fact Queensland has no formal system of plea bargaining (Geraldine MacKenzie, How Judges Sentence, Federation Press, 2005). The parties may discuss the case before it comes to court however and agree, for example, that there is insufficient evidence for a certain charge and decide not to go ahead on that basis.

Our criminal jurisprudence has always accepted a system which allows an accused, charged with, say, murder, to agree to plead "guilty" to manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence. As the High Court of Australia has stated, the fact that a person has pleaded guilty may be taken into account in mitigation, and the rationale for that rule depends on factors other than remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and not on the basis that the plea has saved the community the expense of a contested hearing.

This thread is getting to the obsessive stage with some posters I think!

Tina's parents may decide to pursue a civil case, that's up to them. I think by going over and over this in the press, on the 'net and on various TV programs they are merely prolonging their own agony. And that's quite different from the fact I sympathize with their dreadful loss.

[alohagal]

My point is moot.

Cheers!
I saw your post before you deleted it!! Gave it a large EYE roll. Believe me, I considered that she had "plea bargaining" in quotes. But, it wasn't proving that the prosecution of Australia and Gabe's Defense lawyer were not in "talks." According to the judge they weren't.

It no longer matters. The prosecution has said, there was not enough evidence to prove murder. (which means they probably thought he was guilty, just couldn't prove it) Oops...maybe I shouldn't say that here!!!

[livinoz]

I think it perhaps overstates it to say that there is no plea bargaining in Australia. If what is meant by "plea bargaining" is a formalised system involving negotiation between defence, prosecutors and judges, then that is probably correct.

That is the point I was making.

But as I've no legal training, I'll bow to your superior knowledge. I'm pretty tired of this whole case and the arguments re Australian versus US Law, so I'm out now

[Under-Exposed]

For those who are interested, in a case based on circumstantial evidence in Australia, a Court is usually required to to tell the jury that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt and that there will be reasonable doubt where there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably available. So in this case, the DPP may have considered that Watson's explanation was reasonably open, and therefore the jury was likely to be instructed that if that were the case then there would be reasonable doubt.

[alohagal]

I think it perhaps overstates it to say that there is no plea bargaining in Australia. If what is meant by "plea bargaining" is a formalised system involving negotiation between defence, prosecutors and judges, then that is probably correct. But there is no doubt that in practice cases are disposed of on various bases that have an element of plea bargaining. This may involve an agreement by the prosecution to withdraw a charge, or not present evidence on a charge, if an accused pleads guilty to some other charge (arising out of different facts) or to a lesser charge (arising out of the same facts).

There is no doubt a judge has the capacity to reject a plea of guilty, but the circumstances in which that can appropriately occur are limited. And in circumstances where the Crown accepts the difficulty of securing a conviction on one charge, and another lesser charge is properly available, then the only basis for rejecting the plea of guilty would seem to be some concern by the judge that the accused did not understand the plea being made. It is a power to protect the accused from incapacity or duress.

The effect such a bargain may have on sentence can be profound. For example, the maximum penalties will invariably be different, and what may in one case be mandatory for one charge may simply not be available for a lesser charge. In this way, the practical outcome is to bind the sentencing judge by exclusion.

In a less binding way, the process can result in an agreement as to the submissions that will be made on sentencing by the Crown. While these are not binding on the sentencing judge, it would be unusual (although not unknown) for a judge to decline to accept the Crown's submissions and impose a harsher sentence.

Similarly, there may be agreement as to the evidence or facts to be relied upon by the Crown in the sentencing hearing (a process that would ordinarily effectively bind the sentencing judge, in what is effectively an adversarial and not an inquisitorial proceeding) which may limit the discretion available to the sentencing judge.

The effect of a plea of guilty on sentence is varied, but it is not true to say that saving the expense of a trial is irrelevant. In Saganto v The Queen the High Court (for those who not Antipodeans, that is our highest court) held that a plea of guilty is ordinarily a matter to be taken into account in mitigation; first, because it is usually evidence of some remorse on the part of the offender, and second, on the pragmatic ground that the community is spared the expense of a contested trial. It is also sometimes relevant to the aspect of remorse that a victim has been spared the necessity of undergoing the painful procedure of giving evidence. And no doubt this could also include sparing the victim's family the same pain.

Sounds like this is the status quo used for lessening a charge Since this is what the judge in Gabe Watson case cited as his reasoning. Certainly if anyone studied the Queen High Court mitigating factors such as:
1. Saving expense of trial
2. Expressing remorse,
3. Sparing victims family (even though this particular family looked forward to a trial)
All would seem to help lessen the charges and the sentencing...perhaps Gabes lawyer did due diligence and recommended his client fly to Australia and act accordingly.

Am I getting this wrong?

[alohagal]

Okay...Livinoz and Under-exposed:

Are you both saying that if there is NO formalized system involving negotiations. Does that mean the prosecution NEVER discusses their intent to drop charges or change the charges, with the defense or give them any kind of heads up whatsoever ahead of time? I am just trying to clarify is all.

[Under-Exposed]

[/B]

Sounds like this is the status quo used for lessening a charge Since this is what the judge in Gabe Watson case cited as his reasoning. Certainly if anyone studied the Queen High Court mitigating factors such as:
1. Saving expense of trial
2. Expressing remorse,
3. Sparing victims family (even though this particular family looked forward to a trial)
All would seem to help lessen the charges and the sentencing...perhaps Gabes lawyer did due diligence and recommended his client fly to Australia and act accordingly.

Am I getting this wrong?

They are factors that are relevant in reducing sentence, not the charge.

[alohagal]

For those who are interested, in a case based on circumstantial evidence in Australia, a Court is usually required to to tell the jury that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt and that there will be reasonable doubt where there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably available. So in this case, the DPP may have considered that Watson's explanation was reasonably open, and therefore the jury was likely to be instructed that if that were the case then there would be reasonable doubt.
Well that is where many people who are scuba divers would find his actions...based on his own words in police interview...to be unreasonable.:D

[alohagal]

They are factors that are relevant in reducing sentence, not the charge.
So, when did the "offer" of manslaughter develop exactly?

[bsee65]

Yes, each state has it's own Jurisdiction.

This was in the Brisbane Times this afternoon about 15 minutes ago. I can't comment as to its veracity:

...
Today, Queensland's most senior prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan SC, stood by the actions of his department in accepting the lesser charge.

He said the chances of securing a conviction for murder had been slim.

"The decision to accept Mr Watson's plea of guilty to manslaughter was made after a careful and thorough examination of the admissible evidence, and was not taken lightly," Mr Moynihan said.

"Given the complex circumstantial nature of the case, Mr Watson's admission that he breached his duty to render assistance to his wife ultimately meant there was no reasonable prospect of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of murder."

...

I'm not sure where this guy got his grasp of cause and effect. How does an admission of a failure to render aid mean that murder couldn't be proven? That's like saying the accused said he didn't do it, so he must be innocent. Maybe they accepted the admission because they felt they couldn't prove murder, but that's not quite the same thing.

[Under-Exposed]

Okay...Livinoz and Under-exposed:

Are you both saying that if there is NO formalized system involving negotiations. Does that mean the prosecution NEVER discusses their intent to drop charges or change the charges, with the defense or give them any kind of heads up whatsoever ahead of time? I am just trying to clarify is all.

I think it is correct as Livinoz originally said that there is no formalised system. That doesn't mean that prosecutors never discuss their intentions with the defence, but thee is no formalised process for this to be done or recorded, or for involvement by the court.

These types of discussions are precisely what occurred in the recently notorious case in Australia involving our disgraced former Federal Court judge, Marcus Einfeld, where Einfeld pleaded guilty to two charges and the Crown did not press two other charges. If you are at all interested, go to R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119 (http://tinyurl.com/nkyq3p)

[Under-Exposed]

Well that is where many people who are scuba divers would find his actions...based on his own words in police interview...to be unreasonable.:D

While some may consider his actions unreasonable, what I meant was if the evidence was capable of supporting a finding that he had negligently failed to comply with his obligations to his wife/buddy to render aid (ie if that finding were reasonably open), then a jury would likely be instructed that there was reasonable doubt on the charge of murder (because that finding would be consistent with his innocence of the murder charge, there being no malice aforethought) and therefore he should be acquitted of that charge. It may have been open to leave the alternative charge of manslaughter to the jury, if the trial had proceeded.

[alohagal]

I'm not sure where this guy got his grasp of cause and effect. How does an admission of a failure to render aid mean that murder couldn't be proven? That's like saying the accused said he didn't do it, so he must be innocent. Maybe they accepted the admission because they felt they couldn't prove murder, but that's not quite the same thing.
Yes, I thought that sounded odd as well. It almost appears they are saying if you confess to some type of negligence coupled with remorse the jury can see that admission as casting reasonable doubt on the idea you did something more ominous.

[alohagal]

While some may consider his actions unreasonable, what I meant was if the evidence was capable of supporting a finding that he had negligently failed to comply with his obligations to his wife/buddy to render aid (ie if that finding were reasonably open), then a jury would likely be instructed that there was reasonable doubt on the charge of murder (because that finding would be consistent with his innocence of the murder charge, there being no malice aforethought) and therefore he should be acquitted of that charge. It may have been open to leave the alternative charge of manslaughter to the jury, if the trial had proceeded.
I understood your meaning...I was just being a bit "cheeky"!! But really enjoy your clarifications none-the-less!!:D

[Under-Exposed]

I'm not sure where this guy got his grasp of cause and effect. How does an admission of a failure to render aid mean that murder couldn't be proven? That's like saying the accused said he didn't do it, so he must be innocent. Maybe they accepted the admission because they felt they couldn't prove murder, but that's not quite the same thing.

What he is saying is that t is a circumstantial case, so the Crown effectively needs to exclude all other explanations for what happened that are inconsistent with guilt. One explanation inconsistent with guilt is that rather than turning off her air intending to kill her, she got into trouble and he failed to render aid (or I think more accurately, failed adequately to come to her aid). If the admissible evidence left that alternative explanation open to the jury to find, then there is reasonable doubt as a matter of law and therefore he would/should be acquitted of the charge of murder. It is not because the accused said so. It is because what the accused said was reasonably consistent with the evidence, and there was insufficient evidence available to the Crown to exclude that explanation.

[Under-Exposed]

I understood your meaning...I was just being a bit "cheeky"!! But really enjoy your clarifications none-the-less!!:D

I wasn't sure whether I had used the quintuple negative or not!

[alohagal]

I wasn't sure whether I had used the quintuple negative or not!
Heaven knows, I wasn't counting....but, you are sounding quite lawyerly. Being a nurse...I am forced to be succint, direct and clear. Otherwise documentation would become a nightmare!!

:D:D:D

[livinoz]

Heaven knows, I wasn't counting....but, you are sounding quite lawyerly. Being a nurse...I am forced to be succint, direct and clear. Otherwise documentation would become a nightmare!!

:D:D:D

That's probably because he is a lawyer, a barrister in fact!

Anyway, thanks for clarifying all those issues Under-Exposed; it makes a lot more sense now, to me at least.

[alohagal]

That's probably because he is a lawyer, a barrister in fact!

Anyway, thanks for clarifying all those issues Under-Exposed; it makes a lot more sense now, to me at least.

Yes indeed...I was well aware of that fact!

[livinoz]

Yes indeed...I was well aware of that fact!

Ah, being cheeky again Alohagal? ;)

[alohagal]

"I think it is correct as Livinoz originally said that there is no formalised system. That doesn't mean that prosecutors never discuss their intentions with the defence, but thee is no formalised process for this to be done or recorded, or for involvement by the court."

Our plea bargaining is far from formal. It is a back and forth negotiation between the prosecuting attorney and the defense. And there are times no plea deal is ever offered. And, only when both sides agree will they go before the court (judge) and enter their formal plea aggreement. The judge is still bound by law to sentence according to the charge agreed upon. His only consideration of leniency is within the minumum to maximum sentence of that charge as stated in the law. A defendent does not have to accept any plea deal and can continue forth with a trial...it could be a roll of the dice at that point.

[alohagal]

Ah, being cheeky again Alohagal? ;)
I was going to ask you the same!

[livinoz]

I was going to ask you the same!

Moi? No, I'm never cheeky! ;)

[alohagal]

Moi? No, I'm never cheeky! ;)

I'll never forget Meryl Streep as Lindy Chamberlain. And what that poor, yet odd, woman was up against.

"Maybe the Dingo ate your baby"

That was certainly a lesson in mob mentality!! So, maybe, this guy is just a "dumba$$".

[livinoz]

I'll never forget Meryl Streep as Lindy Chamberlain. And what that poor, yet odd, woman was up against.

"Maybe the Dingo ate your baby"

That was certainly a lesson in mob mentality!!

So true, and it proves a point doesn't it? The law isn't always perfect.

[livinoz]

"I think it is correct as Livinoz originally said that there is no formalised system. That doesn't mean that prosecutors never discuss their intentions with the defence, but thee is no formalised process for this to be done or recorded, or for involvement by the court."

Our plea bargaining is far from formal. It is a back and forth negotiation between the prosecuting attorney and the defense. And there are times no plea deal is ever offered. And, only when both sides agree will they go before the court (judge) and enter their formal plea aggreement. The judge is still bound by law to sentence according to the charge agreed upon. His only consideration of leniency is within the minumum to maximum sentence of that charge as stated in the law. A defendent does not have to accept any plea deal and can continue forth with a trial...it could be a roll of the dice at that point.

So how are the rights of the defendant protected during the process of plea bargaining? Have the concerns about "coercion, false pleas, and injustice" by the US Supreme Court been addressed?

[Dadvocate]

Aloha

I saw your post before you deleted it!! Gave it a large EYE roll. Believe me, I considered that she had "plea bargaining" in quotes. But, it wasn't proving that the prosecution of Australia and Gabe's Defense lawyer were not in "talks." According to the judge they weren't.

I am not sure why the exclamation points were necessary, Aloha. You havenÃÕ caught me in a lie or something of that nature. My points in that post were more valid than you think, however, I made the same mistake you did in overlooking the jurisdictional issues in Australia. And Under Exposed says nearly the same thing I did as well in a later post.

It doesnÃÕ matter anyway given that youÃ×e conceded that the evidence seems not to be there for a conviction.

This whole song and dance has always been about that anyway.

Cheers!

[livinoz]

Aloha

[/COLOR]

[SIZE=3]I am not sure why the exclamation points were necessary, Aloha. You havenÃÕ caught me in a lie or something of that nature. My points in that post were more valid than you think, however, I made the same mistake you did in overlooking the jurisdictional issues in Australia. And Under Exposed says nearly the same thing I did as well in a later post.

It doesnÃÕ matter anyway given that youÃ×e conceded that the evidence seems not to be there for a conviction.

This whole song and dance has always been about that anyway.

Cheers!

I think you said it was a moot point? :)

I somehow don't think this case has quite finished yet!

[bsee65]

What he is saying is that t is a circumstantial case, so the Crown effectively needs to exclude all other explanations for what happened that are inconsistent with guilt. One explanation inconsistent with guilt is that rather than turning off her air intending to kill her, she got into trouble and he failed to render aid (or I think more accurately, failed adequately to come to her aid). If the admissible evidence left that alternative explanation open to the jury to find, then there is reasonable doubt as a matter of law and therefore he would/should be acquitted of the charge of murder. It is not because the accused said so. It is because what the accused said was reasonably consistent with the evidence, and there was insufficient evidence available to the Crown to exclude that explanation.

Okay, so in order to believe this story, you have to believe one of a few other things. Pick the "reasonable" alternative from the following list, or add one of your own:

1. Tina spontaneously stopped breathing in spite of having fully functional gear, plenty of air, and no other medical issues.
2. Tina's equipment failed and she stopped getting air long enough to kill her and then it began to function properly again, showing no signs of a failure to the investigators.
3. Tina's air was turned off by someone or something else, and then turned back on before she was found.
4. Tina turned off her own air, or it was never fully on, and Gabe turned it back on after it was too late and then dropped her.
5. Someone lied about her air being on when she was found, or about the condition of her gear after testing.

Any other possibilities as to how she could be found asphyxiated on the ocean floor with no water in her lungs and fully functional gear? In order for the concept that Tina was having trouble and Gabe failed to provide aid, something has to explain the trouble, her death, and the state of her person and gear when she was recovered. If that can't be explained reasonably without a detrimental act by some third party, then the failure-to-provide-aid defense wouldn't have been consistent with the facts.

The case for murder certainly would have gotten a bit into technical aspects of diving. Hopefully the prosecutor got some dive training, if he wasn't already certified, in order to understand what he was working with.

[livinoz]

Okay, so in order to believe this story, you have to believe one of a few other things. Pick the "reasonable" alternative from the following list, or add one of your own:

1. Tina spontaneously stopped breathing in spite of having fully functional gear, plenty of air, and no other medical issues.
2. Tina's equipment failed and she stopped getting air long enough to kill her and then it began to function properly again, showing no signs of a failure to the investigators.
3. Tina's air was turned off by someone or something else, and then turned back on before she was found.
4. Tina turned off her own air, or it was never fully on, and Gabe turned it back on after it was too late and then dropped her.
5. Someone lied about her air being on when she was found, or about the condition of her gear after testing.

Any other possibilities as to how she could be found asphyxiated on the ocean floor with no water in her lungs and fully functional gear? In order for the concept that Tina was having trouble and Gabe failed to provide aid, something has to explain the trouble, her death, and the state of her person and gear when she was recovered. If that can't be explained reasonably without a detrimental act by some third party, then the failure-to-provide-aid defense wouldn't have been consistent with the facts.

The case for murder certainly would have gotten a bit into technical aspects of diving. Hopefully the prosecutor got some dive training, if he wasn't already certified, in order to understand what he was working with.

As the DPP said they had insufficient evidence to try Watson for murder, can I ask, what is the point of speculating further? As Moynihan stated:

"The decision to accept Mr Watson's plea of guilty to manslaughter was made after a careful and thorough examination of the admissible evidence, and was not taken lightly," Mr Moynihan said.

"Given the complex circumstantial nature of the case, Mr Watson's admission that he breached his duty to render assistance to his wife ultimately meant there was no reasonable prospect of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of murder."

[bowlofpetunias]

Okay, so in order to believe this story, you have to believe one of a few other things. Pick the "reasonable" alternative from the following list, or add one of your own:

1. Tina spontaneously stopped breathing in spite of having fully functional gear, plenty of air, and no other medical issues.

Tina was afraid, hyperventilated and passed out the common result of continued hyperventilation on land but much more complicated if you do it under water!


2. Tina's equipment failed and she stopped getting air long enough to kill her and then it began to function properly again, showing no signs of a failure to the investigators.

Tina's reg could not deliver air at the speed it was being demanded which made her try breathing even harder. Carbon Dioxide toxicity underwater from over breathing is not unheard of......


3. Tina's air was turned off by someone or something else, and then turned back on before she was found.

There is no published evidence presented that this occurred.


4. Tina turned off her own air, or it was never fully on, and Gabe turned it back on after it was too late and then dropped her.

:rofl3: oh sorry were you serious?

5. Someone lied about her air being on when she was found, or about the condition of her gear after testing.



Any other possibilities as to how she could be found asphyxiated on the ocean floor with no water in her lungs and fully functional gear? In order for the concept that Tina was having trouble and Gabe failed to provide aid, something has to explain the trouble, her death, and the state of her person and gear when she was recovered. If that can't be explained reasonably without a detrimental act by some third party, then the failure-to-provide-aid defense wouldn't have been consistent with the facts.

The coroner had problems with this concept and that is why further action was recommended. Remember the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed murder. Saying that you don't find someone's explanation reasonable is not enough to convict.


The case for murder certainly would have gotten a bit into technical aspects of diving. Hopefully the prosecutor got some dive training, if he wasn't already certified, in order to understand what he was working with.


Thanks for your learned contributions Under-exposed you have shed a lot of light on the topic.

[alohagal]

So how are the rights of the defendant protected during the process of plea bargaining? Have the concerns about "coercion, false pleas, and injustice" by the US Supreme Court been addressed?
That would be up to his defense lawyer to give him the best advice possible. But, the defendant makes the ultimate decision to accept. I am not sure how much the judge has sway...but I know they will ask the defendent several times if he is aware of his decision and is making it without coercion or duress.

[boulderjohn]

That would be up to his defense lawyer to give him the best advice possible. But, the defendant makes the ultimate decision to accept. I am not sure how much the judge has sway...but I know they will ask the defendant several times if he is aware of his decision and is making it without coercion or duress.

And the defendant, having been fully terrorized about the possibilities of conviction of the greater charge, will lie and say it is voluntary. The innocence project has exonerated many defendants through DNA, people who pled guilty to charges of which they were totally innocent because they feared the greater evil of conviction of the higher charge--or the certainty of the death penalty.

Read John Grisham's book The Innocent Man. (It is a documentary of a true story, not a novel). You will see how an obviously innocent man was convicted of a crime he did not come remotely close to committing, with no real evidence against him, and sentenced to die. His final appeal saved him hours before his execution, and he was only saved because DNA proved conclusively that he was innocent. (It also showed who was guilty--the man who should have been the prime suspect all along.) You will also see that several other people convicted by the same people using the same process and who are just as obviously innocent will be in jail for the rest of their lives because they do not have the benefit of DNA to prove their innocence.

Here in Colorado we just had a man released from prison after many years after being convicted of a crime he did not commit, again freed by DNA. The obvious prosecutorial misconduct in the original case that led to his conviction is now being evaluated.

A number of years ago the governor of Illinois suspended the death penalty after more than half of the people on death row were proved innocent via DNA.

I was in Broward County, Fla a few years ago when when the local newspaper uncovered a mass of false confessions. Police arrested a man for something like burglary, and then told him he would get a lesser sentence if he confessed to other burglaries. Given that bonanza, the guy confessed to anything they threw at him, even crimes committed while he was in another stte. The newspaper investigated and discovered that this was a popular method of clearing cold cases there--offer leniency to anyone willing to take an old case off the books.

When you are faced with the horror of a certain conviction for a crime you did not commit, you will jump at the chance to pead to a lesser crime you did not commit, and when the judge asks if you are confessing freely, you will lie and say yes. Given the opportunity to get a lesser sentence for confessing to other crimes you did not commit, you will do the same thing.

[Dadvocate]

This is not to anyone in particular. Consider this a Dadvocate rant if you like.

But then it all comes down to the competency level of the defendant’s attorney and the role he or she sees him or herself playing in the process. If you are wealthy in the US, the odds of coercion are less likely to occur than if you are poor. A (well) paid advocate for the defendant, one with a better access to resources, man hours and the rest, is more likely to serve his or her client honestly than one who doesn’t have these resources and in some cases sees his or her role as working for the best plea.

Inherent in a system like this is the inescapable impact of some coercion on some levels. Paying platitudes to the process by asking a defendant if he or she has been coerced really doesn’t limit the impact in the end. More than likely it disguises it. There are plenty of cases in the US where an experienced public defender has worked in cahoots with the prosecutor to get pleas that keep cases off the docket and thus never allowing them to go to trial. In order to make that process work, there has to be the perception that going to trial, innocent or not, comes with a heavy risk to the defendants’ life, especially when the Prosecutor can toss out all kinds of sentences to either sweeten or sour the situation. I find the Aussie limits to this very intriguing indeed, if indeed they are true. I admit that.

With ever increasing prison terms for a host of crimes in the US, I imagine the pressure could almost be unbearable for someone who is innocent but doesn’t want to lose everything in fighting a system that has the deck stacked against him or her. I imagine that this pressure would be exponentially more profound if the media were publishing slighted articles to stoke the flames of the general public as well.

I don’t know if everything Livinoz and the other Aussies are saying is true about how defendants receive proper council and thus a better chance of forcing the DA’s hand in cases like these, but it seems on the surface to be a better system for the poor man than what happens in the US (taking into account that there are differences in different states).

The language by the Alabama DA says a lot to me so far. That no matter the course taken, he will try Gabe again in the US, even if that means stretching the boundaries of jurisprudence “to the limit”.

I still don’t know of Gabe’s guilt or innocence to be honest. It is entirely possible that he has done what people say he has done. I’d hate for him to get off if he is guilty of this crime.

What worries me as a citizen of the US, however, is that the prosecution seems to have a serious upper hand in the process of going to trial because many of my compatriots seem perfectly happy to try cases like this one through media reports, podium pounding, and the rest. Assuming for the moment that Gabe is innocent and that his biggest failure to date is that he panicked underwater and let his wife die, what must he be thinking about a legal system hell’s bent on convicting him despite the evidence that appears to be wholly lacking on many levels?

This guy is a pariah in Alabama (partly because of his own idiocy). Not only will he get convicted, they will want to throw a very heavy book at him. Their credibility is at stake it seems, which doesn’t bode well for Gabe at all. Couple that with an institutional advantage and the situation only gets worse.

Is it really enough to trash another country and a another legal system such as Australia’s and then simply assert that you know better or that you know more than what they do, as if reading a writ from on high on the Mount Sinai of the USA? This reads like a vendetta to me, one that has a real chance of coming to fruition, and I have to say as a US citizen this scares that hell out of me.

Alabama, the epicenter of King Jr’s passive resistance in the face of water cannons and dogs, the place of undue convictions in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, should want to err on the side of caution in this case I would say. The USA, a country locked in the inescapable reality that we have walked a thin line in this war on terrorism and have thus damaged the ideals we are meant to hold ourselves to, not to mention the rest of the world in our foreign policy.

Winning a conviction on bombastic proclamations and emotional rabble rousing might get Gabe in the end, but at a significant cost to the rest of us and to our collective image as a fair-minded and rational people, something I think we actually are in so many ways despite international attempts to paint us as the villains and the police officers of the world. We are far, far more complex than that, and this case undermines our objectivity on so many levels in my opinion.

For me, no, the ends do not justify the means, not if that entails trampling on very important limits on governmental power, limits that were and still should be the hallmark of who we are. I say this is a road we should not tread upon, even if that means a “guilty” Gabe Watson walks free in the end.

Cheers!

[livinoz]

You raise a multitude of interesting issues there Dadvocate.

I don't think any legal system is perfect, and let's be honest, some are "less perfect" than others, but I believe the onus is on each of us to make sure it works and make sure it works the way it was meant to work, and that means transparency in the Judiciary and in Government. The tenet of people being innocent until proven guilty (and that means beyond reasonable doubt) should not be lost in the rush to find an easier way out, or to coerce someone into pleading guilty for something they didn't do, because then the system has failed both on an individual as well as a societal level. As for "trial by media" I think enough has been said elsewhere about that.

I must admit it worried me too to read the statement of the A-G from Alabama. Maybe public outcry has influenced him unduly, or maybe there are other pressures being bought to bear of which we are so far unaware. But the grief of one family should not translate into injustice for anyone and I agree with Dadvocate that this is starting to feel like a vendetta.

Freedom comes with great responsibility: to protect the innocent, to protect the weak and those unable to protect themselves, and to uphold justice in the face of adversity or when basic rights are challenged. When constitutional and human rights are circumvented, when expediency or financial considerations are more important than upholding justice, then I believe the system has failed the very people it was meant to serve.

[K_girl]

I think much can be said on either side of the coin in terms of questioning the prosecution's moves. It would appear that there were two different prosecution teams involved. The original police prosecution team who spent years investigating the case and felt they had a strong case and the Director of Prosecutions who examined the case for three weeks and decided they did not have a strong enough case for conviction. Why the difference?

Because there are two types of cases - one may be called a "slam dunk" case where you have direct evidence, such as a picture or a witness who says they saw Gabe Watson turn off Tina's air. We do not have such a case. I believe this is why the Director of Prosecutions decided they did not have a strong enough case. The second type of case is a circumstantial case, more difficult to prove, but if you have enough surrounding circumstantial evidence, you can make the case, but with no guarantee of conviction. No guarantee because you may wind-up with people on the jury who say they must have direct evidence of some kind in order to convict. So the circumstantial evidence must be: 1) numerous; and 2) strong. As the Director of Prosecutions stated, it is a complex case. And a complex circumstantial case is costly.

So, my guess is that Gabe Watson took the deal because they did they did have a strong circumstantial case. I don't know what the statistics would be, but I believe there are probably more people who would be willing to convict on a strong circumstantial case, than not.

[livinoz]

I think much can be said on either side of the coin in terms of questioning the prosecution's moves. It would appear that there were two different prosecution teams involved. The original police prosecution team who spent years investigating the case and felt they had a strong case and the Director of Prosecutions who examined the case for three weeks and decided they did not have a strong enough case for conviction. Why the difference?

Because there are two types of cases - one may be called a "slam dunk" case where you have direct evidence, such as a picture or a witness who says they saw Gabe Watson turn off Tina's air. We do not have such a case. I believe this is why the Director of Prosecutions decided they did not have a strong enough case. The second type of case is a circumstantial case, more difficult to prove, but if you have enough surrounding circumstantial evidence, you can make the case, but with no guarantee of conviction. No guarantee because you may wind-up with people on the jury who say they must have direct evidence of some kind in order to convict. So the circumstantial evidence must be: 1) numerous; and 2) strong. As the Director of Prosecutions stated, it is a complex case. And a complex circumstantial case is costly.

So, my guess is that Gabe Watson took the deal because they did they did have a strong circumstantial case. I don't know what the statistics would be, but I believe there are probably more people who would be willing to convict on a strong circumstantial case, than not.

Police Prosecutors are not legal practitioners generally and are not subject to the same rigorous professional code as lawyers but are seen as "ministers of justice". The problem arises when they are both investigator and prosecutor as there may be a conflict of interest. The DPP is responsible for overseeing all cases relating to criminal prosecutions within the state, and the decision to continue based on the evidence is usually up to the Director. So there were not "two different teams".

We have not been privy to all the evidence available, so I think if the A-G for Queensland and the Director of the DPP say there was not enough to convict Watson of murder we need to accept that and move on.

[K_girl]

So the prosecution says they don't have a strong enough case, more than likely because they do not have direct evidence. So they don't have evidence of what he did do, but got him to plead guilty to manslaughter for what he did not do. He did not rescue his wife when he could have - is the clear indication I am getting from the manslaughter guilty plea.

So, in order to prove a circumstantial case, you have to begin the process of elimination, which for this case, is where the complexity starts. The elimination of "accident" or "coincidence" out of the equation will reveal "intent."

1) Accident or Intent: Watson had a hold of his wife, she was not moving and he let her go and allowed her to sink.

The Alabama prosecutor says he has (what appears to be) new evidence of a video tape where you can see Watson is swimming away from Tina. We also have the testimony of eye-witness, Dr. Stutz who said Watson had a hold of Tina, then just let her go, as she was not moving or breathing and stunned that Watson simply just swam away from her. So, you would have a video and eye-witness who says Tina is slowly sinking away from him as he swims away. I believe the video could show she was not "heavy" and sinking faster than him as he claimed. And there would not be a strong current as he claimed. Would you say it was accidental or intentional?

The assertion for accidental panic on Watson's part as for the reason he left Tina, then there should have been no case for him to plea to manslaughter to. If you say this was a dumb-ass move, aren't you trying to say that he essentially panicked and it was an accident? This is why this plea is so confusing, he was convicted of intentionally not rescuing his wife, so you have to say, there is some intent here and it was not an accident.

However, the sentencing on this plea gave the lightest sentence possible for an accidental (involutary) manslaughter, like getting drunk and accidentally killing someone with your car. But Watson has no such excuse, and the prosecution clearly stated he left her to die. So why isn't the punishment more in line with voluntary manslaughter? Such as, he saw an opportunity to let his wife die because he got mad at her and his rage got the better of him? Problem with this is, how do you have an underwater fight of that magnitude?

2) Coincidence or Intent: Alabama prosecutor says he has (what appears to be) new evidence that Watson went into Tina's workplace and tried to up her insurance before they were married without Tina's knowledge. Is this the reasonable, conincidental action of an innocent man with no itent? Or does it show planning?

Apparently, the Alabama prosecutor believes he can make a very strong circumstantial case and would not dismiss on the premise that he did not have direct evidence. Circumstantial cases take a lot of money, resources, time and lengthy trials - but they have been won in the past. It depends on the resolve of the prosecutor to go through with it.

BTW - I'm on a dive vacation in Florida!

[livinoz]

So they don't have evidence of what he did do, but got him to plead guilty to manslaughter for what he did not do

How do you conclude that? Do you have a direct line to the DPP? What he did was " manslaughter" and that's why he pleaded guilty to that and not guilty to murder. If a deal was done as the conspiratory theorists seem to think then please, show evidence of that or I can continue to happily dismiss those speculations.

If there is suddenly all this new evidence, why is it only now it is being revealed? And is that also "media talk" yet again? If there is a video that has unexpectedly appeared and it shows Watson swimming away is that proof of murder or negligence as stated?

He was convicted of intentionally not rescuing his wife, so you have to say, there is some intent here and it was not an accident..

No, he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter which by definition is unintentional. The length of the sentence may be reviewed though, but we have yet to hear whether that will actually take place.

Alabama prosecutor says he has (what appears to be) new evidence that Watson went into Tina's workplace and tried to up her insurance before they were married without Tina's knowledge. Is this the reasonable, conincidental action of an innocent man with no itent? Or does it show planning?

Again strange that this is only being discussed now after years of investigation. I think basing a criminal case on such evidence could be fraught with problems. And again, is this a direct quote or only "reported" in the media?

Apparently, the Alabama prosecutor believes he can make a very strong circumstantial case and would not dismiss on the premise that he did not have direct evidence. Circumstantial cases take a lot of money, resources, time and lengthy trials - but they have been won in the past. It depends on the resolve of the prosecutor to go through with it.


I think if the Alabama prosecutors want to go ahead with trying him (again), then that speaks volumes for a legal system that seems totally focused on convicting him (again) no matter what. As Dadvocate said far more succinctly than me:

"Winning a conviction on bombastic proclamations and emotional rabble rousing might get Gabe in the end, but at a significant cost to the rest of us and to our collective image as a fair-minded and rational people..."

I agree. I might add also, based on media reports and some highly subjective reporting.

And I believe that you, K-Girl, have decided long ago that he was guilty of murder, and nothing will ever change your mind. That is your prerogative, as it is mine to believe otherwise.

[Dadvocate]

K-Girl

So the prosecution says they don't have a strong enough case, more than likely because they do not have direct evidence. So they don't have evidence of what he did do, but got him to plead guilty to manslaughter for what he did not do. He did not rescue his wife when he could have - is the clear indication I am getting from the manslaughter guilty plea.


It is important to note that it is entirely possible that Gabe Watson took this plea to manslaughter in part knowing that it constitutes a conviction for Tina’s death in both Australian and US courts of law. If what others have said is true (including support provided by Under Exposed’s professional opinion), the Alabama A-G will have a tougher time getting the case off the ground provided that Gabe has been convicted for her death.

If Gabe doesn’t opt for this conviction, or if he opts to go to trial and is acquitted, then he stands a better chance of being tried twice.

Innocent or not, this has to look like a pretty good option for him under the circumstances.
I am still amazed that the US can even assert this authority in the first place, and ultimately that other countries with extradition agreements with the States would accept this overarching scope.

I am curious if an extradition would necessarily follow in this case once Gabe is released. He flew to Australia voluntarily to face the charges. Does that mean he might have a fighting chance to say that he doesn’t want to go back to the US once he is free, this as opposed to having been extradited and forced to fly back on that account?

Does anyone have any details on that contingency?

Cheers!

[livinoz]

K-Girl




It is important to note that it is entirely possible that Gabe Watson took this plea to manslaughter in part knowing that it constitutes a conviction for TinaÃÔ death in both Australian and US courts of law. If what others have said is true (including support provided by Under ExposedÃÔ professional opinion), the Alabama A-G will have a tougher time getting the case off the ground provided that Gabe has been convicted for her death.

If Gabe doesnÃÕ opt for this conviction, or if he opts to go to trial and is acquitted, then he stands a better chance of being tried twice.

Innocent or not, this has to look like a pretty good option for him under the circumstances.
I am still amazed that the US can even assert this authority in the first place, and ultimately that other countries with extradition agreements with the States would accept this overarching scope.

I am curious if an extradition would necessarily follow in this case once Gabe is released. He flew to Australia voluntarily to face the charges. Does that mean he might have a fighting chance to say that he doesnÃÕ want to go back to the US once he is free, this as opposed to having been extradited and forced to fly back on that account?

Does anyone have any details on that contingency?

Cheers!


I don't think he'd meet the criteria for an asylum seeker, unless he is in fear of his life. And once his gaol term is completed I believe he'd be deported as he is not an Australian citizen; his conviction would also preclude permanent immigrant status I would think. But our learned friend Under-Exposed may be able to answer that better than I!

[Under-Exposed]

K-Girl



I am curious if an extradition would necessarily follow in this case once Gabe is released. He flew to Australia voluntarily to face the charges. Does that mean he might have a fighting chance to say that he doesnÃÕ want to go back to the US once he is free, this as opposed to having been extradited and forced to fly back on that account?

Does anyone have any details on that contingency?

Cheers!

I won't pretend to know the precise details of Watson's visa situation. But I can inform you of the possibilities known to me. There is a scheme called the Criminal Justice Visa scheme Under the Criminal Justice Visa (CJV) scheme under which people who are unlawful non-citizens and liable for removal from Australia are able
to remain temporarily in Australia if their presence is required for the administration of criminal justice. The scheme also provides for the entry into Australia of people who are required to be extradited here to face criminal charges or brought to Australia by a law enforcement agency as witnesses in criminal proceedings.

These visas are usually cancelled once the purpose for which they were originally granted has run its course.

Having been sentenced to imprisonment for more than 12 months, even if his entitlement to remain does not automatically expire at the conclusion of his custodial sentence, he remains liable to be deported under section 200 of the Migration Act.

[Dadvocate]

K-Girl

Apparently, the Alabama prosecutor believes he can make a very strong circumstantial case and would not dismiss on the premise that he did not have direct evidence. Circumstantial cases take a lot of money, resources, time and lengthy trials - but they have been won in the past. It depends on the resolve of the prosecutor to go through with it.

Yes, that is right on a couple of accounts. I think you hit the hammer on the head here:

The second type of case is a circumstantial case, more difficult to prove, but if you have enough surrounding circumstantial evidence, you can make the case, but with no guarantee of conviction. No guarantee because you may wind-up with people on the jury who say they must have direct evidence of some kind in order to convict.

This is quite a remarkable statement in my opinion. I’m not sure if it is because you and I have had our disagreements on this topic or if there is an inherent suggestion in this statement that suggests that having these types of people on a jury is somehow undesirable. I would think, as a society, that we would want to have people like this on a jury to make sure that the prosecutors don’t take things for granted.

Winning a circumstantial case relies (more or less) on an emotional appeal to people sitting on a jury. The degree to which that emotion can be adequately used in a court of law determines the risk one has of being convicted falsely. It also relies on the educational level of the people on the jury. Someone well versed in philosophical memes, for example, would be less impressed with a dichotomy painted in “either or” language, a pet tactic of the prosecutor and a few people in this thread for that matter. It goes like this: “Either… or Gabe is guilty” with the proponent adding as many or as few conditionals to the scenario as they please. It looks well and good at the first glance, until that is someone like Under Exposed or others with loads of dive experience come along with the relevant knowledge and shows that the dichotomy isn’t apt at all. And what happens if there is no one like this sitting on the jury, well, any number of emotional derivatives spun neatly by the prosecution take their place. This is dangerous and not worthy of a system of justice that is fair and impartial.

I understand the desire to want to make sure guilty people don’t go free. I think the advancements in DNA evidence is remarkable, especially in the wonderful ability this evidence has for obliterating reasonable doubt. But as Boulder John showed us earlier in his post, a reliance on circumstantial evidence means that innocent people go to jail, sometimes for a very long time. A reliance on circumstantial convictions also sets the stage for other abuses. The Florida cases that Boulder John cited in the same post demonstrate this nicely as well.

I think any circumstantial case ought to have a very, very high standard for evidence, and even more so for a case that asks us to reconsider double jeopardy.

Cheers!

[Dadvocate]

Under Exposed

Having been sentenced to imprisonment for more than 12 months, even if his entitlement to remain does not automatically expire at the conclusion of his custodial sentence, he remains liable to be deported under section 200 of the Migration Act.

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question. And by deportation in this case, Gabe would have to be sent back to the USA, right?

This might be a stretch, but I would like to play the thought experiment out if for no other reason than learning something new.

Refugees can often ask not to be sent back to their home countries for fear of persecution or even death. I understand that Gabe is hardly a refugee under conventional wisdom. If, however, he argues that the pending court case that the Alabama A-G wants to go forward with constitutes undue persecution because of double jeopardy considerations, does that that give him room to argue that he should be deported elsewhere?

Cheers!

[Under-Exposed]

Under Exposed

[SIZE=3][/COLOR]

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question. And by deportation in this case, Gabe would have to be sent back to the USA, right?

This might be a stretch, but I would like to play the thought experiment out if for no other reason than learning something new.

Refugees can often ask not to be sent back to their home countries for fear of persecution or even death. I understand that Gabe is hardly a refugee under conventional wisdom. If, however, he argues that the pending court case that the Alabama A-G wants to go forward with constitutes undue persecution because of double jeopardy considerations, does that that give him room to argue that he should be deported elsewhere?

Cheers!

I am no expert on refugee law, but the grounds for claiming refugee status require persecution on certain specified grounds. Persecution generally is insufficient. I think in practical terms deportation to the US will be the only option...it is unlikely any other country would take him with that criminal record. The persecution argument runs into the difficulty that there if there is in fact a double jeopardy consideration, then that can be dealt with by the US legal system, or there isn't in which case there is no ground to consider him unduly persecuted.

[livinoz]

I am no expert on refugee law, but the grounds for claiming refugee status require persecution on certain specified grounds. Persecution generally is insufficient. I think in practical terms deportation to the US will be the only option...it is unlikely any other country would take him with that criminal record. The persecution argument runs into the difficulty that there if there is in fact a double jeopardy consideration, then that can be dealt with by the US legal system, or there isn't in which case there is no ground to consider him unduly persecuted.

So does that mean that if, for instance, he was facing a death penalty, we would still deport him, as his state does have that option?

Sorry, I know this is getting a bit off track but I am interested to know.

[Dadvocate]

I am no expert on refugee law, but the grounds for claiming refugee status require persecution on certain specified grounds. Persecution generally is insufficient. I think in practical terms deportation to the US will be the only option...it is unlikely any other country would take him with that criminal record. The persecution argument runs into the difficulty that there if there is in fact a double jeopardy consideration, then that can be dealt with by the US legal system, or there isn't in which case there is no ground to consider him unduly persecuted.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Why should the fight take place in Australia? I wonder if it is a given that he will be sent back to Alabama in this case. This will certainly get more interesting when the time comes for a whole lot of reasons.

If I may ask you one more set of questions.

As you understand the status quo, Gabe being convicted in Australia should essentially mean that his case is different from others where an acquittal has happened and the government has asserted authority to try someone again.

What grounds if any will Gabe have to block evidence from Australia being used in a court of law in Alabama? Could he insist on having all witnesses present in court in order to have a fair chance at cross examination and the like, and if this ends up being logistically impossible, could he argue that the absence of these witnesses is grounds for a dismissal?

Are there any precedents that you know of in this vein?

Thanks for your indulgence in my armchair legal experiments.

Cheers!

[bowlofpetunias]

As has been said before there are no perfect systems only different ways to try to solve the same problems. It is dangerous to assume knowledge/understanding of one system necessarily translates to another.

That said I remember a case in Canada where US Citizen fought extradition back to the States for about 4 years because he was facing the Death Penalty in the US. Canada has not had the Death Penalty for years and the claim was based on this fact. In the end, an agreement was reached and he was deported.

I doubt that Australia will be any more inclined to "protect" a US Citizen from the US Government than Canada was. The most that would be likely is a temporary resistance and perhaps an agreement not to sentence him to death.

I would be interested to know just how far "circumstantial evidence" is accepted in Australia in serious crimes. If I was on a jury that is a question I would have to ask of the officials. Obviously it would take a lot more for me to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt than others.

Dadvocate I have to agree that public pressure, pressure from the family and the media should not be allowed to influence the administration of justice. When the rights of a single citizen are trampled the rights of every citizen are compromised.

[Under-Exposed]

To reply to Livinoz and Dadvocate and to bowlofpetunias:

There is a difference between deportation and extradition. The former is an exercise of control over who enters and remains in the country. The latter is an exercise of power in aid of co-operation between nations (and hence, regulated by treaty).

The deportation per se would I think be unaffected by the possibility of the death penalty. It could in practice be affected by the granting of a different visa on refugee grounds but as I have previously indicate I doubt that any such refugee grounds would exist. A person is a refugee for the purposes of Australian migration law where there is a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. None of those seem to be attracted simply because one might face the death penalty upon conviction in a properly constituted court of law having been afforded all due process.

There may be difficulties in extraditing Watson to the US. One is that there may be what is known as an "extradition objection" available, in this case the objection being that he has undergone the punishment provided by the law of Australia in respect of the extradition offence or another offence constituted by the same conduct as constitutes the extradition offence. Secondly, the extradition treaty between Australia and the US allows Australia to refuse the extradition unless the US gives an undertaking that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

As for the prosecution in the US, I don't really know a lot about the law of evidence in the US. In Australia, there are very limited circumstances in which one would be entitled to adduce evidence other than by having the witness give evidence (whether in person or by video-link) and face cross-examination. The US Constitution fairly stringently protects an accused's right to confront his or her accuser, and I imagine there would be similarly limited circumstances in which that would be allowed in the US.

As for circumstantial evidence, it is commonly admitted and used to some degree in most criminal trials I would think. Evidence of motive (in this case, for example, the potential life insurance payment) is almost always circumstantial in nature. It may be inferred, for example, from the existence of the policy, attempts to increase the amount insured, and the fact of financial difficulties. It is because a circumstantial case is necessarily a process of inferential reasoning that the law in Australia requires every necessary step in the process of reasoning to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution is required to exclude all other explanations consistent with the accused's innocence that are open on the evidence.

Finally on double jeopardy. It most often arises where there has been an acquittal on one charge, but it is not limited to that. The peremptory pleas of "autrefois acquit" and "autrefois convict" simply mean that the accused has previously been acquitted/convicted of the offence for which they are subsequently being tried and therefore the subsequent trial should not proceed.

Hope that helps.

[alohagal]

And the defendant, having been fully terrorized about the possibilities of conviction of the greater charge, will lie and say it is voluntary. The innocence project has exonerated many defendants through DNA, people who pled guilty to charges of which they were totally innocent because they feared the greater evil of conviction of the higher charge--or the certainty of the death penalty.

Read John Grisham's book The Innocent Man. (It is a documentary of a true story, not a novel). You will see how an obviously innocent man was convicted of a crime he did not come remotely close to committing, with no real evidence against him, and sentenced to die. His final appeal saved him hours before his execution, and he was only saved because DNA proved conclusively that he was innocent. (It also showed who was guilty--the man who should have been the prime suspect all along.) You will also see that several other people convicted by the same people using the same process and who are just as obviously innocent will be in jail for the rest of their lives because they do not have the benefit of DNA to prove their innocence.

Here in Colorado we just had a man released from prison after many years after being convicted of a crime he did not commit, again freed by DNA. The obvious prosecutorial misconduct in the original case that led to his conviction is now being evaluated.

A number of years ago the governor of Illinois suspended the death penalty after more than half of the people on death row were proved innocent via DNA.

I was in Broward County, Fla a few years ago when when the local newspaper uncovered a mass of false confessions. Police arrested a man for something like burglary, and then told him he would get a lesser sentence if he confessed to other burglaries. Given that bonanza, the guy confessed to anything they threw at him, even crimes committed while he was in another stte. The newspaper investigated and discovered that this was a popular method of clearing cold cases there--offer leniency to anyone willing to take an old case off the books.

When you are faced with the horror of a certain conviction for a crime you did not commit, you will jump at the chance to pead to a lesser crime you did not commit, and when the judge asks if you are confessing freely, you will lie and say yes. Given the opportunity to get a lesser sentence for confessing to other crimes you did not commit, you will do the same thing.
Certainly my simplistic answer was not meant to imply that this was ideal/fair/or not inherently wrought with problems. Only stating that is how plea bargaining worked in US as I know it. My uncertainty was how much the judge is involved in this process. Being in the medical field...not legal...I do not expouse to be versed on law as a professional. Our system is rife with injustices. No doubt about it.
And being in the medical field I am forced every day to document the details of my performance, mainly to cover myself, my colleagues and the hospital, from possible litigation. There was a time we were there to help "save" lives and documentation was for the benefit of patient and other care givers. And it is redundant documentation that precludes spending quality time with the patients, which most medical personnel would prefer.
God forbid we should stop at an accident scene to help. We could lose our license if everything doesn't go just right.

[bsee65]

I would argue, though probably not supported by case law, that Watson was never tried for murdering his wife. He was allowed to plead to manslaughter in her death for failing to assist her. At a technical level, that's far from the same thing. He was neither acquitted nor convicted of murder. Certainly, neither the US government nor the state of Alabama prosecuted him for any crime related to this incident. If the US and Alabama can make a case for jurisdiction, then I don't see too much problem with giving them a shot. Of course, they'll need a lot of cooperation from Australia in order to have any evidence at all to proceed. If the available evidence would support the charges in the US, then let them go forward and prove their case.

Admittedly, allowing the government to make repeated attempts to convict using different names for the crime is a dangerous precedent. Can you try someone for battery and then go after them a second time on a charge of assault associated with the same incident? Probably not.

[boulderjohn]

I am not a lawyer, but...

U.S. law has a clever system that allows a defendant to be tried for the same crime twice. If a person has been tried in criminal court for murder, he or she can be tried later in civil court for wrongful death. The standard for conviction in civil court is less than it is in criminal court, so that a person who is acquitted in criminal court can be successfully convicted on the same evidence in civil court. The O. J. Simpson case is a prime example of this.

I would imagine that regardless of what the Alabama prosecuters decide to do, there will be a wrongful death suit to follow.

[bsee65]

As a side note, what is the deal with parole in Australia? In the US, the general concept is that you serve your full sentence, but there are parole hearings and you get out early if you don't cause trouble and no one strenuously objects. One would think Tina's family would want to testify at parole hearings and that they might be persuasive under the circumstances, forcing Watson to serve his full sentence. Why does it seem a foregone conclusion that he will be paroled at the earliest opportunity?

[livinoz]

Apologies for the length.

These sentencing remarks can also be accessed as a PDF file at Sentencing Remarks - Queensland Judgments - Supreme Court Library (http://www.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/sentencing-remarks)

SENTENCE R v WATSON

(P Lyons J)

HIS HONOUR: Stand up, please, Mr Watson. You stand convicted
on your plea of guilty of the offence of manslaughter causing
the death of your wife. The offence occurred when you had
both been diving in the vicinity of the historical shipwreck
Yongala some 48 nautical miles east of Townsville.

The deceased experienced difficulties during the dive. You
made some attempts to assist her but these were unsuccessful.
In the course of this, your face mask and deregulator were
dislodged. However, you were able to replace your face mask
and to get an alternative oxygen supply from what is referred
to as a "safe second". When this happened, you could see that
the deceased was sinking but you formed the view that there was nothing
you could do and you swam away with a view to getting assistance.

There are circumstances beyond those I have just described
which are relevant to determining your sentence. You were
clearly a far more experienced diver than the deceased was.
The deceased had what is called an open-water certification,
which I understand to be a basic diving qualification and
which she had attained some months previously. The dive at
the Yongala was a significant challenge for a diver of the
level of experience and competence of the deceased.
On the other hand, you were a diver with substantial
experience, although it is pointed out that much of your
experience was not in open waters where significant currents
could be encountered. You had a number of qualifications,
including a rescue diver certificate which you had obtained
some four and a half years before these events.


The dive was carried out using the buddy system. As your
wife's buddy for the dive, you took responsibility for
providing her with assistance if she encountered difficulty.
The Crown alleges against you that you failed to carry out
your duty to her in a number of significant ways. I accept
that you failed to do so in the following respects: you
failed to ensure that when the deceased had encountered
difficulties she had a supply of oxygen available to her, and,
in particular, you failed to share your oxygen supply with
her; having released the deceased to recover your face mask
and oxygen supply, you did not then take hold of her again or
stay with her, or follow her as she sank; you did not attempt
at any time to inflate her buoyancy control device or remove
the weights which divers often carry to assist them to descend.
It follows from these matters, that you failed to make any
reasonable attempt to take the deceased to the surface. I
therefore accept that you are guilty of a very serious
departure from the standard of care which was incumbent upon
you with the result that your conduct is deserving of criminal
punishment.

An offence such as manslaughter which involves the loss of a
human life is obviously a very serious matter. The deceased
was 26 years old. You were recently married. She had every
reason to look forward to a long and happy life. Her death is also
a great tragedy for her family. I have read the victim impact
statements. They demonstrate that she and her family were
very close and that she was very close to her friend.
They demonstrate how deeply her loss is felt by all of them.
Her family, obviously and naturally, take a very serious view
of your conduct and that, not surprisingly, appears in their
statements. However, there is much in those statements from
which I do not gain assistance in determining your sentence.

I propose to say something about the course of proceedings
which have led to today's hearing. The events which led to
the charge against you occurred in October 2003. You were
interviewed by the police on that day and on some occasions
subsequently. A coronial inquest was conducted in late 2007
and in 2008 resulting in your being committed in June 2008
and a warrant then issuing for your arrest. An indictment
charging you with murder was presented on the
28th of November 2008.

You have voluntarily returned from the United States and have
surrendered yourself into custody in Australia. In my view,
it is quite significant that at the time of your return you
did not know that the Crown would not persist in charging you
with murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life
imprisonment. You no doubt expected that you would be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a substantial period
in what for you is a foreign country. You have, in fact,
acknowledged that you are guilty of manslaughter. You do
not seek to pretend that your actions were other than what
they were. In doing so, you have spared the deceased's family
the agony of a trial.

While in the context of the loss of the deceased's life it may
not be of great significance, it must also be recognised that
you have saved the community the expense of conducting a
trial. I regard your conduct as a recognition by you of your
wrongdoing and an expression of remorse. I am conscious
that you have no criminal history. There is, naturally, no
suggestion of a risk of reoffending.

You have provided a number of references from people who
appear to be quite reputable and to know you well. They
confirm that you are of good character. They also reveal that
you are a person who is known to help others and that you
loved your wife and were devastated by her loss.

I have referred to the delay in the prosecution of the case
against you. It is plainly considerable delay. When there is
delay in the prosecution of a criminal charge, a major
consideration which often works in reduction of the sentence
is the fact that rehabilitation may have occurred in the
period since the offence. That is not a relevant consideration
in this case. However, you have carried the burden of these
events for a substantial period. That is a matter to which I am
prepared to give weight. I consider that that burden has been
increased by the very extensive publicity which these events
have occasioned. That is demonstrated, to some extent, by
the obvious presence of a significant number of representatives
of the media in the court today. I also accept that in that period
you have been subject to accusations of matters of which you
are not guilty.

In addition to the admission constituted by your plea, I
accept that you cooperated with the police at an early stage
and that, generally, the essential matters relied on now for
acceptance of a plea of manslaughter were communicated by you
to the police in about October of 2003. In fact, a
significant number of them appear in the statement you gave to
the police on that day, including your certification as a
rescue diver, the fact that you and the deceased were on this
dive diving as dive buddies, and the circumstances in which
you left the deceased.

There have been, in some of your statements, some
inconsistencies and some attempts to put blame on other
people. There does not seem to be any persistence in your
attempt to put blame on anyone else and I accept that the
responsibility for this loss is yours alone. The
inconsistencies and those attempts, to me, while they do not
speak particularly well of you, should be looked at in the
circumstances in which they occurred. That is, they occurred
shortly after the dive and at a time when you, no doubt, were
deeply upset by the events which have occurred.

I have been referred to a number of authorities. I do not
propose to refer to all of them. There is always a difficulty
in finding authorities which are strongly analogous to the
circumstances of a particular case in which a sentence is to
be given. I do, however, note the submissions made by your
Counsel in relation to the case of Pesnak [2000] QCA 245.
That was a case where the accused had a significant period of
time, a matter of days, in which to identify the worsening
condition of the person who ultimately died.

Your case is quite different. The precise time is unclear,
but it can only have been of the order of two minutes from the
time that the deceased first started to encounter difficulties
until you surfaced, and the time within which you made your
initial decision to leave her was obviously significantly
less. I suspect that once you had made that decision and
decided to go to seek other assistance, there would have been
difficulty in reversing your decision and turning back again
to try to assist her. I accept, nevertheless, that there is a
very serious departure in your case from the requirements
of the duty of care which you had undertaken in the course
of this dive.

The seriousness of the matter, notwithstanding the factors
which I take into account in mitigation, means that it is
necessary to impose a penalty which provides for a substantial
period of imprisonment. I therefore propose to impose a head
sentence of four and a half years.

Because of the mitigating factors which I have identified and
because I accept that for you in Australia time in prison will
be harder than it will be for people who serve a sentence of
imprisonment in their own country, I intend to fix a
suspension date a little earlier than might otherwise have
been the case.

Accordingly, I order that you be imprisoned for a period of
four and a half years. I declare that the period of 23 days
from the 13th of May 2009 until the 5th of June 2009 be deemed
time already served under the sentence.

I order that the term of imprisonment be suspended after a
period of 12 months' imprisonment which will take into account
that 23 day period.

I am required to inform you that you must not commit another
offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of four and
a half years to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term
of imprisonment. For the avoidance of any doubt, I order that
a conviction be recorded.

[alohagal]

Wow...thanks for posting that. Gives a lot of insight into the decision rendered.
I prefer to think the judge knew best under the circumstances. It will be interesting to see if the US will pursue this thing...or if their first reactive posturing is giving way to more considered thought. I still think it is very likely the family will consider a civil suit. Not for the sake of money...but more in hopes of a possible chance to hear the words "Guilty of Murder."
ala OJ Simpson, since it appears the family is convinced of such.

[Under-Exposed]

For what it is worth I have shown those sentencing remarks to a number of colleagues of mine who do Criminal Law and all of them have said that they thought the custodial sentence was harsh.

[boulderjohn]

For what it is worth I have shown those sentencing remarks to a number of colleagues of mine who do Criminal Law and all of them have said that they thought the custodial sentence was harsh.

I'm not surprised. I really feel mystified, to be honest. From what is described in the sentencing remarks, it does seem harsh. From what we have all seen from following this for years, it seems lenient.

[bowlofpetunias]

For what it is worth I have shown those sentencing remarks to a number of colleagues of mine who do Criminal Law and all of them have said that they thought the custodial sentence was harsh.

That is very interesting indeed!

I also find the sentencing remarks to be very interesting and revealing. Considering the Judge has access to more information than any of us, the requirement to be impartial and not let emotions get in the way of decision making I find myself more and more inclined to defend the decision rather than condemn it.

It is interesting that the judge accepted that Gab's mask was and reg were "dislodged". I trust he came to that conclusion with some justification. The comment about Gabe's dive history not being in current prone areas.... that is something I don't remember anyone else mentioning but in fairness to Gabe it seems he was in a situation he was not terribly experienced in either! As mentioned before obviously not all "evidence" was released (nor should it have been)

Thanks Liv for posting that information so we can look at facts rather than wild speculation. I like a number of others here have tried to withhold judgment until more information was available.

Underexposed I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't mind answering another question........ In your opinion; after reading the "remarks" how do you think this case will impact (if at all) future decisions regarding Duty of Care issues with regards to "Dive Buddies"?

[boulderjohn]

Underexposed I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't mind answering another question........ In your opinion; after reading the "remarks" how do you think this case will impact (if at all) future decisions regarding Duty of Care issues with regards to "Dive Buddies"?

Excellent question. I posted an earlier response to this same question that was somewhat dismissive, but I have less confidence in my answer having read these remarks.

[Dadvocate]

It is a good question Bowlofpetunias.

The dive at the Yongala was a significant challenge for a diver of the level of experience and competence of the deceased. On the other hand, you were a diver with substantial experience, although it is pointed out that much of your experience was not in open waters where significant currents could be encountered. You had a number of qualifications, including a rescue diver certificate which you had obtained some four and a half years before these events.

Okay, someone please remind me of what happened to the dive op than organized the trip. There seems to be some blame levied there in between the lines.

This statement about difficulty level is important, especially if the judge acknowledges that Gabe had little experience in “significant currents”. I assume then Gabe’s statements about there being currents have been corroborated or at least accepted. Some others had also commented on the dive site being easy. This seems to be disputed based on the judge’s opinion (which I also assume came about as a result of expert input).

If a rescue diver “fails” another diver who happens to be a buddy, does that mean that the liability becomes more profound if the buddy has less experience? Are we now saying that the long-accepted concept about one being responsible for oneself while diving is not that absolute anymore? If this was a challenging dive for Tina, wouldn’t the first line of self defense start with her knowing her own limitations?

I also find it amazing that it is acknowledged that Gabe’s mask was knocked off but that he was able to put it back into place. The operative assumption by the judge is that a diver would naturally go back toward the diver that did this and try to rescue them once the mask is replaced. That is a huge assumption in my opinion. There could have been a significant survival override that kicked in after his mask was knocked off that told Gabe to stay the heck away from her. Granted, his training should have told him how to deal with that. In the long run, training doesn't always come through in the end, and now there are consequences for that it seems.

This is very, very interesting. Can this judgment be used in his defense in the US if it comes to that?

Cheers!

[Under-Exposed]

Excellent question. I posted an earlier response to this same question that was somewhat dismissive, but I have less confidence in my answer having read these remarks.

I really don't know the answer to that question. It is the difficulty with this question that underlies my doubt about whether this was in fact unlawful homicide at all.

One needs to keep carefully in mind the distinction between what I will call obligation and what I will call duty. By the former, I mean moral obligation, in a good samaritan sense. By the latter, I mean a legal obligation.

In general, the law (at least in Australia, and perhaps subject to a qualification in the case of medical practitioners in certain circumstances, and perhaps for professional rescuers whilst engaged in their profession) does not impose any obligation to rescue another (ie the embark upon a rescue...once commenced, there may be some obligation to continue, and subject to recent statutory modifications some obligation to exercise due care in doing so). If I see someone drowning at the beach, and I do not make any effort to rescue them, even if it is within my capability to do so and could be done without danger to myself, I am not liable for standing there and doing nothing. Morally, I may be obliged to, but legally, I am not duty-bound to do so.

The question then arises, was there something about the relationship between Gabe and his wife (by which I mean, their relationship as buddies) that changes that position. I have some doubts that that relationship changes anything at all. Again, while there may be a moral obligation to assist, I doubt there is a legal obligation created. One of the reasons for that is that in practical terms, for many of us, we have little or no choice in who is our buddy, at least in some circumstances (I am think about going out on a boat on your own and being paired up with someone unknown by the DM, for example). And we certainly do not have the capacity to, for example, assess their capability beforehand. Importantly, for example, we have no ability to assess their ability to self-rescue, no capacity to assess the likelihood of uncontrolled panic, no knowledge of their level of fitness and other health-related aspects of diving. Those factors I think militate against the imposition of legal duty upon a buddy. On the other hand, of course, one of the things that the law of negligence cares deeply about is vulnerability, and one could argue that one's buddy is vulnerable in the sense that they will be looking to you to act in the event that they get into trouble. That, after all, is one of the primary purposes of diving in buddies I would have thought. I am not suggesting they have an expectation that you will be able to act competently so as to effect rescue, but at least act appropriately in trying to assist and if unable to do so to raise the alarm. However, in my view the law in Australia would likely come down on the side of obligation but no duty.

Assuming there is a duty, however, what then? It is then necessary to determine what the appropriate response in a given set of circumstances is. And one of the greatest difficulties here is that while the law tries to assess the reasonableness of your response objectively, one of the factors that will be relevant to that will be factors subjective to the putative rescuer. We are trained, even as rescue divers, not to attempt rescue unless it is reasonably safe to do so. That will involve a very personal judgment in each case, and depend upon subjective feelings of comfort and self-assessment of ability. This will change from diver to diver, and from time to time and place to place for any particular diver. The point I am trying to make is that it is very difficult to be able to say a priori what reasonable conduct requires of us, and that is usually a good indication that there is no legal duty to act. So while we might like to think the law would impose a duty on our buddy to try and help us, we might at the same time be reluctant to allow the law to look through the retrospectoscope and critically analyse our conduct as a rescuer.

I think it would be a sad day when the law imposed a legal obligation to rescue with consequences on the rescuer for failing to do so, or failing to do so adequately. There would be nothing more disasterous than a rescuer feeling pressured by legal obligation to attempt or continue an attempt at rescue, and thereby falling victim themselves (that is not to say that some would not feel such pressure from a moral obligation, but I would rather die trying to rescue someone because I thought it was the right thing to do, than because I was afraid that the victim might sue me, or worried that my liability insurance may not cover me etc).

Rest assured that this case has sufficiently troubled me to prompt me to do some more research on rescue, which I hope to turn into an article for our local sports law journal. So any insights or comments (polite ones of course) would be welcomed.

[Under-Exposed]

FROM THE BRISBANE TIMES

The father of Tina Watson believes Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) did not pursue a murder charge against the dead woman's husband to avoid the costly process of a trial by jury.

Tommy Thomas, who met with Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick today, described the actions of the DPP as "totally deplorable", accusing the department of striking a deal with Watson, as part of a "business, budget decision".

A Coronial inquest found reasonable grounds to charge Gabe Watson, 32, with murder, but Crown prosecutors on Friday accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter after he argued he had panicked and failed to assist Tina when she became distressed in the water.

"I personally think ...that it was really more about money than anything else," Mr Thomas told reporters.

"Just take a look at the fact that we've got 65-plus witnesses all over the world...

"When you look at the expense of bringing each and everyone of those witnesses back to Australia to testify in a criminal trial and the expense of the criminal trial itself, which would have proved to be a very lengthy ordeal I think that we're easily looking at $1 million or $2 million or more," he said.

"I think it was more of a good, business, budget decision."

Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions this week defended a decision to drop a murder charge against Watson, insisting Crown lawyers had little chance of proving he deliberately drowned his bride of 11 days.

Mr Thomas said he had taken that on face value, but was now convinced a deal, "or discussions of a deal", had been made.

Attorney-General Cameron Dick has responded to calls to appeal Watson's lenient sentance, following a meeting with Mr Thomas and his daughter Alanda this morning, and is in the process of the reviewing the case.

Meanwhile, authorities in Watson's home state of Alabama, in the US, have revealed plans to charge Watson with murder upon his release from a Queensland jail next year.

Chief of the Alabama attorney-general's violent crime office, Don Valeska, told The Birmingham News the department believed Watson may have plotted to murder Tina before leaving the US for the couple's Australian honeymoon.

The Thomas' are due to return to the United States tomorrow.

[thanksforallthefish]

I was of the opinion that once you were buddied with someone you had a legal responsibility to help them to the best of your ability and level of training providing that it did not put you or anyone else in danger.

This comes from the understanding that if you have first aid training and begin to render first aid to a casualty then you are obliged to continue to help to the limit of your training, until such time that someone with greater training is available to help, on the proviso that it does not put you or anyone else in danger.

If you do not render any help then you are under no obligation.

[livinoz]

FROM THE BRISBANE TIMES

The father of Tina Watson believes Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) did not pursue a murder charge against the dead woman's husband to avoid the costly process of a trial by jury.

Tommy Thomas, who met with Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick today, described the actions of the DPP as "totally deplorable", accusing the department of striking a deal with Watson, as part of a "business, budget decision".

A Coronial inquest found reasonable grounds to charge Gabe Watson, 32, with murder, but Crown prosecutors on Friday accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter after he argued he had panicked and failed to assist Tina when she became distressed in the water.

"I personally think ...that it was really more about money than anything else," Mr Thomas told reporters.

"Just take a look at the fact that we've got 65-plus witnesses all over the world...

"When you look at the expense of bringing each and everyone of those witnesses back to Australia to testify in a criminal trial and the expense of the criminal trial itself, which would have proved to be a very lengthy ordeal I think that we're easily looking at $1 million or $2 million or more," he said.

"I think it was more of a good, business, budget decision."

Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions this week defended a decision to drop a murder charge against Watson, insisting Crown lawyers had little chance of proving he deliberately drowned his bride of 11 days.

Mr Thomas said he had taken that on face value, but was now convinced a deal, "or discussions of a deal", had been made.

Attorney-General Cameron Dick has responded to calls to appeal Watson's lenient sentance, following a meeting with Mr Thomas and his daughter Alanda this morning, and is in the process of the reviewing the case.

Meanwhile, authorities in Watson's home state of Alabama, in the US, have revealed plans to charge Watson with murder upon his release from a Queensland jail next year.

Chief of the Alabama attorney-general's violent crime office, Don Valeska, told The Birmingham News the department believed Watson may have plotted to murder Tina before leaving the US for the couple's Australian honeymoon.

The Thomas' are due to return to the United States tomorrow.

To be honest, in my opinion I don't think the family will be satisfied by anything other than a life sentence. I think the Judge's sentencing remarks were rather telling when he said:

"I have read the victim impact statements. They demonstrate that she and her family were very close and that she was very close to her friend. They demonstrate how deeply her loss is felt by all of them. Her family, obviously and naturally, take a very serious view of your conduct and that, not surprisingly, appears in their statements. However, there is much in those statements from which I do not gain assistance in determining your sentence." (emphasis added)

[thanksforallthefish]

To be honest, in my opinion I don't think they family will be satisfied by anything other than a life sentence. I think the Judge's sentencing remarks were rather telling when he said:

"I have read the victim impact statements. They demonstrate that she and her family were very close and that she was very close to her friend. They demonstrate how deeply her loss is felt by all of them. Her family, obviously and naturally, take a very serious view of your conduct and that, not surprisingly, appears in their statements. However, there is much in those statements from
which I do not gain assistance in determining your sentence." (emphasis added)
..

I agree ... only a life sentence would appease them.

I have thought from the start that the family did not particularly like Gabe and there was a great deal of animosity between them. (probably even before the death of their daughter)

[livinoz]

I really don't know the answer to that question. It is the difficulty with this question that underlies my doubt about whether this was in fact unlawful homicide at all.

One needs to keep carefully in mind the distinction between what I will call obligation and what I will call duty. By the former, I mean moral obligation, in a good samaritan sense. By the latter, I mean a legal obligation.

In general, the law (at least in Australia, and perhaps subject to a qualification in the case of medical practitioners in certain circumstances, and perhaps for professional rescuers whilst engaged in their profession) does not impose any obligation to rescue another (ie the embark upon a rescue...once commenced, there may be some obligation to continue, and subject to recent statutory modifications some obligation to exercise due care in doing so). If I see someone drowning at the beach, and I do not make any effort to rescue them, even if it is within my capability to do so and could be done without danger to myself, I am not liable for standing there and doing nothing. Morally, I may be obliged to, but legally, I am not duty-bound to do so.

The question then arises, was there something about the relationship between Gabe and his wife (by which I mean, their relationship as buddies) that changes that position. I have some doubts that that relationship changes anything at all. Again, while there may be a moral obligation to assist, I doubt there is a legal obligation created. One of the reasons for that is that in practical terms, for many of us, we have little or no choice in who is our buddy, at least in some circumstances (I am think about going out on a boat on your own and being paired up with someone unknown by the DM, for example). And we certainly do not have the capacity to, for example, assess their capability beforehand. Importantly, for example, we have no ability to assess their ability to self-rescue, no capacity to assess the likelihood of uncontrolled panic, no knowledge of their level of fitness and other health-related aspects of diving. Those factors I think militate against the imposition of legal duty upon a buddy. On the other hand, of course, one of the things that the law of negligence cares deeply about is vulnerability, and one could argue that one's buddy is vulnerable in the sense that they will be looking to you to act in the event that they get into trouble. That, after all, is one of the primary purposes of diving in buddies I would have thought. I am not suggesting they have an expectation that you will be able to act competently so as to effect rescue, but at least act appropriately in trying to assist and if unable to do so to raise the alarm. However, in my view the law in Australia would likely come down on the side of obligation but no duty.

Assuming there is a duty, however, what then? It is then necessary to determine what the appropriate response in a given set of circumstances is. And one of the greatest difficulties here is that while the law tries to assess the reasonableness of your response objectively, one of the factors that will be relevant to that will be factors subjective to the putative rescuer. We are trained, even as rescue divers, not to attempt rescue unless it is reasonably safe to do so. That will involve a very personal judgment in each case, and depend upon subjective feelings of comfort and self-assessment of ability. This will change from diver to diver, and from time to time and place to place for any particular diver. The point I am trying to make is that it is very difficult to be able to say a priori what reasonable conduct requires of us, and that is usually a good indication that there is no legal duty to act. So while we might like to think the law would impose a duty on our buddy to try and help us, we might at the same time be reluctant to allow the law to look through the retrospectoscope and critically analyse our conduct as a rescuer.

I think it would be a sad day when the law imposed a legal obligation to rescue with consequences on the rescuer for failing to do so, or failing to do so adequately. There would be nothing more disasterous than a rescuer feeling pressured by legal obligation to attempt or continue an attempt at rescue, and thereby falling victim themselves (that is not to say that some would not feel such pressure from a moral obligation, but I would rather die trying to rescue someone because I thought it was the right thing to do, than because I was afraid that the victim might sue me, or worried that my liability insurance may not cover me etc).

Rest assured that this case has sufficiently troubled me to prompt me to do some more research on rescue, which I hope to turn into an article for our local sports law journal. So any insights or comments (polite ones of course) would be welcomed.

So where does the Good Samaritan Act come into all this? Queensland have introduced changes to their act through a bill in 2007 which states:

The objective of the Bill is to afford legal protection to persons in our community who assist "persons in distress", provided that such aid or assistance is given in emergency circumstances, and that any act done or omitted is done so in good faith and without reckless disregard.

[Under-Exposed]

I was of the opinion that once you were buddied with someone you had a legal responsibility to help them to the best of your ability and level of training providing that it did not put you or anyone else in danger.

This comes from the understanding that if you have first aid training and begin to render first aid to a casualty then you are obliged to continue to help to the limit of your training, until such time that someone with greater training is available to help, on the proviso that it does not put you or anyone else in danger.

If you do not render any help then you are under no obligation.

Simply being a buddy does not mean you have commenced to rescue. So I agree with what you say in the second and third paragraphs, but I don't think that is inconsistent with there not being a legal duty impose don a buddy to in fact commence rendering aid.

[livinoz]

..

I agree ... only a life sentence would appease them.

I have thought from the start that the family did not particularly like Gabe and there was a great deal of animosity between them. (probably even before the death of their daughter)

Yes. The Judge's remarks also stated that Watson had been given references that he was of good character and was devastated by the loss of his wife, so that contrasts with the villain he has been painted as being in the media and, as you say, by the family. That is not to say they aren't entitled to their beliefs but it is starting to feel like a witch hunt to me.

[Under-Exposed]

So where does the Good Samaritan Act come into all this? Queensland have introduced changes to their act through a bill in 2007 which states:

The objective of the Bill is to afford legal protection to persons in our community who assist "persons in distress", provided that such aid or assistance is given in emergency circumstances, and that any act done or omitted is done so in good faith and without reckless disregard.


That is the recent legislative change that I was talking about. Of course there is now, in every jurisdiction in Australia, legislation to similar effect. It usually applies where the samaritan acts in good faith and without reckless disregard. Curiously, a "good samaritan" is defined as a person who comes to the aid of another, so in fact it says nothing about liability for failing to come to another's aid at all.

So the "or omitted" in fact means an omission in the course of rescuing, rather than an omission to rescue at all.

[livinoz]

That is the recent legislative change that I was talking about. Of course there is now, in every jurisdiction in Australia, legislation to similar effect. It usually applies where the samaritan acts in good faith and without reckless disregard. Curiously, a "good samaritan" is defined as a person who comes to the aid of another, so in fact it says nothing about liability for failing to come to another's aid at all.

Well as you say, going to another's aid is more a moral rather than a legal issue.

The Yongala by the way is an intermediate dive. The company I was going to dive with state on their website:

"The Yongala is an intermediate dive site and it is recommended that divers should be comfortable in conditions which can sometimes be challenging. Novice divers (those with less than 20 dives) should ensure they have refreshed their skills within the last six months and will be provided with a dive guide..."

[Under-Exposed]

Well as you say, going to another's aid is more a moral rather than a legal issue.

The Yongala by the way is an intermediate dive. The company I was going to dive with state on their website:

"The Yongala is an intermediate dive site and it is recommended that divers should be comfortable in conditions which can sometimes be challenging. Novice divers (those with less than 20 dives) should ensure they have refreshed their skills within the last six months and will be provided with a dive guide..."

And to correct something someone said in one of the earlier posts, it is only one end that lies in 30m water. The other end is at 15 metres, so a diver diving within OW limit with what should be great visibility would get a good look at the wreck.

[livinoz]

Yes but has moderate currents I believe so it may not be that comfortable for novice divers in certain conditions.

[Under-Exposed]

Yes but has moderate currents I believe so it may not be that comfortable for novice divers in certain conditions.

I fully accept that the conditions may make it uncomfortable for novice or more timid divers.

[livinoz]

I fully accept that the conditions may make it uncomfortable for novice or more timid divers.

I'm glad you concur!

And if your article is published in the sports law journal please send us a link! I'm sure there are many here who would be interested in reading it.

[Under-Exposed]

I'm glad you concur!

How could I do otherwise ;)