Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[bowlofpetunias]

I'm not convinced any of the parties involved will ever be satisfied that Justice has been done. I understand that if he is found guilty he will be punished.. but if he is found innocent will he have grounds for compensation?

There has been talk of the Thomases having grounds for a Civil Suit... what about the Watsons?

A lot of disparaging comments have been posted about how the Australian Judicial System handled this case... now it seems that the tables are turning...

 

[ItsBruce]

If Watson is found not guilty will anyone argue that perhaps Australia ought to think about compensating him for the 18 months for which he was imprisoned for something for which he was not guilty?

There is no justice here, however it unfolds.

 

[spoolin01]

Interesting observations. It is amazing how the media can spin stuff. If the media had sympathized with Watson and called him the Schlep Who Got Railroaded After His Beloved New Bride Died While Diving, people would be taking up collections to help him defend himself.

But as far as being tried and punished, there was no trial. It was a plea deal in which a court of competent jurisdiction found that there was a factual basis (though heaven knows how) for his plea to manslaughter.

The only reason I'd like to see a trial is for the VERY SELFISH reason that I'd like to see exactly what the evidence is and what the experts who have analyzed the dives have to say about the dive data.

Guess I haven't been following closely enough, I thought he'd been tried. Seems like mostly a technical difference though, he plead guilty rather than face trial, is that what happened?

From what I've seen in this recent round, some of the media has tried hard to spin things more his way, and at least one of the most damning bits (the beeping computer), has at the least been called into question. Yet, it seems hard even then to favorably spin an eyewitness account of him grasping then releasing his dying bride, dawdling surfaceward, and his preposterous claims of physical inability to rescue his wife and his 'judgement' that sauntering to the surface to inquire as to assistance would be superior to just grasping her anywhere and applying a few pounds of thrust by any of a number of obvious and available methods. His subsequent actions topside could be attributed to shock I suppose, but they don't help his case in any event. That's what I recall of the reporting anyway.

Of course this is just a between-dives parlor game, but the storytelling required to exculpate him seems much greater than for the other supposition. While the inept diver caricature is a perennial favorite on SB, from what I recall of the reporting the evidence said otherwise, aside from the accused's lame sounding protestations.

It's not impossible that he made one of the all-time worst split-second panic decisions in diving history, it just doesn't seem like the best fit to me for the reported scenario.

I too would love to see a better presentation of the evidence, just not in the context of an Alabama trial. He was accused and the process ran its course, it should be over criminally.

 

[Ayisha]

Guess I haven't been following closely enough, I thought he'd been tried. Seems like mostly a technical difference though, he plead guilty rather than face trial, is that what happened?

He plead guilty to criminally negligent manslaughter (I believe it was called?) rather than face trial for murder.

 

[ItsBruce]

I and others have provided a great deal of analysis on the likelihood of the prosecution being able to meet its burden of proving premeditated murder (first degree murder) or even murder without premeditation (second degree). I'm not going to go back into this, but as I see it, based on the publicly available information, there is a theory that Watson turned off his wife's air until she became incapacitated, then turned it back on and let her sink. However, there is no actual evidence he even touched her air. In fact, the eyewitness cannot even put him in contact with her long enough to do that. The only "evidence" in support of the particular theory is that (1) she was dead, and (2) her air was on and working. I just don't see how that gets over "beyond a reasonable doubt." I am unaware of anything that would eliminate other possible causes of her dying.

The bit about him letting her sink is, IMHO, a red herring. Assuming he had not turned her air off, then what caused her to die? Certainly, not sinking to the ocean floor. It was not unusually deep and divers don't die just from going that deep. So, assuming he had not turned her air off, then something else caused her to die. Without evidence that beyond a reasonable doubt that she would not have died had he been able to bring her to the surface, his having let her go is not murder.

And, BTW, unless Watson had premeditated killing his wife and doing so in Alabama, then I question if Alabama even has jurisdiction over Watson as there are no acts in Alabama to support jurisdiction. California could just as easily claim the right to try him.

But, go back and read the thread. You may find it interesting.

 

[theduckguru]

The only reason I'd like to see a trial is for the VERY SELFISH reason that I'd like to see justice be done.

Since when is making a citizen stand trail when there is insufficient reason to do so justice? This incident occurred in Australia, not exactly a 3rd world country, he stood trail there and served prison time. This case is about a family that is seeking revenge - not justice.

 

[DandyDon]

...unless Watson had premeditated killing his wife and doing so in Alabama, then I question if Alabama even has jurisdiction over Watson as there are no acts in Alabama to support jurisdiction.

That seems to be the only chance AL has of making a case, but then it is indeed an important one. If it were legal to plan & arrange crimes in the US, including setting up insurance here to be covered by a crime to be executed in another country, then that could leave the door open for similar crimes. Fortunately it is not, so even tho AL may not have a strong case - the grand jury & prosecutor do have responsibilities to pursue.

 

[ACES50]

This article is from the Birmingham News. There is an interesting comment from Peter Patrick, an Australian columnist who has been following this closely

Gabe Watson charges stand -- at least until trial, Jefferson County judge rules | al.com

 

[SoccerJeni]

Since when is making a citizen stand trail when there is insufficient reason to do so justice? This incident occurred in Australia, not exactly a 3rd world country, he stood trail there and served prison time. This case is about a family that is seeking revenge - not justice.

I see it a little differently myself. I'm sure revenge and wanting someone to pay is part of it, of course! If my family member was killed by someone I would want that person to suffer. However, I would also want them locked up so they couldn't do it again. I don't see that last part as revenge, but as protecting something from happening in the future. I think there are likely several reasons why the family wants a trial. And it sounds like from the article posted in the last post this is not the first time a crime has been tried in 2 countries.

 

[mike_s]

Since when is making a citizen stand trail when there is insufficient reason to do so justice? This incident occurred in Australia, not exactly a 3rd world country, he stood trail there and served prison time. This case is about a family that is seeking revenge - not justice.

It was also about a state attorney general and district attorney who was up for re-election and got a lot of press coverage over it.

I see it a little differently myself. I'm sure revenge and wanting someone to pay is part of it, of course! If my family member was killed by someone I would want that person to suffer. However, I would also want them locked up so they couldn't do it again. I don't see that last part as revenge, but as protecting something from happening in the future.

How can you prosecute someone for "future crimes" ?

I think there are likely several reasons why the family wants a trial. And it sounds like from the article posted in the last post this is not the first time a crime has been tried in 2 countries.

Their daughter is gone. And they think he got away with a slap on the wrist (which is what happened) and they want " more payback". I can't blame them. I would too. I think most people would.


He got off easy.... so to make up for that, they want to punish him here also. If they'd given him 20-30 years or LIFE, you'd never seen the charges "trumped up" here. plain and simple.

this was political and grief motivated.