Gabe Watson acquitted in AL murder trial

[ScubaSteve1962]

o

They had to prove he murdered her in order to prove he planned the murder in Alabama. Both elements were necessary.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems even if they had proved he murdered her, he still would have been acquitted because they had to prove he planned it in Ala.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems even if they had proved he murdered her, he still would have been acquitted because they had to prove he planned it in Ala.

Without that element, Alabama did not have jurisdiction. Without a murder, they had nothing at all.

 

[ScubaSteve1962]

Without that element, Alabama did not have jurisdiction. Without a murder, they had nothing at all.

They had his guilty plea to manslaughter, had the proved that he planned it, it would have been premeditated murder.

 

[fdog]

I was not present throughout this trial; with respect, neither were you, Ken (or) the other posters in this thread. So, none of us heard everything the Judge & Jury heard. How can any of us second-guess the outcome?

Having been a juror myself, I know how the evidence, and case presented, can be far and away from what is portrayed in the media.



All the best, James

 

[boulderjohn]

They had his guilty plea to manslaughter, had the proved that he planned it, it would have been premeditated murder.

I suggest you read through the details of the case. He essentially pleaded guilty to being a bad dive buddy--failing to rescue a victim of a dive accident. There was not a hint of premeditation in that plea.

 

[ScubaSteve1962]

I suggest you read through the details of the case. He essentially pleaded guilty to being a bad dive buddy--failing to rescue a victim of a dive accident. There was not a hint of premeditation in that plea.

right, that's why they had to prove he planned it. but from the judges statement they couldn't prove either. If they had any real evidence, or witness statements the he planned it. Even though double jeopardy wasn't in place, if one court can't prove it, what makes another court with the same testimony, thousands of miles away think they can. Who would have thought you could prove murder without a body, but it has happened.

 

[ScubaSteve1962]

I was not present throughout this trial; with respect, neither were you, Ken (or) the other posters in this thread. So, none of us heard everything the Judge & Jury heard. How can any of us second-guess the outcome?

Having been a juror myself, I know how the evidence, and case presented, can be far and away from what is portrayed in the media.



All the best, James

I've been a juror myself also! I never believe what the media presents As stated in one of my previous post " this is the USA you're guilty until prov en innocent, then you just got away with it because 12 people (or a judge in this case), were too dumb to convict you". I've never understood how someone could be found innocent of a crime, but loose the lawsuit I wasn't judging him saying he was innocent or guilty. My view is why waste time trying to prove he murdered her if you have the proof that he planned it! Who would have thought that you could prove murder without a body, but it has happened.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

It is very difficult but I think this was more for the family then anything. The case would be an impossible scenario anyway since your talking about a crime that the actual crime itself was commited in another country no matter if planned here or not. The family has been reportedly at odds with Gabe and with plenty of reason to see why. Its not just this case but most any case where a spouse is murdered it will more often then not turn family against inlaws.

This will undoubtedly result in quiet possibly a civil suit from the family though as its the next step for action in most cases.

The standard of evidence is lower in civil cases, so it is not uncommon for the family of the deceased to try to get their pound of flesh after the defendant is aquitted in criminal court.

I think it is significant in this case that the judge dismissed the case after the prosecution presented it's case. Obviously, the judge felt the state was glaringly short of meeting all of the required elements.