Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

Most experts have said that Mr. Thomas' information about the insurance matter would be ruled as hearsay. Although you can't say for sure when it comes to Alabama hearsay exceptions. The prosecutor claimed in one newspaper article that he had evidence that Watson went to Tina's place of work to change her insurance behind her back. Not sure that I trust that he has this evidence since he only mentioned it once and seemed to talk more about Mr. Thomas' statement. But let's say he does have the evidence he claimed - is there any part of Mr. Thomas' testimony that would then be allowed because now you have corroboration?

Regarding the "ominous" nature of Mr. Thomas' discussion with Tina - Mr. Thomas revealed that Tina appeared to be stressed about getting it done before the wedding, as the advice he gave her was to wait until after the wedding but to tell Watson she had done it. That advice comes under auspices of a father, not an insurance agent. Tina would not likely go to see her insurance agent and if she did, she probably would just make the change. You would have to question if she would reveal the stress she was under to an agent. If this does come before a jury, I think Ayisha is correct about how a jury would see it. That Tina was not comfortable in talking openly about this with her fiance - I think that is what is key, not that there is something wrong with Mr. Thomas telling his daughter to "lie" to Watson. Mr. Thomas is simply offering a solution to his daughter without stressing her out any further.

 

[NoDiver]

Post deleted

 

[Ayisha]

Wasn't it mentioned somewhere that Mr Thomas was an Insurance Agent? That would make him the obvious person to talk to about insurance related issues. There would be nothing ominious in that. If your father is a mechanic you would go to him for confirmation about mechanical issues wouldn't you? Correct me if I am wrong on this please.

Tina had insurance, so she did not need nor was it stated that she asked for insurance advice other than changing her beneficiary. Why was she stressed about being asked by Gabe to change her beneficiary and what advice could her father give that her insurance agent could not? Did she need to think about whether her very soon to be husband should be her beneficiary? Really? Tina could just as easily have simply made the change with her insurance company - she did not but may have told Gabe she did as her father advised. Remember, Gabe did try and collect on her insurance immediately after her death, believing he was the beneficiary, after being told by her work that they could not make him the beneficiary without Tina's consent.

It's been said before, but it would be interesting to know if Gabe had insurance and if he increased it to a similar level and had the beneficiary as Tina at the same time as Tina's was supposed to be done.
It would also be interesting to know if their travel insurance, which he attempted to collect on (but dropped the claim), was identical.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Regarding the "ominous" nature of Mr. Thomas' discussion with Tina - Mr. Thomas revealed that Tina appeared to be stressed about getting it done before the wedding, as the advice he gave her was to wait until after the wedding but to tell Watson she had done it. That advice comes under auspices of a father, not an insurance agent. Tina would not likely go to see her insurance agent and if she did, she probably would just make the change. You would have to question if she would reveal the stress she was under to an agent. If this does come before a jury, I think Ayisha is correct about how a jury would see it. That Tina was not comfortable in talking openly about this with her fiance - I think that is what is key, not that there is something wrong with Mr. Thomas telling his daughter to "lie" to Watson. Mr. Thomas is simply offering a solution to his daughter without stressing her out any further.

Exactly my point. If Mr Thomas was an insurance agent it is reasonable to assume that a family member would take advantage of his knowedge at a busy time rather than make an appointment with and agent who is likely to put further pressure on you if they scent a chance of commission! If I was on the jury I would certainly view this conversation in that light (if I believed the conversation did occur).

Tina had insurance, so she did not need nor was it stated that she asked for insurance advice other than changing her beneficiary. Why was she stressed about being asked by Gabe to change her beneficiary and what advice could her father give that her insurance agent could not? Did she need to think about whether her very soon to be husband should be her beneficiary? Really? Tina could just as easily have simply made the change with her insurance company - she did not but may have told Gabe she did as her father advised. Remember, Gabe did try and collect on her insurance immediately after her death, believing he was the beneficiary, after being told by her work that they could not make him the beneficiary without Tina's consent.

It's been said before, but it would be interesting to know if Gabe had insurance and if he increased it to a similar level and had the beneficiary as Tina at the same time as Tina's was supposed to be done.
It would also be interesting to know if their travel insurance, which he attempted to collect on (but dropped the claim), was identical.

See my comment above in this post.

As has been suggested by others here. She may just have been stressed because of all the things that piling up needing to be done leading up to a wedding!

I guess the whole case seems to hing on "the Insurance angle". If I were on the jury I would want to hear some answers to these questions.

Did Tina specifically go to her father to tell him Gabe wanted her to increase her insurance or was it part of a conversation about a "To Do list?"

Did Tina indicate that she did not want Gabe to be the beneficiary for some reason?

Did Tina indicate apprehension about Gabe being beneficiary and what gave that impression?

I doubt that Mr Thomas would think it necessary to mention if Tina asked for other Insurance advice.

I think it would be very difficult to explain any imbalance in the travel insurance coverage.

People are all hung up on the insurance "angle" but I would want to know more about the House. Did Tina own it? Was it a joint mortgage? Who co-signed the loan if anyone? How did Gabe come to wind up with the House? What about a WILL?

 

[ItsBruce]

I personally don't think the insurance angle is all that important. And, if it is, it probably hurts the prosecution more than Watson. As far as Watson seeking to collect on the insurance, that would be a normal thing to do if one's spouse dies, whether of old age or an accident. As far as Watson asking Tina to change her insurance, assuming that comes into evidence, that is not particularly odd given the upcoming wedding. (That may be tempered by what Watson himself may have done in anticipation of the wedding.) OTOH, if it does not come into evidence, the jury may wonder about it and figure that there is a problem with the prosecution's evidence.

And, now for a minor digression since I have all these great minds looking at the Watson case: If, in a court ruling, the court says: "A reasonable layperson reading the policy would believe it covered a claim," does that mean that it was unreasonable to believe it did not cover the claim?

 

[K_girl]

Exactly my point. If Mr Thomas was an insurance agent it is reasonable to assume that a family member would take advantage of his knowedge at a busy time rather than make an appointment with and agent who is likely to put further pressure on you if they scent a chance of commission! If I was on the jury I would certainly view this conversation in that light (if I believed the conversation did occur).

This was insurance through her work, so an insurance agent would not be involved in any case and could not gain commission except to try and talk Tina into buying more insurance outside her work. I'm not sure what light you are viewing the conversation in, but if I'm reading you correcty, you are saying that Tina's father was only talking to his daughter in light of his expertise as an insurance agent and not in his capacity as a father. I don't think it necessarily matters, the point is that Mr. Thomas understood that Tina was stressed about making the change before the wedding and gave her advice about how to handle it.

As has been suggested by others here. She may just have been stressed because of all the things that piling up needing to be done leading up to a wedding!

I guess the whole case seems to hing on "the Insurance angle". If I were on the jury I would want to hear some answers to these questions.

Did Tina specifically go to her father to tell him Gabe wanted her to increase her insurance or was it part of a conversation about a "To Do list?"

Did Tina indicate that she did not want Gabe to be the beneficiary for some reason?

Did Tina indicate apprehension about Gabe being beneficiary and what gave that impression?

This is the very reason I believe Mr. Thomas is telling the truth - he has not provided any elaboration of any of this detail, at least not to the press. Because Mr. Thomas appears to indicate that Tina was stressed about getting it done before the wedding, all you can say at this point is that it was part of a "to-do" list. It is what it is.

I doubt that Mr Thomas would think it necessary to mention if Tina asked for other Insurance advice.

As he has not provided any detail that would provide additional harm to Watson, he has not provided this detail - at least not to the press. I'm sure he would be happy to answer this question, even if asked by the defense.

People are all hung up on the insurance "angle" but I would want to know more about the House. Did Tina own it? Was it a joint mortgage? Who co-signed the loan if anyone? How did Gabe come to wind up with the House? What about a WILL?

News reports indicated that he now owns the house that Tina either owned or also owned with him (unclear). If there was some kind of mortgage insurance, it is possible Watson may have wound-up with the house in the clear. Unless Tina (or Tina and Watson) had a 20% down payment at the time of purchase, they would have been required to pay for mortgage insurance. By the fact that Watson was Tina's husband, he would have claim to the home unless there was a prenuptual agreement or will. This is something we don't know at this point and more information that is not in the public forum.

The evidence of gain from any insurance is only evidence of motive, not evidence of guilt. There is a difference. So if the prosecution shows that Watson was either under the impression that he would gain, or did receive some kind of gain - that is evidence of motive only. I'm not sure how the existence of insurance, or evidence that Watson tried to collect on insurance he was not entitled to hurts the prosecution - as Bruce indicated. Historically, that is not the case.

 

[ItsBruce]

It hurts the prosecution if the jury has questions that the prosecution has not answered.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I personally don't think the insurance angle is all that important. And, if it is, it probably hurts the prosecution more than Watson. As far as Watson seeking to collect on the insurance, that would be a normal thing to do if one's spouse dies, whether of old age or an accident. As far as Watson asking Tina to change her insurance, assuming that comes into evidence, that is not particularly odd given the upcoming wedding. (That may be tempered by what Watson himself may have done in anticipation of the wedding.) OTOH, if it does not come into evidence, the jury may wonder about it and figure that there is a problem with the prosecution's evidence.

And, now for a minor digression since I have all these great minds looking at the Watson case: If, in a court ruling, the court says: "A reasonable layperson reading the policy would believe it covered a claim," does that mean that it was unreasonable to believe it did not cover the claim?

Perhaps I have been misunderstanding this. I thought that the reason that double jeopardy is considered not to apply and Alabama claims jurisdictional has to do with Watson "planning" the crime in Alabama. Isn't the "Insurance angle" a significant part of the planning/motive?

No K-girl I do not believe it is possible for a parent to totally step away from their parental roles even when giving advice about their professional knowledge. Don't know if you remember I mentioned in the past I worked as an Insurance Agent. Group Policies often do generate commission and also as you mentioned a "foot in the door" to generate commission on individual policies.

 

[myscubastory.com]

An Australian court has sentenced a man to four-and-a-half years in prison over the death of his bride on their scuba-diving honeymoon on Great Barrier Reef.Christina Watson, 26, drowned while diving with her husband, David Gabriel Watson, an experienced diver, 11 days after their wedding in 2003.

The sentence came after Watson pleaded guilty to manslaughter having previously denied murder charges.Prosecutors said he had failed in his duty as his wife’s dive buddy.

Prosecutor Brendan Campbell said Watson had failed to give her emergency oxygen when she needed it.Watson allowed Christina 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."He virtually extinguished any chance of her survival," he told the court hearing, in Brisbane.

A dive instructor found novice scuba diver Christina Watson lying on the bottom of the ocean after her husband, known as Gabe, had surfaced.
In mid-2008 a coroner found it was likely Watson killed his wife by holding her underwater and turning off her air supply.

The American couple were on their honeymoon in Australia.
Watson, who has since remarried, voluntarily returned to Australia last month to face his murder charge.

Christina’s father Tommy Thomas, her sister Alanda and friend Amanda Phillips travelled from their native Alabama to attend the court hearing.
Prosecutors had sought a five-year jail term for Mr Watson, with the possibility of parole after 18 months.

Original article can be found on BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Scuba man jailed for wife's death


I just found this horrible article. What a sad story. People are so vulnerable underwater especially when their dive buddies are the ones in who they place a lot of trust. My dive colleagues have been telling me that this man has just been extradited a few days ago to the US to be tried in his home country. Do you think it fair that they sent him back to the US? What if it was not him? This guy could risk death penalty right?

 

[Tortuga68]

That article is from 2009. There are several long, tedious threads about Gabe Watson here if you're bored/have trouble sleeping