Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[agilis]

" Anyone can convict a guilty defendant. It takes a skilled prosecutor to convict an innocent one."

This mantra is familiar to anyone in the criminal law business. There are many, many innocent people convicted because lots of prosecutors are as crooked as cat sh#t, and jurors tend to think the legal process is clean and honest. They are wrong.

 

[Doubler]

Agree completely with Paperdesk. The press touted this guy as an expert diver because he held a Rescue Diver cert. Big whoop. I could get my dog certified as rescue diver at some shops. This case was more about revenge than justice. Glad it is over.

 

[Dadvocate]

This is an excellent outcome for US jurisprudence. I have a renewed sense that overzealous, media savvy prosecutors might have been taught a lesson today, even if only slightly. I am very happy that the precedence that was set in carrying on with this trial will be significantly weaker with this outcome as well, and I am happy to say a resounding “Ha!” on behalf of my Aussie wife to all of the people in this thread who ridiculed the Australian court system. It seems they recognized what the actual evidence was all along and acted accordingly in getting the conviction that they did. They are as vindicated as Watson is in this case.


And to those of you who touted the media reports in the case as somehow being authoritative, well you see the value in those ruminations now. Probably not, but then who really cares?



Finally, I think this is one heck of a good day for diving and for the buddy system in general. As with some other cases that have now reminded us who is responsible when we choose to go diving, this allows for buddies to act in good faith without the worry of frivolous attacks when things go wrong. Well, at least in a small way it does.

Livinoz, I hope you are reading this!


Cheers!

 

[DandyDon]

Out...!

No surprise here...

 

[alohagal]

Right DandyDon...this was no surprise to so many of us.

 

[alohagal]

Agree completely with Paperdesk. The press touted this guy as an expert diver because he held a Rescue Diver cert. Big whoop. I could get my dog certified as rescue diver at some shops. This case was more about revenge than justice. Glad it is over.

This was not Paperdesks comments. Paperdesk was quoting Clownfishsydney. Clownfishsydney is Michael McFadyen who wrote up the most interesting web blog about this case. Look up his profile for the link.

 

[clownfishsydney]

An interesting comment today by Tom Jackson who trained both Tina and Gabe was that he would not have let Gabe and Tina enter the water on a "red" dive (as the Yongala was classified). He also said that he would not consider Gabe experienced (he took a long time to answer this question). Another thing he said was that a rescue diver certification does not enable someone to take the role of a rescue diver on a charter boat (important as many people think it is) and that it is important to save yourself first and said something like "Can I help this person without hurting myself".

 

[300bar]

I think Gabe Watson, or his legal defence,will be happy to read this thread.
He might even get some $$$$$$$$$$,$$ out of it

 

[DandyDon]

I think Gabe Watson, or his legal defence,will be happy to read this thread.
He might even get some $$$$$$$$$$,$$ out of it

Oh, I'm sure they have been reading. Right now we have 19 guests.

Gabe may not be happy personally the way he has been discussed.

 

[thespoons]

Oh, I'm sure they have been reading. Right now we have 19 guests.

Of course, guests can often just mean "people who have been logged out and are too lazy to log in." I've popped in to read updates on this thread in the last few days, but only just logged in when I wanted to post above.