GUILTY Australia - Tina Watson, 26, dies on honeymoon scuba dive, QLD, 22 Oct 2003

Steely Dan

Former Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
30,559
Reaction score
79
What the hell was this judge thinking!!!! Someone called in to JVM and said they were intuitive and that the judge had been bought off. I don't think so, but it's a really shocking decision. The lawyers on JVM and JVM herself, have never heard of this happening before. :banghead:
 

Steely Dan

Former Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
30,559
Reaction score
79
JVM also pointed out that in all of his talking about all he's lost he never once said anything about losing his wife.
 

~n/t~

New Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
17,672
Reaction score
73
"...an Alabama grand jury indicted Watson on two counts -- murder for pecuniary gain and kidnapping where a felony occurred. Those charges were based on the premise that Watson hatched the plot to kill his wife while in Alabama."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/justice/alabama-honeymoon-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


What I don't understand is, how can there be enough evidence for a Grand Jury to indict him on a murder charge, but yet the judge can say there isn't enough evidence for a trial? Sorry to keep harping on and on but it blows my mind.

I'm confused about that also.
 

~n/t~

New Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
17,672
Reaction score
73
It always amazes me how someone marries someone who was accused (and convicted in Australia) of murdering his wife. Boggles my mind. How do they sleep at night? :what:
 

Columbo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
2,660
Reaction score
42
This makes me so angry! If charges were dismissed, can he still be tried for this again at a later date? Anyone know?

I think her family can try him for wrongful death in civil court, like Ron Goldman's parents tried OJ Simpson in civil court. Hopefully if they do that, or even if they don't, karma will eventually get this guy for what he did.
 

iluvmua

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
8,830
Reaction score
11,269
I hope the Karma bus comes at FULL SPEED for both Gabe AND Casey.

This is the same jerk who was caught on camera cutting off flowers with bolt cutters at Tina's grave site and at the funeral made the remark about how at least Tina's breasts were perky.

low life
 

theBritster

New Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
It always amazes me how someone marries someone who was accused (and convicted in Australia) of murdering his wife. Boggles my mind. How do they sleep at night? :what:

Me too! At the very least he didn't try and save Tina. Sure, the new wife could argue that he was scared and panicked, but isn't she worried he would panic and run if something was happening to her? I would be. :twocents:
 

scandi

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
18,226
Reaction score
38
Hi there, I keep thinking this is the same case which became a 'New Detectives' show a couple of years {?} ago as it was a prime example how a RECONSTRUCTION of the crime can solve the case.

What the Aussie LE did was perform a reconstruction with a stand-in playing a part of the deceased wife and then one for the husband {as he refused to take part}.

What LE learned was if her death had happened as the husband said it did, the wife would have ended up in a different spot on the ocean floor. I can't remember the specific details :banghead: but the show said this proved he was lying and that he was guilty.

Did anyone else hear about this reconstruction?


xox
 

Allusonz

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
4,679
Reaction score
17
Hi there, I keep thinking this is the same case which became a 'New Detectives' show a couple of years {?} ago as it was a prime example how a RECONSTRUCTION of the crime can solve the case.

What the Aussie LE did was perform a reconstruction with a stand-in playing a part of the deceased wife and then one for the husband {as he refused to take part}.

What LE learned was if her death had happened as the husband said it did, the wife would have ended up in a different spot on the ocean floor. I can't remember the specific details :banghead: but the show said this proved he was lying and that he was guilty.

Did anyone else hear about this reconstruction?


xox

Australian Story did a story on this. There are 2 parts plus the dive reinactment. HTH

"Her husband Gabe was accused of murder but eventually convicted and jailed for manslaughter, amidst controversy over the role of the Queensland DPP"

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/unfathomableone/default.htm
 

iluvmua

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
8,830
Reaction score
11,269
Did he really? I didn't know that. What a #$%^&*

yes, he did. If Dateline replays the episode "Mystery in the Deep Blue Sea" you can see actual footage of him taking bolt cutters and destroying flowers from her grave site and then dumping them in the trash.

I'm sure they will update the episode and air it again.
 

Rhyme & Reason

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,456
Reaction score
30
yes, he did. If Dateline replays the episode "Mystery in the Deep Blue Sea" you can see actual footage of him taking bolt cutters and destroying flowers from her grave site and then dumping them in the trash.

I'm sure they will update the episode and air it again.

Wow! I'll watch for a replay on Dateline.
 

scandi

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
18,226
Reaction score
38
Australian Story did a story on this. There are 2 parts plus the dive reinactment. HTH

"Her husband Gabe was accused of murder but eventually convicted and jailed for manslaughter, amidst controversy over the role of the Queensland DPP"

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/unfathomableone/default.htm
Whoa, You are one sharp Sleuther Allusonz ;} Thanks.

I'm sure it will tell why the info they learned in the reenactment wasn't enough to keep him in the pokey.
 

Tugela

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,714
Reaction score
450
It always amazes me how someone marries someone who was accused (and convicted in Australia) of murdering his wife. Boggles my mind. How do they sleep at night? :what:

He wasn't convicted of murder in Australia, he was was convicted of negligent homicide. For a charge like that you don't need to have done anything wrong, rather it is for what you didn't do.

In the US people generaly don't get charged for that, you are not legally required to help.
 

Tugela

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,714
Reaction score
450
Hi there, I keep thinking this is the same case which became a 'New Detectives' show a couple of years {?} ago as it was a prime example how a RECONSTRUCTION of the crime can solve the case.

What the Aussie LE did was perform a reconstruction with a stand-in playing a part of the deceased wife and then one for the husband {as he refused to take part}.

What LE learned was if her death had happened as the husband said it did, the wife would have ended up in a different spot on the ocean floor. I can't remember the specific details :banghead: but the show said this proved he was lying and that he was guilty.

Did anyone else hear about this reconstruction?


xox

A reconstruction in this sort of situation proves nothing since there are no absolute reference points. At best it would serve as an aid to an investigation but it is hardly evidence.
 

Tugela

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,714
Reaction score
450
It is easy enough to see why the judge ruled that way: there was apparently no motive. A central part of the state's case was that it was done for financial gain - that is what allowed them to claim jurisdiction for charges since they claimed it was a plot initiated in the US.

(from http://news.yahoo.com/honeymoon-killer-judge-scoffs-alleged-motive-151622500--abc-news.html)

"You mean to tell me that [Gabe Watson] bought the engagement ring, married her, he and his family paid for a wedding, he planned and paid for a honeymoon halfway around the world, all so he could kill her to get an engagement ring he bought in the first place?" the judge asked.

and

Watson never received any money from his wife's insurance policy since her father was listed as the beneficiary. Watson had filed a claim for $10,000 in travel insurance to cover what he says would was the total cost incurred as a result of his wife's death in Australia.
 

SilkySifaka

Active Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,933
Reaction score
21
It is easy enough to see why the judge ruled that way: there was apparently no motive. A central part of the state's case was that it was done for financial gain - that is what allowed them to claim jurisdiction for charges since they claimed it was a plot initiated in the US.

(from http://news.yahoo.com/honeymoon-killer-judge-scoffs-alleged-motive-151622500--abc-news.html)



and

Objectively speaking I am not surprised by this ruling. I had issues with it going forward in the first place and suspected it had more to do with a DA that wanted a high profile case than solid evidence of murder. One witness even said they thought he was trying to save her...there just wasn't a lot there.

Do I think he did it? Probably..i could have voted for the Australian verdict but nothing I have heard so far suggests to me that the state made the case for murder, if anything..they rested far to early.
 
Top