E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA judge abruptly dismissed the murder case of an Alabama man accused of drowning his wife during a honeymoon diving trip in Australia. NBC's Mark Potter reports, and former Alabama Attorney General Troy King discusses the case.
Updated at 4 p.m. ET: BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- An Alabama judge on Thursday acquitted the man accused of drowning his newlywed wife during a honeymoon diving trip to Australia eight years ago, ruling that prosecutors did not prove the man intentionally killed his wife to collect on a life insurance policy.
Circuit Judge Tommy Nail issued his ruling before the defense had even presented its case in the two-week-long trial and before jurors were given the case to deliberate.
Gabe Watson, 34, had faced life in prison without parole if convicted of murdering his wife, Tina Thomas Watson, in 2003. He already served 18 months in an Australian prison after pleading guilty there to a manslaughter charge involving negligence.
Nail agreed with defense arguments that prosecutors failed to show Watson intentionally killed the woman. Prosecutors claimed he drowned her for insurance money, but the only eyewitness testified he thought Watson was trying to save the woman.
The state's evidence was "sorely lacking" and did not prove Watson had any financial motive. "I don't think anyone knows for sure what happened in the water down there," Nail said.
Defense attorneys had argued that Watson didn't stand to gain anything monetarily because Tina Watson's father was the beneficiary of her life insurance policy. They contended her death was an accident.
'So relieved'
Gabe Watson's father, David, hugged his son in the courtroom after the judge made his ruling. He said every court that had looked at the case determined Gabe did not intentionally kill his wife.
"I'm just so relieved. Hopefully he can put his life back together," David Watson said.
"I hope everyone can begin to heal. The rest of his life will determine his legacy. Gabe is a good kid."
Gabe Watson left the courtroom hand-in-hand with his second wife without commenting to reporters.
TODAY'S Ann Curry asks former Alabama Attorney General Troy King whether he used the honeymoon scuba death trial for his own political purposes.
Tina Watson's father, Tommy Thomas, had testified earlier in the day. He described how his family's grief and shock over Tina Watson's death turned to suspicion of Gabe Watson. He testified that he got the news of his daughter's death not from Watson, but from the defendant's father more than a day later.
Prosecutor Don Valeska walked with his arm around Tommy Thomas, who appeared to be in shock and stunned by the judge's decision.
"It should have gone to the jury for them to decide," Thomas said of the judge's decision.
The Birmingham News via AP
Gabe Watson, left, stands during a break in his capital murder trial in Birmingham, Ala., Thursday.
The Alabama Attorney General's Office had sought to have Watson convicted on charges that he planned his bride's death in Alabama, before the couple departed for their honeymoon.
Thomas had testified earlier that shortly after the death, his wife, Cindy, was worried about Gabe Watson's condition. However, evidence showed relations between Watson and his wife's family frayed quickly as the Thomases began having doubts about what happened and Gabe Watson began asking for Tina Watson's belongings.
Gabe Watson's father called to tell them about the woman's death more than 15 hours after she drowned, Thomas said, and Tina Watson's family never heard from Gabe Watson until they attempted to contact him through the U.S. consulate in Australia.
Thomas said that in a phone call from Australia, Watson claimed his wife gave him a thumbs-up underwater, indicating she wanted to go back to the surface. Watson said he was leading her back to a rope when she panicked, knocked off his mask and air hose, and began sinking, according to Thomas.
But during a later talk at a lawyer's office, Thomas said, Watson changed his story and said the woman indicated she wanted to go back to the rope leading to the top rather than go directly to the surface. Staring directly at Watson from the witness stand, Thomas said he asked his former son-in-law at that time: "When Tina gave him the thumbs up sign to go to the surface, why didn't he just take her to the surface?"
The judge blocked Thomas from testifying about Watson's alleged desire to increase the woman's life insurance policy, a blow for prosecutors who earlier had been barred from presenting other
evidence about Watson's actions after the death.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
His guilty plea of manslaughter is not enough evidence to bring a case to trial?
They should have explained that to you in law school.
He pleaded guilty to manslaughter not murder. Manslaughter doesn't mean he planned to murder her just that he had some culpability in her death.
I think he plead in Australia (no trial) to get out of jail and out of the country.
Since this is a local case, I had been following it with some interest. Actually, he pleaded guilty to negligent manslaughter, based on his admission that he, as a certified rescue instructor, had signed his wife off on at least two qualification dives that she did not do. This came as a result of intense police questioning right after she died and while he was in custody. Because he was automatically considered a flight risk since he was a foreigner, he was held in detention until his trial. His guilty plea was in return for a sentence of time served and the ability to leave Australia.
Several things struck me as odd about this case:
1) This seemed to be a vendetta by the drowned woman's father. His primary reason that he gave to the press was that he thought the guy was guilty because he first heard of his daughter's death from the son-in-law's father the next day. It appeared to me that he had missed the International Date Line and was actually told within about 4 hours or so. There have been a number of lawsuits by the girl's father against the man.
2) The only eyewitness corroborated the man's story.
3) The prosecutors contended that he was after his wife's insrance, but the father was the beneficiary. And a few days before the wedding the father had suggested that the amount of the insurance could be increased dramatically for only a few dollars more, but the son-in-law declined saying that their finances wopuld be tight until the wedding and honeymoon was paid for. Doesn't sound right to me.
4) When he was charged in Australia he voluntarily returned for trial.
5) The Australian police contended that he turned off her air, let her die, then turned it back on. This was necessary to explain why she was found with her mouthpiece in her mouth and everything working correctly and no water in her lungs. It turned out that the Australian police had withheld the information that the girl had had open heart surgery to correct an irregular heartbeat two years ago and would not have qualified for an open water dive certificate.
6) This was the wife's first open water dive. Her husband was her buddy. It turned out that his certified dive instructor certificate was given him by a cruise line after a two-day training session in an Alabama quarry and was just a piece of paper with no real instructor training behind it. Neither he nor his wife were actually qualified for the dive and the excursion company was fined for this as a result.
7) The guy did not sue for her life insurance as her father and the prosecution implied. He sued a travel company for refusing to pay on trip interuption insurance. He won a $45,000 payment on that --- not even enough to cover his legal expenses.
All during the runup to the trial the prosecutor would accuse him of being a certified rescue diver capable of bringing her up one day and an inexperienced and untrained diver who should never have been on the dive the next. He would say that the man sued insurance companies to get his wife's insurance and hint that it was $216,000, but never mentioned that the father was the beneficiary of the life insurance, not him. I really found all of it very unconvincing.
I think the judge probably did the right thing. It looks more to me than anything that a grieving and angry father carried on a personal vendetta to place blame for an accident and that a publicity-seeking prosecutor was more than happy to oblige him.
I recall seeing a picture taken by another diver..he was a distance from his wife who was laying on the sea bed floor . That picture doesn't look like he helped her go up as she wanted too by the (thumbs up sign).
picture at this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/05/man-guilty-manslaughter-wife-scuba-death
Thank you Chris749391 for your excellent summary. It removes all the room for speculation.
why did he shut her air tank off , i can't remember .
Nancy Grace isn't going to like this.
I am glad to see he was acquitted b/c this case really angered me. Alabama's AG pursued this case, spending millions on a case of a supposed crime that occurred OUTSIDE their jurisdiction, yet crimes that occur in Alabama, violent crimes against children (toddlers and babies) go unprosecuted. Everyone from DHR to DA to the Attorney General's office have stated IT IS NOT THEIR JOB to prosecute crimes when the mother is the perpetrator.
Since the AG's office refuses to prosecute crimes when they have clear jurisdiction, why would anyone be supportive of them prosecuting a supposed crime when they don't have jurisdiction.
I always figured he probably did it, but knowing now that he was not the beneficiary, and that the ONLY witness said he looked as though he was trying to save her, I would have great doubts. Sounds like more idiot cops and prosecutors trying to make their theory fit...by force.
As far as the conviction in Australia, he was convicted for, as the prosecutor there said, "Watson unlawfully killed Tina by failing in duty of care to fulfill his obligations as her 'dive buddy' during the scuba dive," but if he was not really qualified, that seems bogus to me too.
Nice work Chris-749391.
This case never should have been brought to start with. The only reason it went to trial was a publicity seeking DA with little common sense and even worse legal judgement and an angry, grieving father looking for someone to blame. I would not blame the guy if he sued the DA for malicious prosecution based on the complete lack of evidence supporting taking this case to trial.
Chris, again an intelligent and insightful post on the details and facts. Great post Sir. Keep it up and they might ban you from newsvine.
Hi guilty plea was for not protecting her from being harmed... not much to debate there>
That picture of him just hovering over her sprawled out body, only feet below him, tells a very convincing story - that he is a big wuss at the least. As I recall; it was someone else who brought her to the surface - the guy is right there and can't be bothered to go down 10 feet and grab her? They were in 45 feet of water - even my old smoker lungs can go down an extra 10 feet and then return to the surface some 45 feet above me. Even after 12 operations and basically no right arm, my adrenalin would have at least been enough to accomplish what wuss boy was too scared to do.
Just like the Casey Anthony case - the verdict is what it is. The big question is; how did Mr. Dufas land two pretty gals, let alone one? If I was female; he'd be a triple bagger.
I am just curious... did anyone on here see the original Dateline episode about this case? There were several things explained in that show which, if correct, point to this man being guilty... including these:
1. Gabe had told Tina to switch the insurance beneficiary to himself not long before the wedding but she hadn't done it and just had not told Gabe, so although in the end, he was not the beneficiary, he had assumed he was.
2. The eyewitness who saw the underwater "bear hug" implied on the show that it was most likely him turning off her air.
3. The people who tried to save Tina had suspicions right away because of the bazaar way Gabe acted after they brought her up... almost as if he was afraid she might be revived.
4. The weird way he started flirting with one of Tina's friends shortly after her death.
5. The way his story kept changing about how exactly she ended up on the ocean floor.
6. The evidence from the device that tracked the dive.
I am not saying I know the truth... I just wondered if any of these things had been brought up in the trial and how they were explained. Chris, you especially seem to know a lot about it, so maybe you have a few thoughts on it.
OK, so one more question...
How did she die? They say it wasn't drowning (no water in her lungs, mouthpiece in and working, etc.)
I think I remember hearing the coroner ruled asphyxiation, but how is that possible if the mask was found still on and working when they brought her up?
Are they saying that the previous heart surgery had something to do with it?
Just curious because this case caught my attention from day one.
Hellokaren you have summed up the situation pretty well. A lot of people were denied their say which I think would have gone against his version of truth.The Judge had already made up his mind to throw the case out within a day or so. Husband made no effort to rescue her from the sea bed and didnot even bother to go over to the other boat which had his wifes body on it. Most men would have been in a terrible state had their new bride died but he just sat and looked. He -thank goodness- got none of the Insurance money as she had not changed her will. The actions at the cemetary speaks volumes. Callous-cold blooded so called ínnocent'.Dont blame the Dive Company. If someone says they are dive experienced then they are accepted as such. Such a beautiful young woman who just made the wrong decision.I feel for her parents.
The judge ruled correctly in this vendetta by a father who refuses to accept that his daughter could have died from natural causes during a dive she should never have gone on--most likely from her previously existing medical condition. The Attorney General is nothing more than a clammering rung climbing politician looking for his next election win. Of course, this doesn't speak much for Alabama whose citizens seem to have a penchant for dying while visiting foreign countries. Nancy Grace is a pathetic loser who has stooped to reality TV as cover. Were she such a hotshot prosecutor she would still be serving the public in the courts.
@Kevin,
The picture in question was taken by another diver of his wife and he did not even see Tina on the bottom. The person behind his wife is a dive crewman who is responding to Watson's destress calls.
The allegations that he was flirting with other women during the funeral and comparing somne woman's boobs to those of Tina in the casket were made by the girl's father. I count 17 lawsuits that the father filed against Watson and there are probably more since the site doesn't seem to be very up-to-date. Tina dies intestate so the husband was the presumptive administrator of the estate, but the father sued to become the executor and as such as actually sued Watson to get back her pictures from the period when they were dating and is billing Watson for the lawsuit. The father has also filed over 100 police complaints against watson and maybe more (I could only check Birmingham metro.) The father was putting flowers and "trinkets" on the grave (in one of those places where it is not allowed) and then had over 80 feet of chain crisscrossed over the grave and flowers and filed a suit when Watson cut the chains and discarded the mess. You can make things like that sound vey, very bad, but what would you do if someone who hated you was doing it?
The Australian police have a serious reputation for inventing scanarios and then making the evidence conform to that scenario. The most serious case is that of the "dingo baby" which just popped up in the news again. The police have harrassed this couple for over 30 years, falsely imprisoning her for 3 years, and continuing to cite completely discredited "evidence" because they decided that the woman slit her 9-week-old baby's throat in a car and then disposed of the body in the desert. The problem was that there was never a shred of evidence that disputed the woman's story that she saw a dingo dragging someting into the dark just before finding the baby missing. A really scary story that is still going on.
I do believe that Watson was guilty of negligent manslaughter. He claimed that he was a certified rescue diver and certified dive instructor. Neither was true. The dive boat crew had to show him how to put on and operate his equipment and his total dive experience was two two-hour sessions sponsored by a cruise line in an Alabama quarry. He didn't even have the qualifications to rent dive equipment, let along go on a deep water dive. She had had open heart surgery two years before. When she was under stress her heart would just quit beating and she would pass out. This would have disqualified her from any diving without a specific type of letter from a cardiologist. But neither she nor Watson (who I presume knew of the surgery) disclosed this as required.
My personal opinion based on this was that he was trying to be the big man for his new wife, who by all family accounts, he really adored. But this just led them into a tragic circumstance. It could well be that she was stressed by her first open water dive and had heart problems. She paniced and when he tried to help her she knocked off his mask/mouthpiece and he paniced. And policeman can tell you that eyewitness accounts and victim accounts are horribly inaccurate. When the police interrogated Watson they did a lot of suggesting how he might be to blame and accusing him of being lacking in detail as a sign of guilt. Given that a) he really did have some culpability in her death, b) that he paniced, c) that he was grieving, and d) that he was in jail in a foreign country with no support of any kind, it is little wonder that his story was sketchy and not well remembered. That's why it is so difficult to convict people on an eyewitness account without corroborating evidence.
The Alabama DA who led this waste of taxpayer money was running for re-election and also has links to protecting Auburn football players from indictment as well as obstructing both the investigation and subsequent trials of state legislators involved in taking bribes from casino owners to legalize gambling. He is also good friends with the girl's father.
The Australian police withheld a great deal of evidence (such as her medical records) and both their dive logs. This was the most devastating blow to the prosecution here as he testified that he "recanted 100%" of his original testimony which was based on the false information that he was a highly experienced and well-certified diver. When he got access to these records, he realized that she was at high risk of death during the dive and that neither had the experience or certifications to dive anywhere except a swimming pool. As a BTW, the dive company was fined and sanctioned for allowing unqualified divers to participate in the dive. The evidence there was that Tina's scar was visible and that the dive boat crew had to show them how to put on and operate their equipment.
I truly doubt that someone would attempt to kill his wife for insurance money without knowing who the beneficiary of the policy was. And, for @Jenny, she died intestate. She had no will.
That's right. She has already given her sentence to the media. She doesn't need to hear "the rest of the story" because she knows he did it. She is the Court TV version of al sharpton/jessse jackson.
Fortunatley for her she landed a gig on TV because her legal skills were very lacking.
This is an example of what happens when police and lawyers try to make the case fit the evidence versus the evidence fit the case.
The problem I am having is how this judge made it through the screening process for becoming a judge. Since it is typically a "good ol' boy" fraternity and they weed out the ones that use common sense, he somehow fooled them.
The article stated that she used her thumb to indicate that she wanted to ascend (for whatever reason). When I was a diving instructor, we used our thumb to indicate that we were okay. If we wanted to ascend we would use our index finger. Maybe there was confusion as to what "message" was being conveyed from wife to husband and the reason for a difference between going straight up versus going to the rope to ascend.
Nope, I told everyone that he wouldnt be convicted. Daddys money cant buy the truth!
The headline reminds me of the South Park episode where the "Alabama Man" action figure comes with his own bowling ball, beer can, and "smack a beeoch" action arm. His one toothed, pregnant, girlfriend with a black eye is sold separately!
"Gay."
"Totally gay."
"Liberace gay."
How about "Wacky 3 Wheeled Trike"? "You can't ride it! You can't ride it!"
I wanna be just like Alabama man!
Jesus Christ, you people have no sense of humor.
I agree Eugene. But if they didn't know the context? We are not allowed to use the term "gay" on here even though 4th grade cartoon characters say it about every 3 minutes on television. I think it must have something to do with shame.
Eugene - It is know as peole wanting special treatment so they can be treated the same.
Just like blacks are the only ones allowed to use the "n" word, same sexers are the only ones allowed to use the "g" word.
Nah, the context is pretty clear: 3 direct quotes beneath a South Park reference; even if you've never seen the show, common sense should be link enough.
The sad part is, the quotes in question are condemning alcoholic wife-beating. Apparently pounding brews then pounding your woman is more acceptable in today's society than saying the word "gay". Bet the idiots that complained didn't think of that, didja idiots?
Remember when Cartman ate all of the skin off of an entire KFC chicken bucket? He wasn't feeling so gay after that little stunt! I cry when I think about Kenny pulling his hoodie strings taught; and crying like a little girl! I gotta go with ya on this one Eugene. And "thinker" Chapelle Show last night reran it's "Niggar Family" episode last night. It is one of the funniest episodes I've ever seen. Why can't we revel in our differences and just get along? Life is too short to not make, and be made fun of each other! Diversity is good!
That episode was hilarious! and true!
And if he had gone to prison; he would wish he were an ice cream crapping taco.
We are no longer a country of laws. We live under the threat of the whims of DA's who live by their egos and the next election.
I hafta agree. Its all about who's money pulls their strings. like any other politician i guess. its just sadder when DA's and judges are the puppets.
have to ... no such word ... hafta but as for the thoughts ... +1
Lord Foxdrake, we'uns down south DO have the word hafta in our vocabulary... just like fixin', jeat yet?, all yall, etc.
Yes, Lord Foxdrake.. y'all really hafta relax on the "ritin rules"...Its a whole new world out here :)
y'all - an individual
all y'all - a group
It's pretty sad that our legal system has a merit system akin to sports teams - win/loss records. The next thing you know all courtroom will have scoreboards with a "ticker tape" banner scrolling across the bottom with the betting odds for various cases.
I can't believe how many people get away with murder.
I can't believe you know how many people get away with murder.
G REAPER,,,,WHAT???
good one G_Reaper, Blackhorse read the info before you start spouting off ignorant information.
Why do you think it was murder, blackhorse? Do you dive?
blockhorse
Ever watch Cold Cases
Where they go into the room where all the evidence is saved from all cases not solved
Every large city has one
Think of all the people serving time and in some cases executed on the whim of the local DA or the DA is convinced by someones wealthy parents (a little money here a little there)
Neither can oj simpson.
WOW....go figure. Australia gets him on manslaughter and the US clears him
Man, basic education is lacking. A "Not Guilty" verdict, whether delivered by a jury or a judge, doesn't mean a defendant didn't do it. It means the State couldn't PROVE its case. Huge difference. In this case, the fact that the judge issued it as a directed verdict means that he found that the State's case was so weak that no reasonable jury could convict the guy.
And, go google the difference between manslaughter and murder. The gap between the two is tremendous. Just because you are guilty on one doesn't mean you are guilty of the other. And, maybe layoff the "Law & Order" re-runs.
There was no motive
Rich Bitch's insurance
Beneficiary was wealthy a--hole (father of victim)
Posecutor told judge the defendant killed her for wedding rings.
Judge said evidence proved the defendant bought her rings, paid for trip to Austrlia, etc.
Paid for trip to Australia so he could steal the rings. Judge said I ain't buying this garbage,
Guess wealthy papa did not pay the judge. Thought he just had to pay DA.
Justice in th U.S. of America.
Guess wealthy papa got U.S. pressure on Australia because it seems that down under they do not have to have a motive to murder.
In Australia, the charge was more like what we call 'negligent homicide'. That is, it was felt that he should have done more to save her. NOT that he murdered her. He plead guilty and received time served which I think was 18 months.
In regards post #7.1, bmpnznpvt1 says this;
Man, basic education is lacking. A "Not Guilty" verdict, whether delivered by a jury or a judge, doesn't mean a defendant didn't do it. It means the State couldn't PROVE its case. Huge difference. In this case, the fact that the judge issued it as a directed verdict means that he found that the State's case was so weak that no reasonable jury could convict the guy.
Maybe you should go back to school first? Let's look at your claim, k?
First, let's start with this statement; "Innocent, until proven guilty". That is the underpinning of US jurisprudence. Innocence cannot be given to a US citizen, they are born with it under our system of justice. Man, in the form of a jury of one's peers, can take it away only with a finding of "guilty", but he can never hand it out like a gift, or special favor of some kind, as "Innocence" is not a transactional item, a commodity to be bought and sold amongst men. IT is a foundation right of every single person who walks into the halls of US justice, and has been since the advent of our legal system developed under the guidanace and life's work of the Hon. John Marshall, first chief justice of the US Supreme Court, and general architect of American jurisprudence. Once upon a time in the world, US jurisprudence was the envy of the world, and the reason so many people found it desirable to immigrate here, into the new world, leaving everything they had known behind (see note below).
Please note that our legal bedrock doesn't say this; "Innocent, until proven guilty OR not gulty". Think about that statement as the bedrock of a justice system. Such a perversion would never allow for a positive outcome in any legal case. And as nobody can receive vindication in such a system; it is corrupt in its very foundation. Such a system them becomes known as "guilt by accusation". And here you are, claiming the US system is one that can "take" a man's innocence by either a finding of "guilty" or "not guilty". Sadly, you are misguided and allowing the ambitious, in their inexhaustible pleas for expediency, to corrupt the US system into a dysfunctional system with absolutely no finality given toward vindication. Just let them keep taking bites of the apple until there is nothing left, then your system becomes "guilt by exhaustion", which is nothing more than a system of well-funded bullies, and has little to nothing to do with justice.
REMEMBER the phrase; "INNOCENT, until proven guilty". Nancy Grace, a leading proponent of "guilt by accusation", is no longer working at the Atlanta/Fulton County DA's office for a very good reason. Do not follow her deeper into the madness and wanton insanity of interpreting US law as a system of "guilt by accusation" (she gets paid a fortune to be a professional "shyt stirrer". What do you get?)
Slaves are made this way. Free men and women need to fight to their last breath to protect the mantle of their innocence, but we as a society are destroying ourselves by making it easier for ambitious people to remove this mantle from our neighbors, increasingly lowering the bar they have to jump over to take a human being down into the mire awaiting on the other side of "guilty". And now, you want to take people found "not gulty" down into the mire with them? THAT is not justice. It is corruption.
Do you realize where the system you propose comes from? In the traditional Chinese legal system (circa 1990s, and a deriviative of the old USSR legal system, circa 1955), if a defense attorney effectively beats the State in a legal case, he can, and will be, charged with a felony for crimes against the State. So, jumping in the boat with Ms. Grace, villifying defense attorneys for making rigorous defenses for their clients, lowering the bar of justice into "guilt by accusation", and paddling frenetically upstream leads somewhere alright; right into Marxism as the core formation of our governance, as once the justice system fails individuals, being a corrupt system always trending up for the State against it's own citizens, the balance of our governance will soon follow.
Ever closer we inch toward outright mob rule, or worse, with each blow landed against the stellar system (greatest, and by far, most fair system ever known) of "Innocent, until proven guilty". Without this fundamental right, there can be no freedom, social order or stability (except imposed by brute force), or human equality. Only slaves, praying to god nobody ever accuses them of something they didn't do, will remain at large in public. On that day, fear has won, and freedom forever lost.
(NOTE: documented by Alexis Tocquenville, one of the most acclaimed writers on the advent of America (re: "Democracy in America"), and who was sent here on a French commissioned work study, expressly to understand and document the American system of justice. His observations on America at the time, are still exceptional and indepth views of what constitutes "America".
Other good reads are any of the writings of Victor Hugo, especially Les Miserables, to get a vivid sense of what competing legal systems were doing at the time, and why these "lesser" systems were forcing people to flee Europe in large numbers, given the draconian nature of their legal systems and how it handled and viewed its own citizens).
Somebody has been watching too much TV. It is not required in the U.S. either. It is often used to help clinch the case for insecure prosecutors with marginal jurors - but it is NOT required.
He did his time in Australia..
If Prosecutor could not prove motive here.
The Australians just buckled to pressure from State Dept. that was applied do to wealthy papa.
There was no motive. No reason to kill given or proven.
We require proof in America to be convicted of a crime. They didn't have that in this case, and he has been acquited... How could they say he did it on purpose? Just because you have life insurance, doesn't mean you killed someone.
I have life insurance on my spouse, I didn't realize that was a crime... Even with a motive, you have to have proof.
@cheesy,
There was no life insurance. Her $261,000 policy had her father as the beneficiary. The prosecutor tried to confuse everyone by claiming that Watson was suing insurance companies to get it when, in fact, he had sued a travel agency to collect on trip interruption insurance and would never see a dime of the life insurance money. Another little factiod: a few days before the wedding the girl's father told Watson that he could increase the amount of the life insurance for only a few more dollars a month and suggested that he do so. Watson declined, saying that their finances would be extremely tight until the wedding and honeymoon were paid off. Does that sound like someone planning to kill his wife in two weeks?
You can repeat the true facts of the case to your heart's content, Chris-749391. People who didn't bother reading the main story aren't going to be interested enough to read more factual details in the comments section...
Some of us really appreciated your input, though. Thank you!
amazing...it's usually only the women who get away with murdering there spouses..
Read the very informative post from Chris-749391 above. There was some serious reasonable doubt in this case. The judge made the proper decision.
Mary, your comment may just be the stupidest thing I've read all day. And, it is "their" not "there".
There were plenty of witnesses and even expert divers that testified that his behavior was inappropriate for an experienced diver. Where were they?
Also, I remember seeing a picture taken underwater by one of the divers when he took a picture of his partner, and in the background of the picture, Tina is lying on the bottom of the ocean. Where was the husband if he truly was trying to save her? He was nowhere in sight in that picture.
Hot, I'd love to see pictures of you in the water. Or out of water, I don't care.
Back on point . . .
Other divers opinions regarding how he comported himself don't count for motive. Nor do pictures. People pose for pictures, sometimes doing stupid stuff in the pose. Something bad happens later, can't send him to jail for it.
OMG, are you like new to the internet? K, if you believe that the comments belong to the picture, then you just won't believe who I really am. Duh!
Exactly AlaskaGirl! Thank you for saying what I was thinking!
@Hot babe in Miami, I think this guy got away with murder too. Then again, many others get away with murder also.
Hot
Please read #1.4 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:21 PM EST
Hot - Define "experienced diver". All people who have donned mask, fins and a scuba tank are "experienced". That doesn't mean that every "diver" knows what to do in every situation.
How many "experienced drivers" act inappropriately when they get behind the wheel?
I think the Judge made the right decision I realize his decision is based on lack of evidence but I think it should have also been dismissed based on double jeopardy.
Double Jeopardy doesnt apply when you were convicted in another country.
Theres so many ways around double jeopardy, its sickening..
@Uhtomik,
Double jeopardy is usually honored even when it is by another country. This was a very rare exception, and especially rare given that it was an Australian court that tried him.
Honestly, not convicted. What a crock of bull. The photos, his changing his story constantly, immediatly hooking up with a look alike wife and asking for the insurance money, talking about her boobs in the casket. Get real. Thank God karma doesn't fail. I hope his new wife takes him on a nice underwater honeymoon and returns the favor. Maybe some huge tiger shark or something will find him. Oh wait, they don't eat shi! do they? I hope she doesn't have a bath tub or she may find herself on the recieving end of what his last wife got. I could never sleep in the house with that man. He will get his and I hope God isn't slow in bringing it. I feel for that young woman and her parents. Justice will come for her.
annpearson..from the pics i saw..she DID have a nice set of boobs :)
If you had a nice set of boobs he probably wouldn't want you sleeping.
That explains why lawyers don't get attacked.
hope the new wife is very careful
I am amused at how many condemed this man based on what they were told on the news channels. No wonder this country is in the shape it is in. It never made sence to me that a man would murder his wife while on a honeymoon. Oh and Sirlafalot you can kiss my arse. Have a good day.
As sorry to hear what the judge did as I am, the reality is there was no smoking-gun type evidence for a guilty conviction. My gut instinct tells me he did it, but that's not admissible in a court of law.
It's up to Karma now. Ask O.J. about Karma.
Did O.J. get brutally butchered and his murderer got off because of some high dollar attorneys using idiotic catch phrases??? I'm surprised I didn't hear about that.
Crying shame- I think Okeeboy's point is that OJ has lost his freedom afterall.
And @!$%#, if everyone wants to think there are no mistakes or bad calls in a court of law, then you should stop saying OJ killed them. Just like the chick in Florida was a great mama!
simpson didn't lose his freedom because of murdering two people, he is in jail for armed robbery.
Thinker you say? I dunno...
Yes, he is in jail for robbing an auction that was going to sell his sports memorabilia. He was so stupid that he thought he could get away with that too. Either way, he's behind bars...
He could have just left her at the alter, instead he left her on the ocean floor to die
You should have been a witness since you know she wasn't dead before she got to the ocean floor. You comments indicate you aren't a diver.
Wow. Incredible.
Guilty or not, he will have to live with that image of his wife on the bottom for the rest of his life.
Patton,
I somehow have my doubts that the image will do anything other than put a small smile on his face.
Pretty clear he got away with it.
Wow! Are you people that stupid Okee?? The guy was on his honeymoon!! HONEYMOON, meaning they were just MARRIED!
He had NOTHING at all whatsoever to benefit from killing his wife. Yet you all continue saying he killed her.
What did he have to gain by killing a wife he most likely wasn't married to a week.
He wasn't gaining insurance money or anything else so why dont you tell us why he killed her dufis?!?!?
So much time has passed. I think he did it. The comments at her funeral were awful. He is kind of
full of himself..I think he was sure he would get away with murder..and has. On the upside if he did kill her he will
end up doing something stupid like OJ and end up in prision eventually anyway. If not then time will tell..
I would not want to be his new wife that is for sure. I could be wrong..just my take on it
Were you at his funeral Summer? Did you personally hear the comments that he allegedly made, or are you repeating bs hearsay like the other obvious idiots that responded to this?!? Fact is you dont know what happened so stop acting like you have a clue and a brain when its clear that you do not!
Wow, so many damning comments here..by so many people who have clearly NOT read all of the available information. Would any of you lazy haters be any better about actual facts if you were, heaven forbid, chosen for jury duty?
Chris 749391 has obviously taken the time to get the facts before posting, something seen far too infrequently on this board.
I'm an advanced open water diver with nitrox certification as well and have been diving for well over 25 years.
The NUMBER ONE rule in any diving situation is: NEVER LEAVE YOUR BUDDY.
Even novice divers know this.
For non-divers: Every diver wears something called a BC or Buoyancy Compensator. There is a direct hookup from the air tank to the air bladders in the BC. At the very least, he could have inflated her BC (it takes a second) and she would have floated to the surface.
What happend here at the very least is gross negligence which should have had a minimum conviction of manslaughter.
To let this guy go is a travesty. Especially if he claimed to have advanced diving certification.
Agreed Roberta. I also believe that Dateline did an in depth story about this and that his account of what happened did not match records on his dive instrument. Wonder why that tidbit never came up again.
I'm a diver too and one thing I've noted about this case is that EVERY scuba diver who has reviewed the case has come to the conclusion that this guy is guilty - and most likely of murder. If there are actual, qualified scuba divers out there, who have followed the case as it has developed (and not just in this trial, which seems to have been prosecuted on a shoestring), and who believe this guy is innocent, I'd like to hear your reasoning. The non-divers simply don't realize how easy it would have been for this poor, distraught husband, to have "saved" his wife (or how simple it would have been to kill her, precisely as was alleged). So, divers, tell me where I'm wrong.
I am not a diver, but I would guess that the eye witness who was actually there when this happened would not say the man tried to save his wife if it were not true. Who knows? People react differently under stressful circumstances. It is easy to sit back and say something when you were not there. It is a different thing all together when you face a situation of life and death. I was not there and I don't know. If he killed her, he will pay somewhere down the line. If he didn't then justice was served.
I watched a Dateline (I think) discussion of this case, including opinions of expert divers in Australia.
The flotation device malfunctioned or she couldn't get it to work (didn't know how?).
She was not physically capable of doing this dive. Heart condition.
Neither had ever done a deep open-ocean dive before, deep being a relative term.
There were strong currents in this area. Neither had dived anywhere where there were currents, only lakes and quarries.
The dive company was fined for allowing these two inexperienced divers into the water.
She panicked and knocked his mask off.
At some point, he chose to go to the surface to get help.
While that may be the general rule it is not ALWAYS the rule. If conditions are such that your own life is in peril or you are unable to assist your buddy, you leave. At least that is what I used to teach when I was an open water instructor. I am still teach water safety and lifesaving and that is still what is being taught.
Also, never leaving does NOT mean never take your eyes off of each other. But one needs to be constantly looking FOR their buddy - not looking AT their buddy. The signal to ascend may have been confusing. Thumbs up meant - "I'm okay". Index finger up meant - "I want to ascend".
the case was dismissed
It's up to each of us but... I think that when this man finally leaves this life, his late wife will be waiting with a hug... or something else. There won't be anything but the truth then. We will all face our foils and demons at that time.
He could have had motives other than money to kill his wife. Maybe he changed his mind and was too chicken to tell his wife before the wedding or put himself through a divorce afterwards. I don't buy his argument that he left her to get help. He knew that by the time help could have arrived, it would be too late to save her life. He was also seen letting go of his wife while she was vomiting and barely moving. Vomiting often occurs during drowning. The current obviously wasn't strong enough to prevent the other divers from happily taking pictures of each other.
Wow! People cant be this freaking dumb....