Watson Murder Case - Discussion

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Another aspect that doesn’t seem to have surfaced in any of the recent posts or articles I’ve read is the inconsistency between the treatment in the courts of Dr Stutz and Gabe. At no point during this incident did Stutz go over to investigate or offer assistance in spite of the fact that he is a doctor with experience in emergency medicine. I’ve eluded to this several times above.

Based on his own testimony, he witnessed Gabe murdering his wife, saw fear in Tina’s face and eyes, saw her struggling with Gabe for some time, saw her fall to the bottom of the ocean floor, saw another diver rescue her and take her to the surface with blood and vomit streaming from her face - and then continued on his merry dive. Mc Fadyen says that Stutz surfaced '30 minutes later'.

Stutz may not have appreciated that he witnessed a murder. But to me, the callous indifference shown after the ‘murder’ raises the possibility that he did know but chose not to get involved. It could also explain why his early testimony lacked the detail of his later testimony.

It seems inconsistent for the courts on the one hand to find Gabe guilty of manslaughter for his breached of ‘duty of care’ and at the same time fail to investigate Stutz behaviour. There may be reasons why Stutz could not descend and assist Tina as she struggled. It would not explain his failure to ascend and render assistance to a woman who had obviously drowned. These are matters that could be investigated by the courts.

I think your posts indicate you have spend some time working through the process to come to some pretty reasonable conclusions. I find myself in agreement with you on many points. Your perspective on free diving blackouts in quite interesting.

I would like to respond to your comments on Dr Stutz tho. Some people are in awe of anybody with letters by their name. I think we need to be open minded and respectful but not put disproportional weight on their actions in environments that are not part of their area of expertise.

Dr Stutz was IMHO an inexperienced diver (on his Advanced Open Water Course). He followed the directions of his instructor and stayed with his group! At his level of experience as a diver I don't think it would have been reasonable to expect him to be able to perform a rescue in that rather challenging environment!
Dr Stanley Stutz [only "20 or 30 dives" and he had not dived in "maybe even 10 years"] who as I mentioned was one of the Jazz II divers (doing an Advanced course) was one of the last to descend. He stated to the inquest that he was at about five metres when he saw a diver (Diver 2) holding another diver (Diver 1) in what was later described by Police as a "bear hug". He said "The look on her face was awful, I had the belief she knew she was in danger, her eyes were wide open". However, he later admitted that he could not see the hands of Diver 2 (presumably Gabe) as they were shielded by his body. Dr Stutz also said that he could not see the wreck when he saw all this happen, although in one statement he said he could.
Comment: I have now had the opportunity to read Dr Stutz's evidence to the Inquest in full as well as two other statements he made and an email he sent to the Queensland Police. I do not believe that he stated he saw a "bear hug" (more about this in a second) when he witnessed this encounter. In his evidence, it is clear that what he has described is virtually exactly one section of the story that Gabe told the Police in both interviews/statements. I suspect that perhaps his evidence has been compromised by things he was told when he was on Spoilsport after Tina died and perhaps when discussing what happened with the other doctor who was involved in the attempted resuscitation, Dr Downie. I believe that Dr Stutz's memory of what happened is an honest attempt to to recall what he witnessed but it has got better as the years have gone on. This is contrary to what normally happens. I have added a summary of each of his statements and interviews to show this. See part 6 for the link.
I have hidden the section of McFadyn's comments behind the spoiler for those who don't want to read them click on it if you want to read the section. found here Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site

IMHO during the dive Stutz was in "Student Mode" demonstrated by the way he followed the directions of his instructor, stayed with the group and completed the dive. He was also task loaded in a fairly unfamiliar environment working on new skills. When he wasn't in the water he may have been in "Holiday Mode" Of course nobody can be in someone else's skin and really understand how they feel or why they do what they do. Sometimes people don't even understand themselves but I will try to explain what I mean from personal experience.

When I worked as a Paramedic in Canada I knew I had to be prepared to respond to an emergency at any time. Even when I was off duty in my province I knew I had to carry the right equipment and be prepared mentally and emotionally to respond to an emergency.

On a trip to Australia we came across and accident. I had a valid Paramedic License and stopped to render aid till the Emergency Services arrived. Nothing unusual, stuff I dealt with all the time at "home". It was far from the worst thing I had seen/ dealt with. I did what needed to be done but it really effected me! I had trouble working out why in spite of my training in Critical Incident Stress Management and all my previous experience I had trouble "putting the emotions away afterward" I finally worked out that it was because I was in "holiday mode" I wasn't in the mind set and emotional "space" that kept me prepared in my "normal environment". I was tired, burned out and just not prepared for the event so I was emotionally impacted.

I don't know what state of mind Dr Stutz was in.. perhaps I am totally off base here. All I can say is that lacking more information I will give him the benefit of the doubt but I also will not accept his word/observations as gospel either!


 
Looking at the infamous photo again, there are some more considerations.
The photographer's perspective is a steep downward angle. Singleton is more below, than behind the person in the foreground.
The photo appears to be taken with a wide angle/fish eye lense or setting. This distorts the picture even more. Look at the curvature of the seabed in the background.
The person in the foreground is holding the console in one hand and the Octo in the other whilst in a nearly verticle position. Was someone else out of air? Or were other divers on the wreck just that inexperienced?

Does look like decent viz. It would be interesting to know what kind of camera and light source. I suppose it may be possible to even tell depth if the photo properties and time stamp were compared to the computer information of the photographer. I use that trick all the time myself to work out depth and locations of shots taken on a dive but I imagine the computer the photographer was using at the time (if any) wouldn't have been capable of that complexity.

The Yongala is a dive that I have wanted to do since I started diving. I will confess that I was too intimidated by the conditions that can occur at the site to do it until I had a couple hundred hours bottom time! Maybe I am a bit on the cautious side but it amazes me how many inexperienced divers take on some of these more challenging sites!

I really need to find the time to get up there and do it soon just gotta work out that seasick thing:(. I hear the wreck is deteriorating pretty badly.
 
Well...do we really know as fact that Dr. Stutz did not ascend till thirty minutes later? And Michael's analysis does not tell us why. Could be many reasons for his later ascent other than casual diving. Was he near deco and in danger of narcosis which would render him useless to anyone thereafter?

Not sure what you mean by this "Was he near deco and in danger of narcosis". You get DCS from exceeding NDL and nitrogen narcosis from being too deep on air. Stutz would not have needed a deco stop given that he had entered the water only a few minutes before Tina and Wade surfaced.

McFadyen has provided a detailed description of the basis for the time depth graphs he produced for the diver here Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site. Boat dive logs on Jazz II gave the times when Stutz and several other divers entered the water. The time when Wade entered the water was known and the dive profiles from Wade, Gabe and Tina were used to infer where the divers were in relation to Stutz. This time analysis calls into question whether Stutz was even in the water at the time when Gabe allegedly bear hugged Tina.

Reading some of McFadyens comments on the evidence again I note that Stutz had been part of a group and claims to have made some attempt to speak to the dive group leader about what he saw. The decision was made by Robert Webster the group leader to continue the dive. There was another dive group in the water at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I would like to respond to your comments on Dr Stutz tho. Some people are in awe of anybody with letters by their name. I think we need to be open minded and respectful but not put disproportional weight on their actions in environments that are not part of their area of expertise.

Dr Stutz was IMHO an inexperienced diver (on his Advanced Open Water Course). He followed the directions of his instructor and stayed with his group! At his level of experience as a diver I don't think it would have been reasonable to expect him to be able to perform a rescue in that rather challenging environment!
Dr Stanley Stutz [only "20 or 30 dives" and he had not dived in "maybe even 10 years"] who as I mentioned was one of the Jazz II divers (doing an Advanced course) was one of the last to descend. He stated to the inquest that he was at about five metres when he saw a diver (Diver 2) holding another diver (Diver 1) in what was later described by Police as a "bear hug". He said "The look on her face was awful, I had the belief she knew she was in danger, her eyes were wide open". However, he later admitted that he could not see the hands of Diver 2 (presumably Gabe) as they were shielded by his body. Dr Stutz also said that he could not see the wreck when he saw all this happen, although in one statement he said he could.

IMHO during the dive Stutz was in "Student Mode" demonstrated by the way he followed the directions of his instructor, stayed with the group and completed the dive. He was also task loaded in a fairly unfamiliar environment working on new skills. When he wasn't in the water he may have been in "Holiday Mode".
I read your post after I had posted my previous post noting that Stutz was part of a group. Your comment about him being in 'student mode' did cross my mind at the time. My previous posts investigated the implications of events unfolding as Stutz claimed he saw them and assuming that Gabe held his wife for long enough that she actually drowned. One of the implications was to question Stutz response and character. I accept at least that his failure to act as Tina was lifted by Wade was influenced by being in an AOW class and the decisions made by the group leader.
 
I think your posts indicate you have spend some time working through the process to come to some pretty reasonable conclusions. I find myself in agreement with you on many points. Your perspective on free diving blackouts in quite interesting.

In reading some of the witness statements again, I note that Stutz claims to have seen Gabe close to Tina for only a short period of time. "Stutz says all this happened [pg 648] to his left, meaning that as he would have been hanging onto the line and thus pointing into the current, he was actually facing west. He said that they were together for a maximum of 30 seconds and as little as 10 seconds." Taken from McFadyen's notes here Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site.

Does anyone seriously think that it would have been possible for Gabe to drown Tina by turning her air supply off and then on for up to 30 seconds. She could have easily held her breath for that long and it would have been a lot longer before she blacked out. The regulator remained in her mouth after her encounter with Gabe and she could have continued breathing after he departed from the 'crime scene' even if she was semi conscious.

Bah. The more I read about this case the more nonsensical the idea that Gabe murdered his wife becomes.
 
Not sure what you mean by this "Was he near deco and in danger of narcosis". You get DCS from exceeding NDL and nitrogen narcosis from being too deep on air. Stutz would not have needed a deco stop given that he had entered the water only a few minutes before Tina and Wade surfaced.

Sorry...my bad. I meant to say nitrogen overload. I was up way past my bedtime last night.
As a nurse who was married to a doctor...I know that doctors can be prudent when not on duty and don't always feel compelled to step into every scenario that may occur around them. It was prudent that the Doctor followed instructions to stay with the group. The lesson was...something bad just happened...I am getting advanced certification and have been directly instructed to stay put. He saw that she was being helped. Being an ER doctor doesn't make him a savior. Tina was not on his boat or part of his group, would he know where she was being taken at that moment in time? He did the right thing. If he had decided to urgently swim off to help would that have caused his instructor or anyone in his group to consider him lost or in trouble as well and proceed to endanger others to go look for him?

I watched an entire dive boat of people sink, gear and all off the coast of Florida. It was anchored and one of the last divers to board was a heavy set man. He literally pulled on the corner of the boat and it took on water. It sank fairly quickly. Our boat was directly behind it. Our captain stayed where he was because he had divers in the water. There were enough other boats in the vicinity to help pluck out all the divers. The gear that did not sink just floated off. It was quite surreal to just watch all this happen...but others were helping.
 
In reading some of the witness statements again, I note that Stutz claims to have seen Gabe close to Tina for only a short period of time. "Stutz says all this happened [pg 648] to his left, meaning that as he would have been hanging onto the line and thus pointing into the current, he was actually facing west. He said that they were together for a maximum of 30 seconds and as little as 10 seconds." Taken from McFadyen's notes here Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site.

Does anyone seriously think that it would have been possible for Gabe to drown Tina by turning her air supply off and then on for up to 30 seconds. She could have easily held her breath for that long and it would have been a lot longer before she blacked out. The regulator remained in her mouth after her encounter with Gabe and she could have continued breathing after he departed from the 'crime scene' even if she was semi conscious.

Bah. The more I read about this case the more nonsensical the idea that Gabe murdered his wife becomes.

Yes, the more I read, I become positive that it was not a murder.
I conduct air depletion exercises with my students everyday. It takes at least 5 seconds to turn the valve all of the way off, and on average, a female diver will take another 30 seconds to breath all of the air out of the hoses before indicating that she is out of air. This in itself does not work with the timeline given in Stutz' testimony.
Add in Tina holding her breath, and the additional time beyond that for her to pass out, and we are way beyond the Stutz timeline.
 
I know that doctors can be prudent when not on duty and don't always feel compelled to step into every scenario that may occur around them. It was prudent that the Doctor followed instructions to stay with the group.

I'm inclined to agree at least to some extent and I think the same should apply to any person involved in a rescue. Even people like Gabe.
 
We should not be in awe of either Dr. Stutz nor Michael McFadyen. I never said I personally was in awe of Dr. Stutz, so please don't characterize me like that. I simply said his testimony will have to be dealt with by the defense and if they can shake it, then the case is over. He will have some credibility with the jury because he is an emergency room doctor. If the defense really wants to shake that perception by the jury, they really will need to do that on his record as an emergency room doctor. Which I have no idea of. The jury is also going to take into consideration that his testimony is based on many years passing since the incident. It will depend on how adamant he is about his own recollections. I have no idea if he will or won't be.

Many of the reasons I am not impressed with Michael McFadyen is because many of his assertions have no source and they even conflict with Gabe Watson's own statements. He starts off by saying "I am not certain who went in each group but I think the following occurred." Not very conclusive in my opnion. Here are my problems with his analysis:

1) No mention that Gabe told both Tina and operators of the Spoilsport that neither he nor Tina needed an orientation dive because Watson claimed he was a rescue-certified diver.

2) The dive computer was indeed a wireless computer. However, I captured a picture of Watson's dive computer, downloaded the manual and read it. If the transmitter (battery not working) is not connecting with the computer on the wrist (battery working), the manual says the computer will flash, not beep. Here is a more in-depth analysis of Gabe Watson's computer: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/sc...-issues-statements-sources-6.html#post5411863. The computer will only beep if it had a successful link and then was interrupted, however, you can't have a successful link in the first place if the battery is in backwards. McFadyen goes on about what happens when his own dive computer link is "lost" - worthless because a link was supposedly never established in the first place. Therefore, as the police stated, the computer could not have beeped, but it could have flashed. You interpret that as you desire, but McFadyen did not go into this issue as deeply as he could have, and one of the reasons I am not so impressed. There was a big, long article the defense put out about how badly the police blew it because they got the manufacturer to admit that the computer would beep. However, it depends on how they asked the question, because that was left out of the article. If they asked the manufacturer if the link was lost, would the computer beep, the answer would be yes. But if the link was never established - the answer would have been no. We will just have to see if the prosecution is good enough to make this distinction to the jury. If they can't, they may lose on this point.

3) McFadyen talks about how red in the face Tina and Gabe are after the first dive attempt, and some witnesses say that they appeared to be having a rough time, but no connection to Gabe Watson's statement that if he had known that this such a difficult dive, he never would have done it. But excuse me, but it appears they had a damn good taste of the dive and Watson choose to get himself and Tina back in the water. This does not register on McFadyen's analysis at all.

4) I've already discussed McFadyen's assertion that Wade Singleton was already diving when Tina was trouble. He based this solely on the dive times of the computer. The picture shows Wade Singleton clearly making a bee-line for Tina from the surface and witnesses and Singleton will say the same thing. Singleton went down because Watson came to the surface screaming and pounding on the surface of the water screaming that he lost his wife. It never occurred to McFadyen that the dive computers were not in synch with their time. Poor analysis that does not take into account all of the facts. It also negates all time-related assertions he makes after that point. McFadyen states he had access to Gabe and Tina's dive computers, but no mention of access to anyone else's. So how the hell did he draw all the conclusions of who was where when?

5) McFadyen says "My question is why did he not inflate her BCD when he grabbed her, he was a Rescue Diver! My answer is that he was not experienced enough to use the knowledge this course imparted to him." OK, but that's not what Watson said was the reason - he said it was because he didn't know what was wrong with it. So Watson claims he thought about it, but decided it was not necessary because it might be broken. So if he thought about it, and made a different decision to do it, the next step would be - where is the button? Difficult knowledge to retain? Isn't the button on an inflator in pretty much the same place on all BC's? I'll give you a hint, the answer is yes. McFadyen put a different reason in Watson's mouth. This is the reason I keep saying Watson has to get up in front of the jury and refute all of his own statements. Someone else can't do it for him.

So I don't have any more time to continue with this. Maybe later.
 
Last edited:
Key state witness testifies in Gabe Watson murder trial | Alabama's 13

Please watch Dr. Stutz on the stand. He seems to be a reluctant witness and even the prosecutor in the background appears disinterested in what he has to say...which is not very much, judging by this clip and the reporting of his testimony.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ocean-bottom/2012/02/16/gIQArlMqHR_story.html

This report states he was surprised when he received an email that it was a murder trial. From what I have read of his testimony he seems to be a witness for the defense.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...labama-honeymoon-trial-witness-testifies.html
Kenneth Snyder also testified today. Sounds like he is sticking with his original view on all of this.
 
Last edited:
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom