Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap
- Thread starter shakeybrainsurgeon
- Start date
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
- Status
Ayisha
Contributor
bold added
Dadvocate, your whole argument is predicated on the fact that a safety stop was required on Gabe's dive. Does your computer REQUIRE a safety stop for a 45 foot dive? Gabe's maximum depth was 45 feet. Most people do not do a safety stop for a 45 foot dive and it is not required by their computers. Gabe made no mention of a safety stop in any of his known statements; he only spoke of his perceived ascent rate.
K_girl
Contributor
Dadvocate - you said "Am I the only one who found that Aussie police video clumsy in demonstrating this presumed technique?"
I have never seen this video, only a still picture, and I don't recall anyone else posting that, would you please provide the link? I would very much like to see it.
Computer and Ascent. I think if we have a jury who likes to boil things down to simple terms like - he said he shot to the surface - and the prosecution is able to prove through his dive computer that he didn't - they will see it as an inconsistency in Gabe's testimony. I think the defense will say that he was panicked, confused or guilt-ridden. This one statement alone certainly could not convict him, it will be a cumulation of inconsistent statements that the prosecution will need. In terms of showing what the dive computer's data actually holds. It would help the defense to show an animation of the dive computer profile. Jurors will see how quickly it goes by and not feel that it really tells them anything. Certainly, what happened within the last 2 minutes and 30 seconds is just going to whiz by - and that would help the defense. For the prosecution, they would need to visually chart the data. They need the sampling rate information (i.e. every 30 seconds, whatever). Then plot those points on the visual graph. Then, the prosecution should have someone walk the distance in the courtroom of 45 feet in 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Which side could win these demonstrations? Well, I think the walk of 45 feet over 2 minutes and 30 seconds would have the greatest impact because it will seem extremely long. I would also have someone walk the 45 feet in what would be considered a safe ascent, which will be a much faster pace than 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The jurors will be asking themselves if he was panicking - what was he doing all that time? I think most jurors, divers or not, would think that most people, indeed, would shoot to the surface in panic -so how can he account for the time?
As for the dive computer locking him out if he had not done the safety stop - and being a problem for the prosecution, remember they only went to 45 feet and they were down less than 10 minutes for the entire dive. I doubt that there will be any record of a skipped safety stop. My sister and I hit 90 feet in a heavy current one time, aborted the dive and skipped the safety stop because at the time we hit the safety stop level, we had only been down 8 minutes. I could see that I had no significant nitrogen loading, so I knew it was OK to skip the safety stop. The reason I made that decision was the current was so strong, we would have been swept further away from the boat, the skiff was going to be busy picking up divers and chances of being lost increased. Our computers did not ding us at all. So nice try, but I don't think that the possibility of a skipped safety stop will be there to help the defense.
Dr. Stutz Dadvoate - you brought-up many of the same points I already brought-up for the defense. If you carefully read Dr. Stutz's statement as reported in the Haunted Memory article, you will see that Dr. Stutz saw Tina panicking and flailing about on her back before he Watson saw was on top of her. At that point, I believe the prosecution will say that Watson had already turned her air off. Then Dr. Stutz says that Watson was on top of her, had her in a bear-hug. At that time, I believe the prosecution will argue was when Watson turned her air back on. Tina was on her back, Watson was on top of her, Stutz was above them. Stutz would not have seen Watson turn her air off because he did not see Watson at all during that time. What the defense will probably argue is that Stutz witnessed was Watson turning Tina's air back on, although he did not see his hand on the knob. At that point, Watson let her go and she was no longer moving, she sank to the bottom, her arms still outward.
As for seeing her face. Dr. Stutz saw Tina in trouble, fear in her eyes, he saw her moving in an unusual jerky way. He wants to go to her aid, but sees move Watson on top of her and believes that a rescue is in progress. Instead, Watson lets go of her, then she is no longer moving. I believe the expression of fear on someone's face is possible to be frozen in that expression at the moment of death. Dr. Stutz may have been looking at a dead or dying Tina at that moment in time. Shocked that the Watson has left her and did not perform a rescue, he gets the attention of his dive master to help Tina (someone more skilled than himself, as he still an open water diver at this time), but then he sees another dive instructor make a bee-line for Tina. Stutz sees her being brought-up by the dive instructor and vomit is coming out of her mouth. Stutz felt at that time, she was probably dead and not savable. I think this will be the timeline that the prosecution will present.
As an emergency room doctor, Dr. Stutz probably knows the signs of a dying person being deprived of oxygen. In the Haunted Memory article, he talks about how her jerky flailing movements were unusual and caught his attention. I got the impression that the jerky movements he described were not something he would expect in a person who is panicking and trying to swim up, but instead signs of something Dr. Stutz has seen before - spasm of a person deprived of oxygen. If I were the prosecution, I would follow this potential line of questioning as it would help the prosecution establish the timeline of events as well as her spasms that would be consistent with oxygen deprivation.
Visbility Watson initially claimed visibility was 30 yards (90 feet). However, the next day, he claimed the visibility was only 25-30 feet. However, we can see Tina lying on the bottom at 90 feet in the picture that was taken at safety stop level. Stutz claimed that he was about 6M (20 feet) above Tina and Watson. Obviously, he claims he can see the fear in her eyes. He also said she sank into the darkness, so that could be an interesting point for the defense to persue. We don't know what "darkness" he is talking about. I'm thinking that she may have sank behind the dark wreck where from his angle he could not see, but from the angle the photo and the dive instructor who went after her, could see. That would keep it consistent with the other elements that show there was very good visibility that day.
If I were the defense I would test the idea of putting the same kind of mask Tina had on someone and put them 20 feet away. Can you see fear in their eyes? My guess would be that this would not work out for them, that indeed, you could see fear in someone's eyes who has a mask on from that distance.
I have never seen this video, only a still picture, and I don't recall anyone else posting that, would you please provide the link? I would very much like to see it.
Computer and Ascent. I think if we have a jury who likes to boil things down to simple terms like - he said he shot to the surface - and the prosecution is able to prove through his dive computer that he didn't - they will see it as an inconsistency in Gabe's testimony. I think the defense will say that he was panicked, confused or guilt-ridden. This one statement alone certainly could not convict him, it will be a cumulation of inconsistent statements that the prosecution will need. In terms of showing what the dive computer's data actually holds. It would help the defense to show an animation of the dive computer profile. Jurors will see how quickly it goes by and not feel that it really tells them anything. Certainly, what happened within the last 2 minutes and 30 seconds is just going to whiz by - and that would help the defense. For the prosecution, they would need to visually chart the data. They need the sampling rate information (i.e. every 30 seconds, whatever). Then plot those points on the visual graph. Then, the prosecution should have someone walk the distance in the courtroom of 45 feet in 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Which side could win these demonstrations? Well, I think the walk of 45 feet over 2 minutes and 30 seconds would have the greatest impact because it will seem extremely long. I would also have someone walk the 45 feet in what would be considered a safe ascent, which will be a much faster pace than 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The jurors will be asking themselves if he was panicking - what was he doing all that time? I think most jurors, divers or not, would think that most people, indeed, would shoot to the surface in panic -so how can he account for the time?
As for the dive computer locking him out if he had not done the safety stop - and being a problem for the prosecution, remember they only went to 45 feet and they were down less than 10 minutes for the entire dive. I doubt that there will be any record of a skipped safety stop. My sister and I hit 90 feet in a heavy current one time, aborted the dive and skipped the safety stop because at the time we hit the safety stop level, we had only been down 8 minutes. I could see that I had no significant nitrogen loading, so I knew it was OK to skip the safety stop. The reason I made that decision was the current was so strong, we would have been swept further away from the boat, the skiff was going to be busy picking up divers and chances of being lost increased. Our computers did not ding us at all. So nice try, but I don't think that the possibility of a skipped safety stop will be there to help the defense.
Dr. Stutz Dadvoate - you brought-up many of the same points I already brought-up for the defense. If you carefully read Dr. Stutz's statement as reported in the Haunted Memory article, you will see that Dr. Stutz saw Tina panicking and flailing about on her back before he Watson saw was on top of her. At that point, I believe the prosecution will say that Watson had already turned her air off. Then Dr. Stutz says that Watson was on top of her, had her in a bear-hug. At that time, I believe the prosecution will argue was when Watson turned her air back on. Tina was on her back, Watson was on top of her, Stutz was above them. Stutz would not have seen Watson turn her air off because he did not see Watson at all during that time. What the defense will probably argue is that Stutz witnessed was Watson turning Tina's air back on, although he did not see his hand on the knob. At that point, Watson let her go and she was no longer moving, she sank to the bottom, her arms still outward.
As for seeing her face. Dr. Stutz saw Tina in trouble, fear in her eyes, he saw her moving in an unusual jerky way. He wants to go to her aid, but sees move Watson on top of her and believes that a rescue is in progress. Instead, Watson lets go of her, then she is no longer moving. I believe the expression of fear on someone's face is possible to be frozen in that expression at the moment of death. Dr. Stutz may have been looking at a dead or dying Tina at that moment in time. Shocked that the Watson has left her and did not perform a rescue, he gets the attention of his dive master to help Tina (someone more skilled than himself, as he still an open water diver at this time), but then he sees another dive instructor make a bee-line for Tina. Stutz sees her being brought-up by the dive instructor and vomit is coming out of her mouth. Stutz felt at that time, she was probably dead and not savable. I think this will be the timeline that the prosecution will present.
As an emergency room doctor, Dr. Stutz probably knows the signs of a dying person being deprived of oxygen. In the Haunted Memory article, he talks about how her jerky flailing movements were unusual and caught his attention. I got the impression that the jerky movements he described were not something he would expect in a person who is panicking and trying to swim up, but instead signs of something Dr. Stutz has seen before - spasm of a person deprived of oxygen. If I were the prosecution, I would follow this potential line of questioning as it would help the prosecution establish the timeline of events as well as her spasms that would be consistent with oxygen deprivation.
Visbility Watson initially claimed visibility was 30 yards (90 feet). However, the next day, he claimed the visibility was only 25-30 feet. However, we can see Tina lying on the bottom at 90 feet in the picture that was taken at safety stop level. Stutz claimed that he was about 6M (20 feet) above Tina and Watson. Obviously, he claims he can see the fear in her eyes. He also said she sank into the darkness, so that could be an interesting point for the defense to persue. We don't know what "darkness" he is talking about. I'm thinking that she may have sank behind the dark wreck where from his angle he could not see, but from the angle the photo and the dive instructor who went after her, could see. That would keep it consistent with the other elements that show there was very good visibility that day.
If I were the defense I would test the idea of putting the same kind of mask Tina had on someone and put them 20 feet away. Can you see fear in their eyes? My guess would be that this would not work out for them, that indeed, you could see fear in someone's eyes who has a mask on from that distance.
Last edited:
Hi, K-Girl.
Actually, it isn’t predicated on a required safety stop at 45 feet in the restrictive sense of a deco dive. That isn’t what I meant. It is predicated on the idea that a recommended safety stop ignored would be indicated in some way on the computer. Your own defense argument notes that a signal of “slow” on his computer could be problematic within the context of a 2.30 minute ascent.
I don’t agree that most computers don’t require this in that they do indicate whether or not a safety stop has been done. Perhaps others can chime in on this who know more on this subject. For my part, I come to this conclusion in the following way:
I’ve learned on the metric system, so 45 feet translates to just about 14 meters. Recreational OWD limits diving to 60 feet or 18 meters so that a safety stop is not required and that an emergency ascent from that depth is less likely to cause permanent damage. Technically, then, any 3-minute safety stop at 5 meters is not “required” for recreational open water divers, even as deep as 60 feet. But computers operate on recommended safety standards as well as industry standard practices. On top of that, dive ops will instill the recommended safety stop practice so much so that it becomes a kind of default requirement. This has been my experience with reputable dive shops at any rate.
That being the case, many if not most dive computers used by recreational divers take this consideration into mind. Yes, my computer would recommend and record a safety stop at that level because it is programmed to do so. Not heeding this warning would also earn a “stop” indication and perhaps even a “slow” warning depending on the conditions.
I did a clean up dive for crown of thorns in the Philippines a couple of years back. We never hit a depth of more than about 4-5 meters. My computer never showed a safety stop on this dive because I was already within the limits of the safety stop range of 3-6 meters ( 10-20 feet). As it happens, my Suunto Gekko has a programmed safety stop for any dive over 10 meters (33 feet), which is well within the range of Gabe’s dive to 45 feet.
(Suunto Users Guide “Safety Stops” 3.2 & 3.31)
My fiancée dives an Apex Quantum, which is also pretty standard on recreational limits. Her users manual says that:
.
Now I admit that this is only two computers and may not be relevant to Gabe’s, though I’ve been told that these are standard OWD settings, and that these particular limits are accepted by most manufacturers if not all. Please correct me if I am wrong. What are you diving, K-Girl, and what does your manual say? Assuming all things are equal, Gabe’s computer would also have this recommended stop, and it would be earmarked in some form or other if he ignored it.
And this is only part of the picture. My Gekko also has the added safety measure of beeping and giving a “slow” warning if the allowed ascent rate of 10 meters a minute is exceeded.
That might seem like a lot to earn such a warning, but the rate is calculated pretty quickly, so any perceived burst in ascent will set the alarm off. For example, when we are at safety stops and there is no current, we sometimes like to do these little summersault roles in the water just for fun. My actual ascent is not much given that I am only flipping over, but my Gekko, and occasionally my fiancé’s Quantum, will sometimes get set off thinking that a rapid rate is being achieved when we complete the role. It goes off even though we are only rotating in one place in the water. I’ve heard other people’s computers do this as well.
If, for argument’s sake, Gabe’s computer has any of these signal attributes, then it does give him room to wiggle around the 2.30 second ascent, especially if warnings of some kind went off somewhere in the ascent that could give him a retrospective pause for thought in his arguably panicked state. If his computer does in fact indicate a skipped recommend safety stop in any way, with beeps, or “slow” signals, or “stop” messages in some form on playback, then he has an angle. The effectiveness of that angle I am not sure of for obvious reasons, but there could be one all the same. When he hit the surface, was there a big splash? I can’t recall if the people who first noticed him when he yelled for help said anything along those lines. If he hit the surface rapidly, even from a mere 4 meters, it could be enough to set off a “slow” warning.
Perception being the operative word, that and the premise that he was panicking at the time, could allow for him to explain his behavior in these terms. Of course, the prosecution can also come back with this quirky nature in computers and then point to his asserted rescue diver status. Could someone remind me of his total dives? Was it only 50 dives or so, showing that he did his OWD, ADV, and rescue diver certifications shotgun style. Or was it that he didn’t actually achieve rescue status after all?
I’ll chime in on the rest a bit later. You are right that I need to read the doctor’s account again.
Cheers!
K_girl
Contributor
I think the bottom line will be this - if there is a slow or stop alarm recorded on Gabe's dive computer - that helps him and hurts the prosecution. If there is no slow or stop alarm on Gabe's dive computer, it doesn't help him and the prosecution will probably point out that dive computers record these events, even at shallow depths. I have seen my computer give a slow signal within the last 5 feet. I have to work pretty hard to keep that "slow" indicator from coming on the last few feet. So the sample rate on my computer is also pretty fast. Most of the time, I am able to prevent it, but it has taken diligence and practice. If Gabe's computer is anything like mine and it didn't have a slow indicator on the last few feet of the dive, I would actually be surprised. If no slow indicator, you would have to say, boy was he ever really in control of his ascent. If it is there, it helps the defense and the prosecution will be forced to explain how that can happen on most dive computers (and more particularly, Gabe's dive computer model) in the last few feet of the dive. I think that it is highly unlikely that Gabe's computer gave any indication of a skipped safety stop, given the length (under 10 minutes) and depth (45-55 feet) of his dive as there would be very little nitrogen loading and it was essentially the first dive of the first day.
More on Dr. Stutz I stated above: "As an emergency room doctor, Dr. Stutz probably knows the signs of a dying person being deprived of oxygen. In the Haunted Memory article, he talks about how her jerky flailing movements were unusual and caught his attention. I got the impression that the jerky movements he described were not something he would expect in a person who is panicking and trying to swim up, but instead signs of something Dr. Stutz has seen before - spasm of a person deprived of oxygen. If I were the prosecution, I would follow this potential line of questioning as it would help the prosecution establish the timeline of events as well as her spasms that would be consistent with oxygen deprivation."
Much has been said about asphyxiation, the cause of death in Tina's case. There is no way for the coroner to tell if water had entered the lungs to cause asphyxiation or that deprivation of oxygen was the cause of asphyxiation and then the water entered the lungs afterward. In both scenarios, the cause of death will be the same. However, if Dr. Stutz saw that Tina's reg was in her mouth the entire time he witnessed the incident, and he believes that her unusual jerky movements were a spasm due to lack of oxygen, rather than panic - then the prosecution will have a persuasive argument to say that she was deprived of oxygen as the ultimate cause of death.
At the Coroner's Inquest, Gabe's defense attorney attempted to raise the possibility that vomiting was the cause of asphyxiation. You remember that Dr. Stutz saw Tina vomiting on the way up. I recall that the coroner ruled that out because he had not found any vomit in her lungs. The prosecution will probably argue that the vomiting was occurring due to the pressure changes of the ascent on the body of a dead person. I understand that vomiting is common during the death process, but I am not a medical expert. That's just what I've heard.
These are the possibilites I've found for the cause of asphyxiation: lack of air (however, Tina's air was found to be on, her equipment functioning properly with a full tank of air, the reg was still in her mouth when she was found - you can see that in the photo); drowning by the intake of water (Tina's reg was still in her mouth on the bottom in the photo); unconsciousness due to oxygen toxicity (ruled out by the lack of depth on the dive) or bad air (ruled out by testing of the air in Tina's tank) or medical condition such as heart attack (coroner ruled out that Tina experienced any other medical conditions at the time of death); or finally, the inhalation of vomit. So, defense has decided to go with vomiting as the cause. I think they will attempt to argue that Tina was still alive on the bottom, and that she drowned on her vomit during the rescue ascent.
More on Dr. Stutz I stated above: "As an emergency room doctor, Dr. Stutz probably knows the signs of a dying person being deprived of oxygen. In the Haunted Memory article, he talks about how her jerky flailing movements were unusual and caught his attention. I got the impression that the jerky movements he described were not something he would expect in a person who is panicking and trying to swim up, but instead signs of something Dr. Stutz has seen before - spasm of a person deprived of oxygen. If I were the prosecution, I would follow this potential line of questioning as it would help the prosecution establish the timeline of events as well as her spasms that would be consistent with oxygen deprivation."
Much has been said about asphyxiation, the cause of death in Tina's case. There is no way for the coroner to tell if water had entered the lungs to cause asphyxiation or that deprivation of oxygen was the cause of asphyxiation and then the water entered the lungs afterward. In both scenarios, the cause of death will be the same. However, if Dr. Stutz saw that Tina's reg was in her mouth the entire time he witnessed the incident, and he believes that her unusual jerky movements were a spasm due to lack of oxygen, rather than panic - then the prosecution will have a persuasive argument to say that she was deprived of oxygen as the ultimate cause of death.
At the Coroner's Inquest, Gabe's defense attorney attempted to raise the possibility that vomiting was the cause of asphyxiation. You remember that Dr. Stutz saw Tina vomiting on the way up. I recall that the coroner ruled that out because he had not found any vomit in her lungs. The prosecution will probably argue that the vomiting was occurring due to the pressure changes of the ascent on the body of a dead person. I understand that vomiting is common during the death process, but I am not a medical expert. That's just what I've heard.
These are the possibilites I've found for the cause of asphyxiation: lack of air (however, Tina's air was found to be on, her equipment functioning properly with a full tank of air, the reg was still in her mouth when she was found - you can see that in the photo); drowning by the intake of water (Tina's reg was still in her mouth on the bottom in the photo); unconsciousness due to oxygen toxicity (ruled out by the lack of depth on the dive) or bad air (ruled out by testing of the air in Tina's tank) or medical condition such as heart attack (coroner ruled out that Tina experienced any other medical conditions at the time of death); or finally, the inhalation of vomit. So, defense has decided to go with vomiting as the cause. I think they will attempt to argue that Tina was still alive on the bottom, and that she drowned on her vomit during the rescue ascent.
Last edited:
Ayisha
Contributor
Dadvocate:
Well, then. Perhaps that will be fodder for his official 17th version of the events. Perhaps he was trying to do a safety stop from his 45 foot less than 10 minute dive. In his panicked state, while being afraid that he was ascending so fast that he thought he would get bent, he was also trying to do his safety stop. Hmm...
That is as good as one of his statements that said that the visibility was really poor and the current was carrying her away and he lost her, while within a minute or so of his dropping her, a photo with her lifeless body lying on the bottom was snapped from at least 70 feet above.
BTW, even if a computer is telling you to do a safety stop from a less than 10 minute 45 foot dive, and your spouse is lying in the ocean dying/dead, and you've chosen to get help rather than assist, what would be the motivation for following the computer? So it doesn't lock you out? Will a computer lock you out for not doing a safety stop from a 45 foot short dive? If your spouse dies, the dives are over. Gabe was PADI trained. Therefore, he was not trained to do a safety stop after a 45 foot dive.
Dadvocate, he was a certified rescue diver. I don't recall any comments about his exit from the water. Tina's body had already been brought up onto the other boat and rescue attempts were being made before Gabe ever got to the surface. He simply said he lost her. Once on the boat, he never asked to see her or how she was doing on the other boat. Must have been panicked.
Ayisha
Contributor
K_girl, On CNBC last year, there was a coroner who was commenting on the autopsy findings and the case. He said that Tina asphyxiated and there was no water in her lungs - period. The coroner said that is why they believe that her air was turned off until she died or almost died, then it was turned back on again. He said that the "bear hug" hastened the asphyxiation process by squeezing the chest area.
K_girl
Contributor
K_girl
Contributor
Ayisha - I'm sorry, but the official cause of death was drowning, which is a form of asphyxiation.
I read the Coroner's Inquiry Report at http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Watson20080620.pdf. (see page 7). I don't see anywhere where it says there was no water found in the lungs. I don't believe they could list the cause as drowning with no water or some other kind of liquid in the person's lungs. When water is found in the lungs with signs of asphyxiation, the automatic finding is drowning. A person can drown with just a teaspoon of water in their lungs. For this reason, scuba divers have wanted better autopsy parameters so we can get a better understanding of how a scuba diving accident occurs. For instance, the scuba diver may have a coronary underwater, which causes them to drown. The official cause of death is still drowning.
Coroner's Inquest states:
"42. As I have recorded today, the pathologist listed the cause of death as
Drowning. I accept his assessment.
43. Mr Zillman [Gabe's Defense Attorney] submits there are four possible explanations which may
support a finding of accidental drowning they are:
• An arrhythmia,
• Obstruction caused by vomiting,
• Laryngospasm; and
• Anxiety and panic.
44. These explanations are set out in detail on pages 7 to 17 of Exhibit 33 and it is submitted that Dr Griffith’s [pathologist who performed autopsy] evidence does not exclude (or leaves open) any one as a possible explanation for accidental drowning.
I understand Dr Griffith’s evidence to be that he:
a. Excludes Tina’s pre-existing heart condition as a possible cause,
b. Views vomiting was unlikely as a preliminary event,
c. Accepts unconsciousness was possible following a Laryngospasm, but discounted this as the cause of death, and
d. Whilst accepting anxiety and panic could have been a factor in a death by drowning, did not accept the postulation of such being the cause of Tina’s death.
46. It was submitted that none of the four explanations can ever be capable of detection in an autopsy examination. I understand that to be true in a case such as Tina’s as there was delay in the examination caused by the necessity of transporting her body from the site of her death to the city of Townsville. I understand the medical evidence to be that detection is possible in some instances, but much depends on the nature and extent of attempts at resuscitation and any delay in an examination.
47. I am satisfied that the four possible explanations have been excluded by the evidence we have heard and I am unable to conclude that Tina’s death was an accidental drowning as a result of one or more of those four explanations."
***END***
My guess would be that the show you saw, he may have said he found very little water in the lungs. And although someone can drown on just a teaspoon of water, the situation Tina was in, if she had panicked and inhaled water and drowned, there would be a lot of water in her lungs. But it is difficult to believe that as she was asphyxiating with the reg in her mouth, that she had a water-tight grip on her mouthpiece preventing any kind of water from entering into her mouth. Now here is an interesting tidbit from above:
[the Coroner] "Accepts unconsciousness was possible following a Laryngospasm, but discounted this as the cause of death"
"laryngospasm is an uncontrolled/involuntary muscular contraction (spasm) of the laryngeal cords. The condition typically lasts less than 30 or 60 seconds, and causes a partial blocking of breathing in, while breathing out remains easier. It may be triggered when the vocal cords or the area of the trachea below the cords detects the entry of water, mucus, blood, or other substance." Laryngospasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think the issue here is going to be the amount of water found in her lungs which is not discussed in the Coroner's Inquiry Report above. But from from the description of laryngospasm above, the muscle contraction could have caused her unconsciousness and prevented a lot of water from entering her lungs. Here is the other interesting tidbit from the report:
"d. Whilst accepting anxiety and panic could have been a factor in a death by drowning, did not accept the postulation of such being the cause of Tina’s death.."
Now this is Dr. Griffith, the pathologist who performed the autopsy did not accept the explanation of panic as the cause of accidental drowning versus drowning. Panic would be the only cause (I can think of) for a lot of water in Tina's lungs. I believe the pathologist dismissed it because he did not find a large amount of water in the lungs. If someone can think of another reason why the pathologist who performed the autopsy would dismiss panic as a cause for accidental drowning, I would be interested to hear it. Remember, the pathologist is only considering what he finds in the autopsy and not any other surrounding information in the case.
I think the prosecution will persue the theory that laryngospasm was triggered by the presence of a small amount of water which closed off her throat, preventing a lot of water from entering her lungs. But because even a small amount of water was present and an asphyxiation event occurred, the official cause of death is automatically drowning, but in this case, they have ruled out accidental drowning. If panic was involved, she would have inhaled a great deal more water into her lungs. Laryngospasm causing unconsciousness is consistent with the fact that the reg was still in her mouth when she was found and is shown to be in her mouth in the photograph.
Tina's situation would be similar to scuba divers who have been trapped and run out of air. I think the prosecution should compare Tina to those cases. Do these scuba divers drown? Of course, yes, they do. If those divers are found with the regulators still in their mouth (as in Tina's case), do they have a large amount of water in their lungs? Perhaps not if the human body would typically suffer a Laryngospasm which may prevent a lot of water from entering the lungs. If that is the case, then it may be reasonable to conclude that Tina's air was shut-off, rather than her drowning from panic, in which case, the regulator would not have been in her mouth, she would have inhaled a great deal of water and been unable to put the regulator back in her mouth.
I read the Coroner's Inquiry Report at http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Watson20080620.pdf. (see page 7). I don't see anywhere where it says there was no water found in the lungs. I don't believe they could list the cause as drowning with no water or some other kind of liquid in the person's lungs. When water is found in the lungs with signs of asphyxiation, the automatic finding is drowning. A person can drown with just a teaspoon of water in their lungs. For this reason, scuba divers have wanted better autopsy parameters so we can get a better understanding of how a scuba diving accident occurs. For instance, the scuba diver may have a coronary underwater, which causes them to drown. The official cause of death is still drowning.
Coroner's Inquest states:
"42. As I have recorded today, the pathologist listed the cause of death as
Drowning. I accept his assessment.
43. Mr Zillman [Gabe's Defense Attorney] submits there are four possible explanations which may
support a finding of accidental drowning they are:
• An arrhythmia,
• Obstruction caused by vomiting,
• Laryngospasm; and
• Anxiety and panic.
44. These explanations are set out in detail on pages 7 to 17 of Exhibit 33 and it is submitted that Dr Griffith’s [pathologist who performed autopsy] evidence does not exclude (or leaves open) any one as a possible explanation for accidental drowning.
I understand Dr Griffith’s evidence to be that he:
a. Excludes Tina’s pre-existing heart condition as a possible cause,
b. Views vomiting was unlikely as a preliminary event,
c. Accepts unconsciousness was possible following a Laryngospasm, but discounted this as the cause of death, and
d. Whilst accepting anxiety and panic could have been a factor in a death by drowning, did not accept the postulation of such being the cause of Tina’s death.
46. It was submitted that none of the four explanations can ever be capable of detection in an autopsy examination. I understand that to be true in a case such as Tina’s as there was delay in the examination caused by the necessity of transporting her body from the site of her death to the city of Townsville. I understand the medical evidence to be that detection is possible in some instances, but much depends on the nature and extent of attempts at resuscitation and any delay in an examination.
47. I am satisfied that the four possible explanations have been excluded by the evidence we have heard and I am unable to conclude that Tina’s death was an accidental drowning as a result of one or more of those four explanations."
***END***
My guess would be that the show you saw, he may have said he found very little water in the lungs. And although someone can drown on just a teaspoon of water, the situation Tina was in, if she had panicked and inhaled water and drowned, there would be a lot of water in her lungs. But it is difficult to believe that as she was asphyxiating with the reg in her mouth, that she had a water-tight grip on her mouthpiece preventing any kind of water from entering into her mouth. Now here is an interesting tidbit from above:
[the Coroner] "Accepts unconsciousness was possible following a Laryngospasm, but discounted this as the cause of death"
"laryngospasm is an uncontrolled/involuntary muscular contraction (spasm) of the laryngeal cords. The condition typically lasts less than 30 or 60 seconds, and causes a partial blocking of breathing in, while breathing out remains easier. It may be triggered when the vocal cords or the area of the trachea below the cords detects the entry of water, mucus, blood, or other substance." Laryngospasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think the issue here is going to be the amount of water found in her lungs which is not discussed in the Coroner's Inquiry Report above. But from from the description of laryngospasm above, the muscle contraction could have caused her unconsciousness and prevented a lot of water from entering her lungs. Here is the other interesting tidbit from the report:
"d. Whilst accepting anxiety and panic could have been a factor in a death by drowning, did not accept the postulation of such being the cause of Tina’s death.."
Now this is Dr. Griffith, the pathologist who performed the autopsy did not accept the explanation of panic as the cause of accidental drowning versus drowning. Panic would be the only cause (I can think of) for a lot of water in Tina's lungs. I believe the pathologist dismissed it because he did not find a large amount of water in the lungs. If someone can think of another reason why the pathologist who performed the autopsy would dismiss panic as a cause for accidental drowning, I would be interested to hear it. Remember, the pathologist is only considering what he finds in the autopsy and not any other surrounding information in the case.
I think the prosecution will persue the theory that laryngospasm was triggered by the presence of a small amount of water which closed off her throat, preventing a lot of water from entering her lungs. But because even a small amount of water was present and an asphyxiation event occurred, the official cause of death is automatically drowning, but in this case, they have ruled out accidental drowning. If panic was involved, she would have inhaled a great deal more water into her lungs. Laryngospasm causing unconsciousness is consistent with the fact that the reg was still in her mouth when she was found and is shown to be in her mouth in the photograph.
Tina's situation would be similar to scuba divers who have been trapped and run out of air. I think the prosecution should compare Tina to those cases. Do these scuba divers drown? Of course, yes, they do. If those divers are found with the regulators still in their mouth (as in Tina's case), do they have a large amount of water in their lungs? Perhaps not if the human body would typically suffer a Laryngospasm which may prevent a lot of water from entering the lungs. If that is the case, then it may be reasonable to conclude that Tina's air was shut-off, rather than her drowning from panic, in which case, the regulator would not have been in her mouth, she would have inhaled a great deal of water and been unable to put the regulator back in her mouth.
Last edited:
K_girl
Contributor
Latest News: Australian officials meet with family of Tina Watson, who officials say was drowned by her husband on honeymoon - Breaking News from The Birmingham News - al.com
Australian officials meet with family of Tina Watson, who officials say was drowned by her husband on honeymoon
Posted by Marienne Thomas-Ogle --- Birmingham News May 18, 2009 10:56 PM
The lead Australian prosecutor in the murder case against Gabe Watson spent this weekend in Birmingham meeting with family members of Watson's first wife, whom he is accused of drowning on their honeymoon.
Brendan Campbell, senior prosecutor and assistant director of the Queensland Department of Public Prosecution, arrived on Thursday night, accompanied by the lead Queensland police investigator on the case, Sgt. Gary Campbell, and a department communications official, said Tommy Thomas, father of Christina "Tina" Thomas Watson of Helena.
Gabe Watson of Hoover has been charged with murder in the Oct. 22, 2003, death of Tina Watson. The two had married 11 days before and were on a scuba-diving expedition off the coast of Queensland, when Tina Watson drowned.
Gabe Watson flew to Brisbane May 12 to face charges in the case. He was met by his Australian attorney and taken into custody by Queensland police. He remains in jail and will have a court appearance May 29, said his U.S. attorney Bob Austin of Hoover.
Besides Tommy Thomas, the Australian officials met with Tina Watson's mother, Cindy, and her sister and best friend, Thomas said.
Prosecutor Campell gave the Thomas family materials on the court system, violent crimes and the legal process, and a witness guide, Thomas said.
"There is a real difference between our system in the U.S. and the Australian process," he said.
Australian officials meet with family of Tina Watson, who officials say was drowned by her husband on honeymoon
Posted by Marienne Thomas-Ogle --- Birmingham News May 18, 2009 10:56 PM
The lead Australian prosecutor in the murder case against Gabe Watson spent this weekend in Birmingham meeting with family members of Watson's first wife, whom he is accused of drowning on their honeymoon.
Brendan Campbell, senior prosecutor and assistant director of the Queensland Department of Public Prosecution, arrived on Thursday night, accompanied by the lead Queensland police investigator on the case, Sgt. Gary Campbell, and a department communications official, said Tommy Thomas, father of Christina "Tina" Thomas Watson of Helena.
Gabe Watson of Hoover has been charged with murder in the Oct. 22, 2003, death of Tina Watson. The two had married 11 days before and were on a scuba-diving expedition off the coast of Queensland, when Tina Watson drowned.
Gabe Watson flew to Brisbane May 12 to face charges in the case. He was met by his Australian attorney and taken into custody by Queensland police. He remains in jail and will have a court appearance May 29, said his U.S. attorney Bob Austin of Hoover.
Besides Tommy Thomas, the Australian officials met with Tina Watson's mother, Cindy, and her sister and best friend, Thomas said.
Prosecutor Campell gave the Thomas family materials on the court system, violent crimes and the legal process, and a witness guide, Thomas said.
"There is a real difference between our system in the U.S. and the Australian process," he said.
- Status
Similar threads
