Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[tltracy]

Its my opinion that while bearhugging her he turned off her air and sqeezed her till she blacked out .Dumped her b.c and sent her to the bottom.

I agree... that's my opinion too, all for $130K? Which he didn't even get?

 

[mike_s]

Prisons are full of people who were convicted using only circumstantial evidence.

True.

Don't forget that there is direct evidence as well, the computer log, the findings that she was deprived of O2 before she drown, her position and location at the bottom.

Yes, but the direct evidence doesn't point to HIM killing HER.

1.) the computer log just points out he lied, but does not prove guilt in death
2.) o2 deprivation proves asphyxiation, but not prove guilt in her death.
3.) her position/location at the bottom shows he lied, but does not prove his guilt in her death.

He had a motive, he was at the scene, and he could have easily turned off her tank.

what was his motive? that hasn't been proved.

His recorded statements have been disproved through the use of his computer, and through re-inactments by the police using the exact same gear the victim was wearing during the incident (which should have refuted the negative buoyancy claims above) Throw in the "bear hug", and it looks like something worthy of taking to trial. What would be really interesting is whether or not he gave testimony at trial.

His statements only show proof of lying. The bear hug does not prove death and the witness saw nothing else.

yes I think he's guilty. I think he should go to jail. I'm just saying that it will be a hard circumstantial case to prove and is unlikely to result in a conviction. If you try him with circumstantial evidence that can be used to easily confuse a jury and he gets aquitted, then double-jeporady prevents from taking him back on trial later. He walks as a free man.

 

[Hetland]

Yes, but the direct evidence doesn't point to HIM killing HER.

Who else would have benefited from her death? That was also there, in the water with her, that the husband could not have seen? The direct evidence supports the theory that he killed her, and imo at least, makes it more likely than not that he killed her, which is not enough to convict, but add the rest of the evidence, and I think you're in the neighborhood.

what was his motive? that hasn't been proved.

Insurance Money. Just because he never got the money does not disprove it as a motive.

His statements only show proof of lying. The bear hug does not prove death and the witness saw nothing else.

yes I think he's guilty. I think he should go to jail. I'm just saying that it will be a hard circumstantial case to prove and is unlikely to result in a conviction. If you try him with circumstantial evidence that can be used to easily confuse a jury and he gets aquitted, then double-jeporady prevents from taking him back on trial later. He walks as a free man.

The standard is not proof beyond any doubt, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume that you and I are both reasonable people, and with the info we have been provided, we both think he is guilty. At a trial, with rules of procedure and evidence, we might come to a different conclusion, but who knows?

My point is that they have enough to take him to trial, and at least a decent chance of a conviction (imho at least). Of course there is probably no time limit on the prosecution of murder cases in oz, so it may be good that they are making sure they can put together the best case possible...

 

[mike_s]

The standard is not proof beyond any doubt, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume that you and I are both reasonable people, and with the info we have been provided, we both think he is guilty. At a trial, with rules of procedure and evidence, we might come to a different conclusion, but who knows?

My point is that they have enough to take him to trial, and at least a decent chance of a conviction (imho at least). Of course there is probably no time limit on the prosecution of murder cases in oz, so it may be good that they are making sure they can put together the best case possible...

I agree that I think we both believe he's guilty.

I also agree that there is enough evidence to warrant a grand jury (or the Austrailian equivalent of one) to proceed to trial. I just don't think there is enough for a blang-slam-prosecution and guilty verdict.

But like you said, they might be waiting to make sure they can put together the best case possible so not to loose the chance in having a guilty verdict in leiu of a not-guilty where he could 'walk' forever.



getting slightly off topic of the murder here...

what I can't figure out is that if he planned on murdering her and didn't want to be married to her, then why did the go through the wedding ceremony in the first place? Why not just break off the engagement before the wedding? (all I can figure with this is that was because either a.) he was a control freak or b.) he wanted what he thought was insurance money the he was listed as the beneficiary on.

 

[IceBergSlim]

True BUT, she was laying on the bottom at 100' deep. That is well within the recreational limits of someone rescue certified. Even if you are low on air, you could bounce dive that deep with some ill effects to you but with at least the slight chance of saving the girl's (your wife's) life.

In reality a panicked husband would have been more likely to make the mistake of going positive to the surface from 100' and getting an AGE for his wife and himself. That seems quite a bit more plausible to me than the 40' in 2 minute "emergency ascent".

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with these three people claiming there is no such thing as "weight" under water.


From the Transcript:

Doug Milsap: The buoyancy compensator. "I had a hold of her BC. And she was too heavy. And I couldn't hold on to her and I lost my grip on her and she started to sink."

Dennis Murphy: You challenged him at that moment, didn't you? What did you say?

Doug Milsap: I told him it was B.S. because underwater as long -- if your feet are not braced on the bottom there's no sensation of weight. ".

From the Post I was responding to:

Also the sinking faster than he could keep up is total BS, and her being too heavy when you can't feel weight in water like that..

 

[SteveAD]

Motive?

There is the insurance, but has anyone considered inheritance?

 

[Zieg]

Let me toss this idea in. Perhaps this guy is just a freaking macho idiot, tried to 'rescue' his wife, who did get into some kind of trouble, totally screwed the 'rescue', actually causing her to die, started making up lies to cover up his ineptitude, digging the hole he's in now.

We all know people, who have rescue training, who couldn't rescue themselves out of a paper sack in two feet of water.

But hey, I'm not trying to defend the guy. Man, talk about the insta-buddy-from-hell. I'll bet he can't find a dive buddy to save his life. (sorry, bad joke)

 

[mike_s]

Can anyone give a comparison of the US and Australian legal systems and what is required to take this to trial there and how that is run?

 

[love2fishfork]

I'll bet he can't find a dive buddy to save his life. (sorry, bad joke)

I could recommend my ex-wife

Must go write that alimony check now

 

[almitywife]

he said / she said game continues.... the fact that the reporters name is Tim Dick amuses me

i take this with a grain of salt, i cant count the number of women that learnt to dive only because of the boyfriend



Drowned honeymooner was an unwilling diver - National - smh.com.au

Drowned honeymooner was an unwilling diver

SHORTLY before Tina Watson went diving near the Great Barrier Reef, she told a dive instructor her boyfriend would kill her if she did not finish her scuba course.

The American honeymooner drowned during a 2003 dive off Townsville with her new husband, Gabe Watson, an accredited rescue diver.

The instructor, Craig Cleckler, spoke on US television this week, the same day Mr Watson dropped a lawsuit against a travel insurance company that had refused a payment over his wife's death.

Mr Cleckler was an assistant instructor who helped teach Mrs Watson to dive in her home state, Alabama. She appeared panicky, and he asked if she really wanted to be there. She said: "You don't understand. I have to do this."

"She made the statement that she didn't have any choice," he told NBC's Dateline on Monday night, US time. "That if she didn't do this, her boyfriend would kill her. I didn't take it literally."

The coroner's report on Mrs Watson's death will be released next month, after a hearing earlier this year. Mr Watson refused to return to Australia to give evidence and on the final day of the hearing the coroner, David Glasgow, said he was considering making an adverse finding.

There are no other suspects, or suggestions of mechanical or health problems, and investigators and Mrs Watson's family have long struggled to work out what happened underwater, and why.

Mr Watson's Australian solicitor, Rohan Armstrong, declined to comment yesterday, either on the Dateline program, or Mr Watson's abandonment of his $US45,000 ($46,750) claim against a travel insurance company for accidental death and mental anguish.

Court papers filed for Mr Watson sought to dismiss the case because the inquest had caused him to apprehend that "he risks self-incrimination in this case", The Birmingham News said.

Mr Watson denies any wrongdoing, although police say he changed his account of his wife's death 16 times.

Two fellow divers at the scene - who gave evidence at the inquest - told Dateline they immediately confronted Mr Watson over his claim he could not catch his wife as she sank to the sea floor and so had sought help instead.

One, Ken Snyder, said he told Mr Watson shortly after he surfaced: "Gabe, that didn't happen. You better come up with something else. Cause that story didn't happen."

Another, Doug Milsap, disputed Mr Watson's claim that his wife was too heavy to lift. "I told him it was B.S. because underwater … if your feet are not braced on the bottom, there's no sensation of weight."