Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[bowlofpetunias]

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Watson20080620.pdf

Here is the coroner's report if anybody is interested.

Thanks that Was helpful. I prefer the more factual and less emotional presentation. I does seem to me that if the coroner felt there was justification for a murder charge after reviewing the factual evidence one has to have a high degree of suspician.

I also found the link Mystery in the Deep Blue Sea -Crime reports-msbc.com
to be very helpful. I prefer to see what the police had to say and the information from Police interviews rather than emotional opinions. To me the police re-enactments and the discrepancies between the recorded statement and the computer have a lot of significance.

I feel terribly for the family but I can see how their emotions could cloud their reactions and be further muddied over time. If this was my son I would move heaven and earth to see what I felt was justice done as well. Would my vision be clouded OF COURSE! Does that make it invalid? OF COURSE NOT!

Why did the case take so long? No justice system is going to move to indite a citizen of another country (especially one as powerful and know to protect it's citizens as the USA) and initiate an international legal proceeding unless they make VERY sure they have a strong case!

Does it matter a bit what any of us think? Nope... that will be up to the Judge (and Jury) and I don't envy them their responsibilities. I anticipate a long wait..

Why did the Ball get fined? Not for failing to follow legal requirements and industry requirements but not following THEIR OWN PROCEDURES which are higher standards than required. A slap on the wrist that actually makes me more inclined to dive with them because their standards are HIGH.

Now what can we take away from this that makes all the time spent plowing through the information worth anything?

Inexperienced divers should be encouraged by EVERYONE who comes in contact with them to only do dives that are comfortable for them!
Dive certification level doesn't make you a good dive buddy
Everyone on a dive should be looking out for others and be prepared to help if they see ANYONE in trouble or ANYTHING suspicious. (for those of you that know us please don't get concerned when I collect my underwater hugs from thanksforallthefish)

Hindsight IS 20/20 but sometimes we can carry what we learn to make a difference in the future.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

Boxcar is technically and factually correct.

I do believe, however, he missed one critical aspect.

Let the prosecution put Dad on the stand and say in front of 12 people that life insurance payouts were discussed before the incident. Regardless of how "commonplace" that may be. A defense attorney who tries to argue that making those changes is normal after a marriage will be looked at as covering up for a dirtbag.

Assume they can prove with the computer that he d*cked around for 10-20 minutes while she died.

Even if they can't prove he cut the air valve off, there is enough circumstantial evidence (Of course, assuming that the media has not completely twisted all the facts) to convince most American's that some greedy kid offed his wife to buy a new car or pay off a gambling debt, etc, etc, etc.

Boxcar - you obviously have some experience. Tell me it wouldn't be difficult to nail him to the wall on emotional testimony alone. I've spent a fair amount of time in court also, albeit from a completely different angle that you, so I defer.

If half the facts are true, hell, if one or two of the facts are true, he looks guilty as sin.

Sure, the things you note would be good evidence.

But the defense has a side of the story too, and they have plenty of time to come up with reasonable explanations. We don't know what they are yet, but they will have something to explain all of that. They gain nothing by leaking their side to the press and letting the prosecution prepare for it before hand, (although the rules of discovery somewhat help here.)

And the defense has the only real witness to the alleged crime who is going to look directly at the jury and say "I didn't do it." That's very simple, but very powerful, and all you have to do is cast a little doubt to avoid a guilty verdict. If you have one or two people who can say, "I saw him do it", you're alright. But if all you have is inconsistent testimoney, and some contradictory circumstancial evidence, I feel like a good defense attorney can find some reasonable doubt with the defendant's denial.

But I guess we'll get a chance to see.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Watson20080620.pdf

Here is the coroner's report if anybody is interested.

I realize my job is to arrest criminals. Not try them or find them guilty or not guilty.

However.

Asking a loved one to increase life insurance payouts and make you the sole recipient shortly before undertaking a dangerous activity that kills you = extremely suspicious.

He's lucky hes not already in custody.

If they bring an expert dive witness in to testify that his rescue training could have saved her life and that his ascent was longer than required based on deco profiles, etc, etc, etc... He could take a charge for negligence at least.

Put it this way. The deck is stacked against him.

Having been involved in the life insurance industry for 7 years I can say from my experience I find this unusual (asume it did ocurr). If they were in the process of buying a home or assuming some major debt... maybe

If the average person thought that much about life insurance ... man it would make the industry so easy I'd still be in it! Agents often work out deals to try to get information on people who: Have babies, Take out a loan, Get Married and so on just because if they manage to get their foot in the door they have a better chance of getting a sale.

 

[driftwood]

Looking at the photo from the Times and seeing the dive master rush to rescue Christina is a powerful image. We are all trained to look out for each other. For Watson to pervert that training buys him a special room in Hell. My thoughts go out to Christina, her family and the dive master. That was a very bad day for him/her as well.

 

[livinoz]

May I clarify some issues regarding Australian Law, as any trial will be held in Australia. First, we do have an extradition treaty with the US:

The US and Australia will:

Reciprocally…deliver up persons found in its territory who have been charged with or convicted of any of the offences mentioned in Article II…

And

Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the following offences provided these offences are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year or by death:

1. Murder or willful murder; assault with intent to commit murder…

(Extradition (United States of America) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1988, No. 298, as amended, made under the Extradition Act 1988)

That does not mean he can’t fight this in a US court and hold up proceedings.

Here we do not have the system of prosecuting attorneys that you may have elsewhere. The Department of Public Prosecution (DPP) will decide whether there is anything to answer. The DPP will then appoint a public prosecutor.

A prosecutor is a "minister of justice". The prosecutor's role is to assist the Court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community and the accused according to law and the dictates of fairness. A prosecutor is not entitled to act as if representing private interests in litigation. A prosecutor represents the community and not any individual or sectional interest. A prosecutor does not have a "client" in the conventional sense. A prosecutor acts independently, yet in the public interest. The DPP advises investigators (the police or other agencies) in relation to the sufficiency of evidence to support nominated charges and the appropriateness of charges; but not in relation to operational issues, the conduct of investigations or the exercise of police or agency powers.

The coroner though may direct the police during their investigation as their function is one of inquisition, and separate from the DPP as well as other judiciary. The DPP still have the choice to use a Police Prosecutor or a DPP solicitor in criminal trials of a public nature. I do believe in Queensland the Attorney General (appointed by the state government) may also appeal decisions made in the court system.

There is no pecuniary interest in prosecuting in Australia, or a need to keep conviction rates high to maintain a certain profile or reputation in order to gain work, as the prosecution is separate from the system of defence barristers, who act privately.

May I say that despite the coroner’s recommendations, the DPP will not take this matter to the higher courts if it does not see a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. As the DPP is preparing a request for extradition it must have reasonable grounds. I guess we’ll have to see, if or when the case comes to trial.

And to finish:

I was not meaning earlier that the case shouldn't be discussed; it is being talked about everywhere here in MacKay and no doubt all over the world. My worry is that people are making up their minds without having recourse to all the facts, except those we've read or seen in the media. NB: that's only my opinion! For the same reason, it will be difficult to put together an unbiased jury in Queensland if the case ever gets to court (and that may be used by the defence).

As a new diver with limited experience, I also didn't want to become embroiled in any arguments on a board that I joined in order to get help, support and advice (Yes, I know, get tough, grow a thicker skin, it's only the internet..etc, etc! Okay! I've got the message!) My apologies if I in turn upset anyone with my "attitude" or "opinions". I think it would be best though for all concerned if I kept out of the more public arena, stayed with the technical aspects, and ate more chocolate when I get like this!! :chocolate:
Liv

 

[thanksforallthefish]

Gabe Watson faces murder charge over wife's scuba death | The Courier-Mail

The coroner, in his findings, described Stanley Stutz as an "honest and reliable" witness and "a significant observer".

Dr Stutz gave a graphic account of how he saw a terrified Mrs Watson struggling to breathe.

"The look on her face was awful, I had the belief she knew she was in danger, her eyes were wide open," he said.

Dr Stutz said he saw Watson, a heavily built former gridiron player, lock her in a bearhug for about 10 seconds before she sank into the ocean's depths with her arms outstretched like "Jesus on a cross".





The hug of death

A controversial witness statement detailing Mr Watson giving Tina a `bear hug' and a re-enactment of the bear hug by police divers both in court and on video underwater were also key lines of inquiry in the seventh day of the two-week inquest before coroner David Glasgow.

American emergency doctor Dr Stanley Stutz, who was a dive passenger on the dive boat Jazz II on the day of the incident, told police that he had seen Tina under water in a state of considerable distress before being given a bear hug by another diver.

Barrister Harvey Walters, acting on behalf of Tina's parents Tom and Cindy Thomas, quoted from Dr Stutz's statement that he had seen a male diver he called diver two, whom he later identified as Mr Watson, move on top of Tina, with her lying on her back and facing upwards, and he facing down.

"Her arms were stretched out to the sides, and the arms of diver two were circling her torso," he said.

"I could not see what the arms of diver two were doing behind her back.

"They were in this embrace for about 30 seconds and then they separated.

"Her limp body movements did not change, she did not start swimming, and I did not see any bubble trails.

"Diver two did not go after her, and she disappeared into the blackness."



I have just one question to ask ...
IF what i have read is true about the "Bear Hug" then wouldn't you try to help Tina or at the very least bring it to the attention of one of the DM's?

 

[fisherdvm]

[Dr Stutz said he saw Watson, a heavily built former gridiron player, lock her in a bearhug for about 10 seconds before she sank into the ocean's depths with her arms outstretched like "Jesus on a cross".

A controversial witness statement detailing Mr Watson giving Tina a `bear hug' and a re-enactment of the bear hug by police divers both in court and on video underwater were also key lines of inquiry in the seventh day of the two-week inquest before coroner David Glasgow.

American emergency doctor Dr Stanley Stutz, who was a dive passenger on the dive boat Jazz II on the day of the incident, told police that he had seen Tina under water in a state of considerable distress before being given a bear hug by another diver.

"They were in this embrace for about 30 seconds and then they separated.

"Her limp body movements did not change, she did not start swimming, and I did not see any bubble trails.

"Diver two did not go after her, and she disappeared into the blackness."

If she was in distress before the bear hug was given, it could be conceivable that her reg might have failed or leaked, she might have vomitted, or in an anxiety attack. And perhaps, her husband attempted to force her to keep her reg in her mouth, and didn't think of giving her his octo?

Despite all of what people said about his being a "rescue diver", there are many folks who take the class and might retain very little. His conflicting information could be from the grief of how he failed miserably as a rescue buddy.

I'd say, it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that he comitted anything criminal. There are easier way to kill people than to do it in full view of witnesses in crystal clear water. "Hey, honey, lets dive in the quarry.... and practice mucking up the water".

 

[SPG3K]

If she was in distress before the bear hug was given, it could be conceivable that her reg might have failed or leaked, she might have vomitted, or in an anxiety attack. And perhaps, her husband attempted to force her to keep her reg in her mouth, and didn't think of giving her his octo?

Despite all of what people said about his being a "rescue diver", there are many folks who take the class and might retain very little. His conflicting information could be from the grief of how he failed miserably as a rescue buddy.

I'd say, it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that he comitted anything criminal. There are easier way to kill people than to do it in full view of witnesses in crystal clear water. "Hey, honey, lets dive in the quarry.... and practice mucking up the water".

Admittedly, I tend to prejudge cases I hear in the media because being in Law Enforcement makes you not believe people. Most people lie to you. It's just something you get used to and have to learn to really discern who is telling the truth.

I haven't talked to anyone, so I can't use my "Spider Sense" if you will, but I just don't like what I've heard, and thats my gut. Could be wrong, but it just seems way too odd.

If MY wife were dying underwater, or hell, even having a major issue underwater, rescue trained or not, they were not deep enough to be narc'd, I don't think. Which means he was thinking clearly. I do believe WE would be rocketing to the surface as fast as humanly freaking possible. Lord knows I'd rather her take a ride in a chamber than be DEAD.

Even if he did not commit the act of killing her, through intentional means or through negligent means, he still didn't try very hard to save his newlywed wife. Thats all I'm saying.

Call me a cynic. I'm not buying it.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I think thanksforallthefish is asking why didn't the doctor go to Tina's aid when he saw her sinking to the bottom? Wouldn't you go to help or get the DM if you saw something like that even if it wasn't YOUR buddy?

 

[thanksforallthefish]

I think thanksforallthefish is asking why didn't the doctor go to Tina's aid when he saw her sinking to the bottom? Wouldn't you go to help or get the DM if you saw something like that even if it wasn't YOUR buddy?

yes ... exactly ... if he (the doctor) witnessed all this what did he do???