Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[MikeFerrara]

I have just read the transcripts, here are some points which I have not seen covered yet:

1. The police interviewer - denoted "Lawrence" is clearly a diver since he uses the correct terminology throughout the statement and asks sensible questions in the correct context.

What specifically made you think this guys questions were so good?

2. Watson had been to 150 feet at least once, and used the phrase "narked" in that his instructor wanted him to experience being narked at that depth.

Very little was said about the dive. I couldn't fit it into any training context that I'm familiar with and I was also an IANTD advanced nitrox instructor. He didn't even know what his bottom time was and I don't recall anybody asking about gasses, decompression or anything else that would have told much about the dive. So. he did a 150 ft trust-me-dive once to get narced on purpose? Sounds clueless to me.

3. He was certified in 1996.

So?

4. He used an AI computer, and he lied about the battery issue.

I don't use any conputer but what makes you say that he lied about the battery?

5. He has had training in the use of lift bags

I never used a lift bag in a rescue class but they are certainly ised in the AOW course if the search and recovery dive is one of the electives. Experienced?

6. He is a spearfisher

I spear fished on my very first dive which was more than ten years before I was ever certified? So?

7. He talks about air embolisms

And you need to be an experienced diver to have heard of an embolism?

For me, points 2 to 7 help add to the picture Watson is an experienced diver. It doesn't conclusively prove it, but he had been certified and owned all his own equipment for the 12 years, has been deep diving experience, knew about narcosis, had been to Cosumill (presumably Cozumel), has had his gear serviced yearly, had used lift bags, knew what an air embolism was and had been spearfishing on scuba.

All these help been to dispell any myth he was a novice, in my view.

I disagree especially in light of the outcome of the dive.

 

[Geoff_H]

I disagree especially in light of the outcome of the dive.

And that is why it isn't worth arguing with you. You see a death, conclude inadequate training and shut your mind.

 

[Papa_Bear]

Well the battery lie was a big one! He said "He went back on board to fix his computer because it was reading wrong! So he opened the battery door and turned the battery around, as it was put in backwards"! Wrong, so very wrong it shows someone grasping for straws and we know about houses built with straw! So I am as open minded as anyone, but that one was the straw that broke this Camel's back! So Mike it only takes one stupid Juror to screw up a verdict and you would be on the wrong side of another one! Stick to shoeing horses! :no

 

[Sas]

Sorry if this has been asked before (just the number of posts to read to find out is a bit overwhelming) but how many dives had this guy done? And in what kind of conditions?

 

[Papa_Bear]

He took a Rescue course! Some rescue! so what does the number of dives tell you about his guilt?

 

[Sas]

Well you can take rescue class with hardly any dives Papa Bear, so I am wondering if Rescue means necessarily that someone is experienced.

I think whether or not he killed her he is a liar based on the number of times he has changed his story. If he did not kill his wife then he handled getting that point across very badly. But some people freak out in situations like that and do stupid things. Will wait and see what the court says.

 

[Geoff_H]

Well the battery lie was a big one! He said "He went back on board to fix his computer because it was reading wrong! So he opened the battery door and turned the battery around, as it was put in backwards"! Wrong, so very wrong it shows someone grasping for straws and we know about houses built with straw!

This was an important consideration for me, he was clearly doing something else on the boat and came up with what he thought was a clever lie but is completely obvious to anyone with the slightest hint about how electronic devices work. I guess he made this lie under pressure, didn't think it through and now he is unable to retract it.

However this will come back to bite him as it is extremely easy to show his dive computer will not function at all with an incorrectly inserted battery.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

In Re: The Battery

My understanding is that it is undisputed that the couple got in the water, and had a computer problem, both got back on the boat, fixed the problem and then both re-entered the water.

Perhaps he was wrong about what caused the problem with his computer, perhaps he simply misspoke (because he didn't attach any importance to that part of his statement.) But I don't see it as a very damning mistake, given the fact that no one denies they both got back on the boat, fixed the computer problem (whatever it was) then both got back in for the dive. That much isn't at issue, is it?

If that was a tactical lie, what was he trying to gain from it?

 

[livinoz]

Re the battery, I'm not sure if this has been posted as there's so much in this thread now, but here is the statement by the US police involved in the investigation with the Australian authorities (from Mystery in the deep blue sea - Crime reports - MSNBC.com)

"What was perplexing the authorities down there was not just Gabe’s story, but the story told by a dive computer, a vital piece of gear for any scuba diver. When you learn how to read it, it will tell you critical information, like how deep you are, how many minutes of air you have left. And it does something else: a memory chip inside will describe the dive you've just made when you return to the surface. If you went down, say, 60 feet, this thing, the dive computer, will show you exactly that.

(Police tape)

Gabe Watson: Just turned and kicked and shoot straight back ... right up to the top.

Gabe's problem was that the story he told of his dive with Tina, didn't match the dive recorded on his computer.

You may remember Gabe aborted his first dive that morning with Tina. When he got under, he said, his dive computer started "beep beeping" a malfunction. The two had to surface.

Brad Flynn: This is where red flags start popping up. His statement was that when he got back to the boat, he realized that the batteries were in backwards.

(Police tape)

Gabe Watson: I pulled the battery out, swapped it around, hooked it back up…

Brad Flynn: I've never seen any electrical device that operates whatsoever if the batteries are in backwards.

The Australian police tested that common-sense theory and, sure enough, with the batteries put in backwards in Gabe’s dive computer, the thing didn't work at all. There would have been no underwater "beeps" and that aborted dive wouldn't have been recorded at all.

But it had recorded the first dive. It showed Gabe going down a few feet, then coming back up.

Brad Flynn: It registered. It was downloaded. The information from that dive was downloaded by the Queensland police.

Dennis Murphy: So if this dive computer is working, but he tells Tina, "We've got to go back up.” Why would he do that?

Brad Flynn: That's the million-dollar question. Gabe and Tina were the only two people there. And we're having to backtrack to fill in the pieces here.

So now the cops were comparing the statements made by Gabe in his video with the statement made by the dive computer, and they weren't matching up.

This is how Gabe described his desperate attempt to reach Tina as she fell to the bottom.

(Police tape)

Gabe Watson: I went down. Started kicking down and I was kicking down but as fast as I was kicking down to go get her, she was ... she was going down just as fast.

But the dive computer said that never happened. It showed no attempt to sharply descend after Tina.

And it also contradicted his account of bursting to the surface after he'd made the decision to go for help ASAP.

(Police tape)

Gabe Watson: So from that point, I just ... I pretty much just turned and pretty much just rocketed to the top and, you know, I'm amazed that I didn't end up with the bends or something.

But the dive computer recorded a downright leisurely ascent:

Brad Flynn: It took him over two minutes to cover that distance."

 

[Geoff_H]

Perhaps he was wrong about what caused the problem with his computer, perhaps he simply misspoke (because he didn't attach any importance to that part of his statement.) But I don't see it as a very damning mistake, given the fact that no one denies they both got back on the boat, fixed the computer problem (whatever it was) then both got back in for the dive. That much isn't at issue, is it?

If that was a tactical lie, what was he trying to gain from it?

Did you read the transcript?

Watson clearly details the changing of the battery in the computer, who he borrowed the coin from, where he did it etc etc. But the simple fact is that it was all a big lie. I think he made an error under pressure by making this up.

It shows there are big material errors in his statement, which are easily disproved with the log evidence. I think that is directly relevant as it shows he is lying for at least one part of the statement and so casts into doubt the rest of it. What could be be trying to hide? A big argument with his wife in their cabin maybe? I don't know. But it is a material lie and I think that is significant.