Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[MikeFerrara]

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!

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.

Well, I do know something about how electronic devices work and have 17 years experience as an engineer primarily designing electronic/automated controls and I didn't get enough information from what I've read to conclude that he is intentionally lying.

Didn't he make reference in the transcripts to holding the computer behind his head to see if it would register? I got the impression that he was using a hoseless AI computer.

Was he? Has it been said what model computer he was using? I've never used a hoseless AI computer but knowing what I do about electronic devices I would assume the transmitter must have a battery too. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions because of a lack of information but I assumed that it was the transmitter battery that he changed.

 

[MikeFerrara]

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.

Somebody doesn't know their stuff there...lots of us don't use a dive computer so it isn't so vital. LOL

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?

But that isn't what we want to know here. What we want to know is if the computer logged any warnings and if the accused knows how to interpret them.

The fact that the computer logged the dive doesn't tell us whether or not the computer was beeping a warning.

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.

Yes but the transcripts also indicated that he was using an alternate inflator and that's what he had in his mouth at the time. I also seem to remember him mentioning "upending" to swim down and this says that he was "kicking down".

My question here is was he kicking down against a bc full of air and therefore not actually going down? He didn't say anything about using a rear dump or anything.

I couldn't even count the number of divers I've seen try to swim down without dumping air and hence unable to descend.

I also watched a DM make a rapid ascent because he donated air, put his alternate inflator in his mouth and was shooting up while his hand was searching around by his shoulder for the dump valve that was in his mouth.

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."

But, it says hw swam back to the line and while there tried to get the attention of other divers. I'd like to see the computer profile.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

I read the MSNBC version, which maybe was taken from a different interview.

but the simple fact is that it was all a big lie.

Was it all a big lie? He did get in the water, and get back out again, and do something with his computer, no? And we don't know if he changed the battery around or not, do we? We can be pretty sure that the computer didn't literally beep if the batteries were in backwards. But I bet he'll have a fairly reasonable explaination for that. That's pretty easily explainable. "He mispoke, it wasn't a beep, it just didn't work," for example. So he messed with the batteries and it started working again. No problem. I bet he won't be the only witness to have an inconsistent patch in his testimony.

I disagree that it is a "material" lie. It's usable to attack his credibility, but in itself it's immaterial, I think. It doesn't directly speak to the main issue of the case - whether he killed his wife. It just makes him look like a liar in general.

And given that, even before the defense puts on their expert witness, there's a foundation for an embolism, I think this case won't be so easy for the prosecution. Remember, you've seen the television edited version of the facts, which were designed to make him look as guilty as possible. His lawyer will have a version that will be designed to make him look as innocent as possible.
I think he probably did it. But I think there's a wide gap between "probably did it" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Check out here diving skills, and see if you think there is a reasonable chance this contributed to her death.

Assistant instructor Craig Cleckler had her in a class of beginning divers.

Craig Cleckler: My duty that day was to look for any student that appeared to be very nervous, or very uptight. And Tina quickly caught my attention.

Dennis Murphy, Dateline NBC: So what was she doing that--

Craig Cleckler: She had grabbed hold of this dock on that side, and in four-feet of water, she was holding on to it with both hands. And just wouldn't let go. Then I quickly figured out that she might be very nervous, and have some anxiety about today's dive.

Once Tina and Gabe began dating, she began taking up some of his hobbies. Getting certified in scuba was one of them.

The drill at the quarry was that students would get acclimated to the enclosed pool portion here – about 10-feet deep -- and then swim out into the open water to an underwater platform anchored at 20-feet.

Craig Cleckler: Once I had determined that she was showing some signs of nervousness, I stayed on Tina's shoulder during the whole training that day.

Dennis Murphy: What happened when she hit the 20-foot mark ?

Craig Cleckler: Tina panicked, and she shot off of her knees to go to the surface. As I was on her shoulder, I caught her approximately 10-foot up. And just made sure she had a slow, safe ascent to the surface.

Even when she was safely at the surface, she continued to freak out.

Craig Cleckler: Tina's eyes were very big. Kind of a half dollar. She was almost dog paddling. And she could not even really talk to me at that time.

Dennis Murphy: Even though she was safe, she was up there. She was on the buoy. You were with her.

Craig Cleckler: The panic was continuing.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

The first thing that I think of here is not only overweighting but the head up trim that results from having that weight in the wrong place.

Head up trim results in the diver being neg while moving forward. When forward motion stops they sink unless they continue kicking.

I bring this up because it is so COMMON not only with new divers but even long time divers who just never learned. The industry turns the other way and refuses to teach or require proper trim in entry level courses. It not only results in divers strugling but it can be dangerous.

The first rescue I was ever involved in (which I mentioned earlier in the thread) was cause by exactly this. The new diver was neg and trimmed head up. When she stopped kicking to look for and check her depth guage, she sunk like a rock and paniced before she could solve the problem. Sorry but this is what we get when we teach divers to dive overweighted and on their knees.

Two minutes sounds like a long time but I don't think it is. Someone said that the other divers were interviewed an none of them remembered him trying to get their attention. But...we've all seen the picture of the head up diver smiling in the camera with the body of the victim just below and behind so we see how alert they all were.

And what is the prosecutions story going to be? That he prevented her from breathing by bear-hugging her? Didn't the witness say he was seen holding her and her arms were outstretched? If I turned your air off and held you would you just hang there or would you struggle? Frankly, I've never heard such a bunch of BS in all my life...well maybe I have but it's till beyond the pale.

Who knows? It reads to me like he was task loaded and pushed to his limits and beyond too.

I'm no doc but there wouldn't necessarily be water in the lungs. Still, the thing that caught my eye in the coroners report was the mention of an embolism.

I'd rather reserve judgement too but I'm not going to Autralia to dive and I started avoiding most recreational charters years ago because of this kind of nonsense. I'll do so more now if they're going to start throwing the survivors in jail.

It doesn't look to me like you have reserved your judgement of Australian and the dive industry here!!! It is probably one of the most regulated and safe dive destinations in the world.
Diving is such a major tourist attraction and major sporting activity for the locals that there are thousands and thousands of dives for every incident.

Australia does not put "survivors in jail" unless there is reasonable justification and a fair trial. They also don't indite citizens from another country esp USA without involvement co-operation from that country. I can't believe the US and Australia decided to charge him without some pretty strong evidence.

It is unlikely they will find it hard to have a high percentage of the jury who are divers since so many people do dive here.

We may talk and speculate here but the decision will be made in a fair court case with access to information that we can not and should not get in the public domain before the trial.

Please do not give Australian Diving and The Australian legal system a black eye unless you have been here to get appropriate information to come to that conclusion.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

I have to say that Mike Ferrara has made some really excellent points in this thread - irrespective of what actually happened to Tina Watson.

His theorizing about what could have went wrong based on his experience has been pretty informative, even if it turns out not to be relevant to this particular case. The discussion of diving head's up, negatively weighted, and the consequence of doing that while task loaded are most interesting.

Regardless of what happened to Tina Watson, this accident analysis thread has some pretty good thinking in it.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

Didn't he make reference in the transcripts to holding the computer behind his head to see if it would register? I got the impression that he was using a hoseless AI computer.

Was he? Has it been said what model computer he was using? I've never used a hoseless AI computer but knowing what I do about electronic devices I would assume the transmitter must have a battery too. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions because of a lack of information but I assumed that it was the transmitter battery that he changed.

Good catch. That would explain it.

 

[MikeFerrara]

It doesn't look to me like you have reserved your judgement of Australian and the dive industry here!!!

True. My judgement of the dive industry is a done deal but it gave it the benefit of the doubt for a long time.

However, I will reserve judgement regarding a murder charge where I don't see any real evidence.

It is probably one of the most regulated and safe dive destinations in the world.
Diving is such a major tourist attraction and major sporting activity for the locals that there are thousands and thousands of dives for every incident.

Australia does not put "survivors in jail" unless there is reasonable justification and a fair trial. They also don't indite citizens from another country esp USA without involvement co-operation from that country. I can't believe the US and Australia decided to charge him without some pretty strong evidence.

It is unlikely they will find it hard to have a high percentage of the jury who are divers since so many people do dive here.

We'll see.

We may talk and speculate here but the decision will be made in a fair court case with access to information that we can not and should not get in the public domain before the trial.

Maybe they have a smoking gun they haven't talked about.

Please do not give Australian Diving and The Australian legal system a black eye unless you have been here to get appropriate information to come to that conclusion.

How can I give the Autralian legal system a black eye? I'm not at all impressed with the case as it has been presented in the media but so what?

In the mean time, I'll question all I want and the Autralian legal system will just have to find a way to get over it.

 

[Geoff_H]

Was he? Has it been said what model computer he was using? I've never used a hoseless AI computer but knowing what I do about electronic devices I would assume the transmitter must have a battery too. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions because of a lack of information but I assumed that it was the transmitter battery that he changed.

He talks about the receiver (computer) having the incorrect battery, and refers to the transponder as a separate device. Given that he is talking about screwing the transponder into the first stage he is clearly referring to the transmitter.

no ah when we got back on the boat you know like I said they you know they pulled
us over and went over an sat down took our took our stuff off ah and then my you
know my immediate thought was you know my my batteries in this receiver wrong or
it’s dead so that’s when you know um I said something to um, I went an booked in
for somebody or whatever I went and got the got the coin from Euzi to take it off,
pulled the battery out, reversed it, put it back on um and then um you know after the
tank fill was done I screwed the transponder back on and ah turned my air back on
held my computer next to it and it showed the pressure and ah so I went back and told
Euzi you know what had happened and ah we went back and I think she said you
know ‘ready to go’ or did you get it fixed or whatever and I said ‘yeah’ so we got our
stuff back on ah you know we waited for the boat to come back

 

[livinoz]

How can I give the Autralian legal system a black eye? I'm not at all impressed with the case as it has been presented in the media but so what?

In the mean time, I'll question all I want and the Autralian legal system will just have to find a way to get over it.

This was exactly my point pages and pages ago. The case is being "tried" in the media and none of us have all the facts except those the media are presenting to us; whether they are correctly reported can be debated ad nauseum. I also believe that the Australian legal system works as well as that of any other democratic nation, and supposition will never get anyone convicted. But that's not to say people aren't entitled to their opinions.

The dive industry on the GBR handles 2 million plus visitors a year and hundreds of thousands of safe recreational and technical dives. I think the GBR authority and operators do a pretty good job and our saftey standards shouldn't be judged on a couple of high profile "accidents".

 

[In10se]

Between the 52+ pages here, the police posted reports, and the media coverage there is too much for me to sort out so I can get a clear idea of just what he is being accused of. Call me lazy, I'm okay with that.

Help me understand this one though.

What is the basis of the charge(s) against him. Are these charges based on the presumption that he commited murder through some kind of premeditated action, or is it that he just let her die as a crime of opportunity? Is the shoulda coulda wouda getting him a involuntary manslaughter charge of some kind?

My opinions to this point are that his story is a little odd on the comp side and shows him to be a total techno-dork. Who would think backwards batteries would allow a device of that kind to work? His interview showed him to be of a less than average IQ, and his story is such that clever is not exactly a word I'd associate with Gabe. That he lied about the batteries makes him look like he feels, in his mind, the need to embellish ... but why?

Feelings of inadequacy over his failure to provide care for his bride may be what drives him to fabricate parts of his story. We men are supposed to save our lovely maidens from all forms of distress and he obviously blew this one. I dunno, maybe he had some kind of brain fart of an idea to make himself look as though he tried but was just unable to save her. Or maybe he just decided to kill the lady and cash the insurance check.

His story is hinky and he makes himself appear guilty by his own funky deviation from the reality described by his dive comp and basic electronic theory.

Someone please illuminate me on this one.