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
livinoz
Contributor
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe, but is it that big a deal? It is off-topic in this thread though, so I'll say no more!
Tigerman
Contributor
Hehehe, cause that dont exist
InTheDrink
Contributor
I was reading another thread from today (http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/accidents-incidents/225411-noaa-diver-dies-off-dry-tortugas.html)
and read the NOAA report associated with the accident (http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/at...75-noaa-diver-dies-off-dry-tortugas-rusty.pdf)
Without wanting to draw too many comparisons, there is one notable one, where during the safety stop, the victim had an OOA situation, tried to breath on the safety tank on the downline but the valve was off, appeared to go unconscious and sink. The other member of this two man team tried to turn on the air and grab falling victim simultaneously but the weight was too great and so he decided to return to the surface to get help rather than attempting to rescuse the victim directly as he believed he would simply endanger himself.
There is obviously no suggestion whatsoever of foul play - the point I'm making is that a very similar sequence of events in relation to the Watson case has been damned by any number of people on this thread.
Whilst the case against Watson may well be strong because of the number of 'not quite right' parts of his story, e.g. his dive computer/battery etc. this does demonstrate to a degree that the behaviour of leaving a sinking diver in favour of getting help at the surface clearly has precedent and is probably not uncommon.
Secondly, the Safety Diver (on the boat waiting to assist in case of emergency) could not recall whether the victim did or didn't have his regulator in his mouth when found. The point being that what would appear simple bits of information can be very elusive in an emergency situation and it is possible that some of the comments made by Watson in relation to the incident were because his recollection of this emergency event was incomplete/fuzzy.
and read the NOAA report associated with the accident (http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/at...75-noaa-diver-dies-off-dry-tortugas-rusty.pdf)
Without wanting to draw too many comparisons, there is one notable one, where during the safety stop, the victim had an OOA situation, tried to breath on the safety tank on the downline but the valve was off, appeared to go unconscious and sink. The other member of this two man team tried to turn on the air and grab falling victim simultaneously but the weight was too great and so he decided to return to the surface to get help rather than attempting to rescuse the victim directly as he believed he would simply endanger himself.
There is obviously no suggestion whatsoever of foul play - the point I'm making is that a very similar sequence of events in relation to the Watson case has been damned by any number of people on this thread.
Whilst the case against Watson may well be strong because of the number of 'not quite right' parts of his story, e.g. his dive computer/battery etc. this does demonstrate to a degree that the behaviour of leaving a sinking diver in favour of getting help at the surface clearly has precedent and is probably not uncommon.
Secondly, the Safety Diver (on the boat waiting to assist in case of emergency) could not recall whether the victim did or didn't have his regulator in his mouth when found. The point being that what would appear simple bits of information can be very elusive in an emergency situation and it is possible that some of the comments made by Watson in relation to the incident were because his recollection of this emergency event was incomplete/fuzzy.
JC Lynes
I think you are absolutely correct in bringing this up. I think there must be hundreds and hundreds of other cases just like this that the defense can use to establish that different divers under duress make different decisions in the stress of the moment. PADI at least supports this to some degree, saying that the decision to take on "some personal risk" is crucial in the "stop and think" aspect of becoming a rescue diver. They go on to say that it is never a good idea to put oneself in danger in attempting a rescue and that oftentimes getting someone else to help is a better decision because it can insure that others are aware of what is going on.
I have no doubt that the defense will hammer this point home ad infinitum in the extradition hearing and ultimately the trial should that ever become needed, leaving the prosecutors with a hell of a task to overcome.
There are so many sources that that say divers need to write down what is happening when it happens. If Gabe didn’t do this, it could be argued that this was because his wife had just died. If others, the crew, DMs, etc, didn’t do this, then memory lapses would be considered par for the course (Gabe’s being only one of many), leaving his discrepancies in the interview as evidence of nothing more than the effects of trauma and worry about what had happened.
What we feel personally has nothing to do with what can be proven in court.
Cheers!
I think you are absolutely correct in bringing this up. I think there must be hundreds and hundreds of other cases just like this that the defense can use to establish that different divers under duress make different decisions in the stress of the moment. PADI at least supports this to some degree, saying that the decision to take on "some personal risk" is crucial in the "stop and think" aspect of becoming a rescue diver. They go on to say that it is never a good idea to put oneself in danger in attempting a rescue and that oftentimes getting someone else to help is a better decision because it can insure that others are aware of what is going on.
I have no doubt that the defense will hammer this point home ad infinitum in the extradition hearing and ultimately the trial should that ever become needed, leaving the prosecutors with a hell of a task to overcome.
There are so many sources that that say divers need to write down what is happening when it happens. If Gabe didn’t do this, it could be argued that this was because his wife had just died. If others, the crew, DMs, etc, didn’t do this, then memory lapses would be considered par for the course (Gabe’s being only one of many), leaving his discrepancies in the interview as evidence of nothing more than the effects of trauma and worry about what had happened.
What we feel personally has nothing to do with what can be proven in court.
Cheers!
OP
shakeybrainsurgeon
Contributor
In this case, the diver
1) lied about his computer malfunctioning
2) grossly lied about his ascent rate
(note: there was no "I don't remember" or "I'm fuzzy on the details" in these lies...watch his police interview, he is very graphic on the battery issue and on how he was afraid of getting bent... from a 2 minute ascent from 35 ft???)
3) never requested to be at his dying wife's side
4) apparently never contacted the family after the death, leaving that for authorities to do 12 hours after the fact
5) started putting moves on his wife's girlfriends shortly thereafter
6) is on videotape using bolt cutters to remove flowers from his dead wife's grave and tossing them into a trash can (that video alone could get him convicted)
7) requested changes to her life insurance policy before they were even married
8) basically demanded she learn to dive, even though she didn't seem to want to and then, rather than take her someplace easy like the Keys for her first dive, dumps her in a strong current half a world away
This isn't some random dive buddy who panics and screws up...this dive buddy essentially required her to dive, coerced her into the ocean and then, on her first dive, let her drown virtually minutes after she hit the water and then elaborately lied through his teeth about how it happened from the first moment.
If I were a rock climber who forced my wife to take up rock climbing against her wishes, and then, on our honeymoon, took her for her first climb, under my watchful eye, only to have her almost immediately fall to her death...wouldn't some degree of suspicion fall on me?
Simply shrugging my shoulders and saying "s*** happens, people fall, I panicked, here's a videotape of someone falling from the same site" wouldn't appease her family or the authorities.
Oh course, none of us were there. However, interviews with those divers who were there thought he was full of crap the moment he opened his mouth.
Even if he isn't convicted, he will almost certainly lose a wrongful death suit if the family files one. This requires only a preponderance of evidence, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
1) lied about his computer malfunctioning
2) grossly lied about his ascent rate
(note: there was no "I don't remember" or "I'm fuzzy on the details" in these lies...watch his police interview, he is very graphic on the battery issue and on how he was afraid of getting bent... from a 2 minute ascent from 35 ft???)
3) never requested to be at his dying wife's side
4) apparently never contacted the family after the death, leaving that for authorities to do 12 hours after the fact
5) started putting moves on his wife's girlfriends shortly thereafter
6) is on videotape using bolt cutters to remove flowers from his dead wife's grave and tossing them into a trash can (that video alone could get him convicted)
7) requested changes to her life insurance policy before they were even married
8) basically demanded she learn to dive, even though she didn't seem to want to and then, rather than take her someplace easy like the Keys for her first dive, dumps her in a strong current half a world away
This isn't some random dive buddy who panics and screws up...this dive buddy essentially required her to dive, coerced her into the ocean and then, on her first dive, let her drown virtually minutes after she hit the water and then elaborately lied through his teeth about how it happened from the first moment.
If I were a rock climber who forced my wife to take up rock climbing against her wishes, and then, on our honeymoon, took her for her first climb, under my watchful eye, only to have her almost immediately fall to her death...wouldn't some degree of suspicion fall on me?
Simply shrugging my shoulders and saying "s*** happens, people fall, I panicked, here's a videotape of someone falling from the same site" wouldn't appease her family or the authorities.
Oh course, none of us were there. However, interviews with those divers who were there thought he was full of crap the moment he opened his mouth.
Even if he isn't convicted, he will almost certainly lose a wrongful death suit if the family files one. This requires only a preponderance of evidence, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
InTheDrink
Contributor
Ok, whilst I believe (note the word believe, implying trust/articles of faith and specifically not FACT) that he killed his wife on purpose, please let me refute or play devil's advocate to your points below:
1) lied about his computer malfunctioning
It's conjecture that he lied about this - several, vaguely plausible, explanations have been posited on this thread about how the information we have could be incorrect or that he was confused, even if he though he was being accurate.
2) grossly lied about his ascent rate
Again, several explanations have been put forward - he spent time swimming against the current to get to the line; he spent time trying to get other divers' attention on the line and that he may indeed have rapidly ascended once he had ascertained that help was not forthcoming underwater. 2 minutes could easily elapse in this scenario.
3) never requested to be at his dying wife's side
So what? Countless explanations for this one: a) didn't want to interfere in the rescue/recussitation; b) people have strange reactions in an emergency etc.
4) apparently never contacted the family after the death, leaving that for authorities to do 12 hours after the fact
See point 3b above and add your own ad nauseum
5) started putting moves on his wife's girlfriends shortly thereafter
I didn't read this but don't see what bearing it has. Many bereaved get involved with friends/family members
6) is on videotape using bolt cutters to remove flowers from his dead wife's grave and tossing them into a trash can (that video alone could get him convicted)
Doesn't look good clearly, but if this event had effectively destroyed his life, he may have blamed it on his deceased wife and/or family. However, if this fact is true, that he was recorded performing this event, at least it is hard and fast evidence of an event.
7) requested changes to her life insurance policy before they were even married
Provides potential motive but could be explained for reasons given in this thread: want to make a gesture to a loved one, etc. If proved to be true tho, it does provide some form of motive.
8) basically demanded she learn to dive, even though she didn't seem to want to and then, rather than take her someplace easy like the Keys for her first dive, dumps her in a strong current half a world away
And this would be the first time a man ever presuaded his wife to do something that he wanted to do that she didn't? I think you'd be indicting the human (or at least male) race here
I do believe that he did kill his wife, and I was one of the more forceful people on the thread suggesting his lynching (ah for the good old days [only joking!]). However, a lot of focus has been on his reactions underwater. All I'm saying is that his reactions underwater, if one were to believe him, would perhaps not be as damning as one might think. Hence I referenced the other thread today. I'd be surprised (MikeF no doubt jumps in here!
) if NOAA divers are ill-trained. Yet this guy left his partner to help up top. So not that uncommon it would appear. Unless the prosection has that 'smoking gun' that has been mentioned, I think he will get off on the murder charge as every point for the prosecution can have reasonable doubt cast on it. Civil case? Indeed different and it would be hard to place the odds that he didn't kill her in his favour.
Ca_Ghost
Contributor
Would be interesting to see what the DA's office has for evidence to charge him. All of the things I've read and watched were circumstantial at best and didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling for a conviction.
Now knowing about the media and how hard it is for them to get details correct it will be curious to see the court proceedings.
Now knowing about the media and how hard it is for them to get details correct it will be curious to see the court proceedings.
OP
shakeybrainsurgeon
Contributor
For the sake of all those who want a "smoking gun" and think that this type of evidence can't convict, go back and see what got Scott Peterson not only convicted, but a place on death row for the death of his wife Lacey.
The body was so decomposed, they weren't even sure it had been murdered in any way other than being drowned. There was speculation that she had been restrained going into the water, but no proof.
They convicted him because a) he was an a-hole and a philanderer who appeared, as in this case, to be somewhat underwhelmed by the death to say the least; b) he had a missing concrete anchor and owned a boat; c) his "fishing" explanation put him at the scene but was implausible on its face; and d) he had cleaned his house with a bleach product. He, too, didn't have much of a motive except he wanted to play the field and not be saddled with a child. A motive, sure, but a weak one. He could have divorced her and, since she worked, his child support would not have been onerous. There was no eyewitness, no murder weapon, no certain cause of death, no looming financial windfall. Yet he sits in San Qunetin.
Being a bad guy and telling a lot of whoppers can get you a date with a needle, even without strong motive, a weapon, a cause of death or any witnesses.
I see no plausible explanation for the computer issue. In his videotaped interview, he clearly states that the device was beeping on his first descent and that he returned to the boat, reversed the battery and it began to work. The computer, however, recorded his first descent, quick return, and re-descent without any malfunction. Thus, the battery had to be in right from the beginning. Moreover, the computer would not have beeped if the battery were in backward (the police tested it). Ergo, he lied. End of story.
As for hitting on his wife's friends, he didn't just ask for a date. He sent them a Christmas card with his wedding picture of him and his dead wife on the front and with the words 'whose that handsome guy...me!" on the inside. Anyone who doesn't think that behavior is pathological should have their own heads examined.
I followed that Peterson case closely, and the media reports of what the evidence was pretty much agreed with what came out in court. In general, the media does a fairly good job on such cases, often better than the police (to be fair to the police, the media have better funding and resources and more time on their hands).
I submit that the evidence that Peterson killed his wife was even weaker than this.
The body was so decomposed, they weren't even sure it had been murdered in any way other than being drowned. There was speculation that she had been restrained going into the water, but no proof.
They convicted him because a) he was an a-hole and a philanderer who appeared, as in this case, to be somewhat underwhelmed by the death to say the least; b) he had a missing concrete anchor and owned a boat; c) his "fishing" explanation put him at the scene but was implausible on its face; and d) he had cleaned his house with a bleach product. He, too, didn't have much of a motive except he wanted to play the field and not be saddled with a child. A motive, sure, but a weak one. He could have divorced her and, since she worked, his child support would not have been onerous. There was no eyewitness, no murder weapon, no certain cause of death, no looming financial windfall. Yet he sits in San Qunetin.
Being a bad guy and telling a lot of whoppers can get you a date with a needle, even without strong motive, a weapon, a cause of death or any witnesses.
I see no plausible explanation for the computer issue. In his videotaped interview, he clearly states that the device was beeping on his first descent and that he returned to the boat, reversed the battery and it began to work. The computer, however, recorded his first descent, quick return, and re-descent without any malfunction. Thus, the battery had to be in right from the beginning. Moreover, the computer would not have beeped if the battery were in backward (the police tested it). Ergo, he lied. End of story.
As for hitting on his wife's friends, he didn't just ask for a date. He sent them a Christmas card with his wedding picture of him and his dead wife on the front and with the words 'whose that handsome guy...me!" on the inside. Anyone who doesn't think that behavior is pathological should have their own heads examined.
I followed that Peterson case closely, and the media reports of what the evidence was pretty much agreed with what came out in court. In general, the media does a fairly good job on such cases, often better than the police (to be fair to the police, the media have better funding and resources and more time on their hands).
I submit that the evidence that Peterson killed his wife was even weaker than this.
Given that Australia has jurisdiction in this case and don’t have the death penalty for murder cases, I doubt the needle in the arm scenario is going to happen.
It is absolutely right that juries do indeed convict on less than smoking-gun evidence at times. At other times they completely ignore evidence that looks to be solid in opting for surprising acquitals, and do so for some rather unpleasant people (think OJ for a glaring example).
Both of these scenarios happen in our country all the time, and I suspect elsewhere also. The problem is that it is very risky for the prosecution to take on a case if the evidence is weak, especially when cost becomes a factor in the attempt. Murder is “expensive” because the bar is set higher for convictions. I am not completely sure of the exact process in Australia comparatively speaking, but my fiancé assures me that it is similar to our jury system in the US, complete with the pesky voir dire process that gives the defense a huge amount of wiggle room for this case.
As much as people might like convicting someone because of an inane personality, the stupid choices made that one does not agree with, or perhaps based on lapses in memory, this is a huge and costly gamble for a prosecution team to take on sans a “smoking gun.” And the more guns the better!
They have to be able to justify the choice in prosecuting someone, and they had better win if they choose to take on that endeavor. The alternative can be very bad.
Again, there probably is a lot more going into the prosecution’s case. I am reasonably sure they will attempt to haul our protagonist back to antipodean shores, but the question remains whether or not they can get him there for a jury trial to start with. We really don’t know if the evidence we have now is IT or merely the tip of the iceberg.
Only time will tell.
Cheers!
It is absolutely right that juries do indeed convict on less than smoking-gun evidence at times. At other times they completely ignore evidence that looks to be solid in opting for surprising acquitals, and do so for some rather unpleasant people (think OJ for a glaring example).
Both of these scenarios happen in our country all the time, and I suspect elsewhere also. The problem is that it is very risky for the prosecution to take on a case if the evidence is weak, especially when cost becomes a factor in the attempt. Murder is “expensive” because the bar is set higher for convictions. I am not completely sure of the exact process in Australia comparatively speaking, but my fiancé assures me that it is similar to our jury system in the US, complete with the pesky voir dire process that gives the defense a huge amount of wiggle room for this case.
As much as people might like convicting someone because of an inane personality, the stupid choices made that one does not agree with, or perhaps based on lapses in memory, this is a huge and costly gamble for a prosecution team to take on sans a “smoking gun.” And the more guns the better!
They have to be able to justify the choice in prosecuting someone, and they had better win if they choose to take on that endeavor. The alternative can be very bad.
Again, there probably is a lot more going into the prosecution’s case. I am reasonably sure they will attempt to haul our protagonist back to antipodean shores, but the question remains whether or not they can get him there for a jury trial to start with. We really don’t know if the evidence we have now is IT or merely the tip of the iceberg.
Only time will tell.
Cheers!
- Status
Similar threads
