Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[MikeFerrara]

Well Mike, you've definitely just given me the darkest vision yet on SB.

I can see the 'you and Gabe' team now: silent and grim, a dark nightmare vision for any budding DSD. Sickles rather than shears. Bible slung.

A time and a place? People will be closing the curtains, tucking their kids up, and saying 'Don't worry, there's no such thing....'

I happen tho to agree with you (I think) and that the above circus could so easily have been just an accident. This much sank in when a thread immediately next to this one a couple of months back detailed an NOAA diver (i.e. not a PADI AOW) had problem at 5m at his stage bottle and sank to the depths. His buddy, also an NOAA diver went for help rather than trying to rescue his colleague. No-one for a moment mentioned any thought of foul play.

Yet this incident had much in common with the GBR Gabe saga and one wonders whether the desire for intrigue trumps the much more banal reality that things occasionally do go bafflingly wrong. RIP Tina in any event.

I think you read me right...that the "circus" could very well be an accident. IMO, a "rescue diver" is just an unskilled rototiller who has rototilled their way through a rescue class. I've seen plenty of incidents that were just as crazy. Most, by dumb luck, turned out better but it was just dumb luck.

Amazingly, if you search the archives of this board, I think you'll even find that some of those here who are ready to hang this guy have, by their own report, been involved with such incidents themselves.

I wouldn't mind seeing someone hang but those I tend to blame have their office in the certification agencies headquarters. I've seen or known of many diving accidents that I consider murder but the accused would be the agency in the case that I'd present in court.

ok rant over but I would dive with old Gabe. Unlike poor Tina, I can dive and it's very unlikely that Gabe's lack of skill or criminal intent could hurt me.

Also, I stand by my offer to do a cave dive with "Caver" threatened to intentionally commit maliciousness under water. Gabe, at least has the sense to deny it. Caver is looking for the chance and anouncing it on a public forum. It's a little wierd but I'm too curious to pass on the dive.

 

[JeffG]

Good to see you back Mike.

 

[InTheDrink]

At the risk of repeating myself, I do think that the badge 'rescue diver' - of itself - is pretty meaningless. You can get it without knowing how to dive.

There seems to be an inherent conflict in training agencies also being certifying agents. You can't really be both. Yet that is the reality and the outcome is people with cards that can't dive. I'm obsessive about diving and just learning that I am an absolute beginner, although I wouldn't look like that to you in the water.

Lots can go wrong down here. But for the grace of God...

And there's not much to be gained in any event from damning someone else on facts unproven. It's probably more a reflection on the accuser than the accused.

Gabe will find his own hell if there he should be.

 

[almitywife]

fyi,

Nth QLD dive death suspect to be indicted - Queensland - BrisbaneTimes

Nth QLD dive death suspect to be indicted

An indictment against American man Gabe Watson over the 2003 honeymoon murder of his wife Tina will be presented by prosecutors to the Townsville Supreme Court on Friday.

Watson, an Alabama-based bubble-pack manufacturer was charged with murder earlier this year following a coronial inquest into Tina Watson's death during a diving expedition on the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Townsville.

The couple were 11 days into their honeymoon when Tina drowned during the dive trip on the Yongalla wreck on October 22, 2003.

Queensland Director Of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan on Thursday said an indictment for murder would be presented to the court on Friday.

Watson's Australian legal representatives are required to be at court for the matter.

The presentation of the indictment is required for extradition proceedings against Watson to begin.

It comes five months after coroner David Glasgow found that it was likely Watson killed his 26-year-old wife by holding her underwater and turning off her air supply.

Mr Glasgow said one possible motive was that Watson killed his wife for a modest insurance payout.

Watson's US lawyer Bob Austin this week said his client was likely to resist attempts to extradite him, labelling the case against him "as weak as well water".

"We don't think they have a case against him," Mr Austin told the Birmingham News.

"But if they (Australian prosecutors) decide they do, it could be to our benefit to resist and see if the American legal authorities side with us."

He said Watson had no motive to kill his new wife.

"When you look at the facts and for a motive, there is none," Mr Austin said.

"Gabe got no benefit from Tina's demise and to think he'd be so stupid to go halfway around the world and do this in front of 25 other people is ludicrous."

The bizarre circumstances surrounding Ms Watson's death and the many twists and turns the matter has taken in the years since has attracted significant international media interest.

AAP

 

[ScubaSteve]

Thanks for that post Almighty. I am glad the process is finally starting. They said they would likely take all the time and I believe they did. One way or another it will now move forward.

 

[K_girl]

For those of you who keep talking about whether or not Gabe Watson can be convicted for not practicing his rescue diving skills by rescuing Tina - you are completely missing the point.

The point is - Gabe Watson assured Tina and her parents that because of his rescue diving skills, he could take care of Tina. Then, when questioned by police he claimed that: 1) in his Rescue course, he was taught how to do a search, but not how to "get someone" or rescue anyone; and 2) that he had no training to get someone off the bottom; and 3) the Rescue course was really about self-rescue, not rescuing someone else.

The dive instructor who taught Gabe all of his diving certifications, including his rescue certification testified at the inquiry - that he was shocked that Gabe had said this because he knows that Gabe was taught the skills to rescue somone else as well as retrieve them off the bottom.

This was my ISSUE #1 in my Issues and Statements thread on this case. Gabe's statements came directly from his police interview. (Please do not respond to the message on the thread link below):

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3676572-post2.html

If you have not read the entire "Issues and Statements" thread, you probably ought to.

If you think that Gabe can come up with an explanation at trial for his statements, I would be interested in hearing them. I think this is going to be the most difficult issue for Gabe Watson to overcome at trial. There was no logical reason under the "accident" theory for him to lie about his rescue training. Anyone who has taken the rescue course knows that it is probably at least 75% all about rescuing another person.

If he forgot the course completely, he should not have reassured Tina and her parents that he had the skills to take care of Tina. I also think he would need to prove that he has some kind of brain impairment to make the jury believe that he could forget that much of the course. I took mine over 4 years ago and I'll never forget when I had to conduct a search for a missing diver, bring them to the surface, then do rescue breathing, remove the equipment while doing rescue breathing and then get them out of the water and start CPR. How could someone forget that much without some kind of mental defect?

Also, how can he possibly defend his statement about being taught to "search" but not to bring someone to the surface? What would be the point of that? Oh, I found them, see you later, let's go now. In that case, we should change the name of the course from "Rescue Diver" to "Search Diver".

All I can say is - good luck to the defense, they are the ones who will need it.

For those of you who think that lying and behavior cannot be evidence in a case and all that counts is direct forensic evidence or eye witeness - think again.

 

[InTheDrink]

People forget stuff all the time. Particularly stuff they never learned properly. People re-assure/lie to people all the time.

I'm not saying Gabe's innocent, but the arguments you are putting forward are easily refutable.

J

 

[K_girl]

I don't think so "easily". He reassured Tina, her parents, covered-up and lied to the police, not just about this one issue, but many others. You are simply discounting the evidence and not really giving his contradictory statements any weight at all. You would have a hard time in a jury room to tell your fellow jurors to simply discount this evidence without a full discussion of it's meaning.

A fellow juror would ask you - there needs to be more of an expalanation for Gabe's statements other than - people lie all the time, forget about it. Lying to the police has weight in a jury room - don't kid yourself.

So, you really think that Gabe's lawyer is going to get up in front of the jury and say - "Ladies and Gentlemen - people lie all the time, it's meaningless, forget about it, don't think about it." And be able to help his client with that explanation? Apparently, you have not been in very many courtrooms or work in the criminal legal field. Although I am not a lawyer, I do work in the criminal defense field and I'm telling you, the defense has a real problem and they are not going to make it go away with the defense you are trying to put forth.

 

[I Dive]

I will be curious what the outcome is, but having PADI or any other certifying agency give you a card that says "Rescue Diver" does not make you a professional with any professional obligations. I'm not at all making excuses for this moron not helping her, but any argument that he needed to or should have or whatever because of his RD card doesn't carry any weight with me. It seems to me the flipside of that argument would be that, if he was only OW or AOW, it would be understandable that he didn't help her and that is just garbage. And, I'm curious. Maybe this has already been asked or addressed and I missed it, but why is he the only diver on that trip that should have been expected to help her? The person shooting the video, for example, obviously saw her so why didn't they drop the video camera and head down to help? Same thing for any other divers with them that day.

 

[ScubaSteve]

JClynes....I agree that people lie all the time but when people lie and people die, it ought to at the very least lead to further questions.

I Dive....depending on where you are in the world, Good Samaritan Laws do exist and there are also legal expectations based on your level of training. Tis may not be the case is Oz, but these areas do exist. There are many discussion on SB about this so a thread search will yield a number of them.