Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[caver]

By this or my previous post, I am not saying Gabe is guilty or innocent. Only that there is way too much coincidence that needs to be looked at IMHO.



Well,,,,I'll say it -----HE'S GUILTY

 

[ScubaSteve]

I have my opinion on it Caver, and I made it very clear about 2 pages ago....but the posts above were not about that. They were simply about what I said in the posts.

 

[K_girl]

This is easy to explain. While it may not be THE explanation, I believe it is a plausible one:

a). When she started to sink, I panicked!! I was like, OMG, OMG, she is sinking!!! What should I do??? I decided to get help.

b). I was in a state of passive panic. I was just sitting there - not believing the reality of what was happening. My new wife! The woman I loved!! This was horrible. I just...couldn't....think.

c). I got scared - people were going to blame this on me!! I loved my wife! Tina was everything to me! I didn't know who to trust - I thought the police were out to get me! I knew they were going to want to make me pay for this accident that happened. I was emotionally destroyed, I couldn't respond appropriately to all those questions. All those police asking me all those questions - accusing me of killing my wonderful wife - I got scared - and confused. They were trying to say *I* did it. They were yelling and screaming at me - trying to get me to confess to something I didn't do.


d). It was wrong - and I am so sorry about that. I was just lashing out against my inlaws, who seems to be doing everything possible to help the police and nothing to help me! They were out to get me from the start. They just made me so angry - I didn't know what else to do.

OK, so finally someone is at least trying to come up with some kind of explanation that could potentially be used in court. However, there will be evidence against each one of these supposed defenses:

a) she was sinking - defense - to continue what Gabe said - faster than he could swim. Yet it took him only 10 seconds to swim against what he described as a very strong current to get to the line (his own testimony).

b) Passive panic defense - yes, this could be used in many cases, however, not in this one. Passive panic means that a person is unable to act. Gabe described many things he tried to do to help his wife, then in the end, he said he swam quickly to the surface, but his dive computer tells a different story. He actually took his time getting to the surface for help. So, the computer says he lying. Try to explain that one! So if he starts with a passive panic defense, he would be changing his story - yet again.

c) I got scared, and the police were yelling at me and trying to make me say - I did it - defense. Obviously, you did not watch Gabe Watson's video interview or read the transcript. They asked him questions nicely, they never yelled at him or tried to intimidate him. I'm sure they have even more video interview evidence to refute any such claim.

d) In-laws were trying to frame me so I lashed-out - defense. Tina's parents did not believe Gabe was involved for at least the first four months until Tina's father met with one of the people who was on-board the SpoilSport with Gabe and Tina. Gabe refused to allow Tina's parents to put a headstone on her grave and would not put one on himself for at least four months before Tina's parents began to suspect him. There is still no headstone on her grave, Gabe Watson will not allow it. Isn't this punishing the memory of Tina, the woman he supposedly loved? As a juror - I would want an explanation for this behavior. Better make it a good one.

 

[caver]

K GIRL Hi,,,I see in your profile you have a Rescue certification. I believe you would be a good one for me to ask this question - Do you believe a diver going through the same rescue class as your did, could later say he/she did not learn about anything other than self rescue? In your rescue class did they teach bringing up a distressed diver? If so, could you honestly say they did not teach that in your class?

I believe in his statements to the police about NOT learning how and only learning self rescue, would be the sames as any Open Water diver saying he did not learn about clearing his mask in an OW class.

 

[lamont]

You guys - I can't believe it! How many times do I have to say it - IT IS NOT ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO RESCUE IN AN EMERGENCY!! It is making others believe you have the ability to rescue and then telling the police that you never learned how to rescue someone else in a "rescue" course. He said he never learned to "get anyone" underwater in the rescue course. He said he learned about searching, but never how to bring them up from the bottom. He said the rescue course was about self-rescue and not about rescuing anyone else. Excuse me, but that is a flat-out lie and he and his lawyer have got some xplainin' to do!!

This is about what he says he is supposed to know - NOT about his actions or any lack thereof underwater. Yes, people freak-out and go to the surface for help, we all understand that. But why does he lie to the police and tell them he never learned any rescue skills at all? You add this in with all the other issues that don't add-up in his story and he has a real problem.

Yes, I would agree that his dive computer also will give him a big huge problem. I've counted more than 30 issues that look pretty bad for Mr. Watson - you can't just discount them all.

You have a lot of evidence that he's a compulsive liar and probably not a very good person, but you still don't have any direct evidence of murder.

There's still an alternative explanation which is that he got rescue trained but when the time came he screwed it up royally, then feeling guilty about his incompetence he proceeded to lie to everyone about what happened. Have you ever been around someone who lies like this consistently (a member of your family) about significantly less weighty matters than murder?

I'm still waiting for a solid motive, or for some corroborating evidence outside of the event (e.g. threats that he wrote or said to anyone).

The lying and the cover up is certainly very suspicious and worthy of a trial, but it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. There needs to be more evidence before he gets convicted of murder.

 

[lamont]

K GIRL Hi,,,I see in your profile you have a Rescue certification. I believe you would be a good one for me to ask this question - Do you believe a diver going through the same rescue class as your did, could later say he/she did not learn about anything other than self rescue? In your rescue class did they teach bringing up a distressed diver? If so, could you honestly say they did not teach that in your class?

I believe in his statements to the police about NOT learning how and only learning self rescue, would be the sames as any Open Water diver saying he did not learn about clearing his mask in an OW class.

Either way (incompetence or murder), he's got a reason to lie to authorities about being trained to bring up divers to the surface, because he clearly failed to do that. And like most liars, he's not smart enough to realize that the police could check with the agency or the instructor.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Thanks Kgirl for pointing out that the interview was on tape and there was no yelling or intimidation involved.

The inconsistencies are what I would have trouble with on the jury.

I am inclined to believe the instructor. All the Rescue Instructors I know and all the DM's I know who assist Rescue course talk about the tricks they use on the students when they are performing the rescues. I can't believe an instructor would throw out the lesson plan and focus of a course to "do their own thing". The legal ramifications of doing so would be horrific!

Panic and a leisurely ascent are incompatible. Gabe's computer records a slow rate of ascent.

I would understand Gabe not going to the boat during the attempts to resuscitate Tina if he didn't go to the boat after he was told she was dead. Some people can't handle stuff like that but that explanation falls flat when he can cope with going to see the body! His behaviour on the boat while they were working on her seems ..... strange.

Clearly this wasn't a great match since it seems they both lied to each other. He asked Tina to increase her life insurance at work and name him beneficiary. Her Dad the insurance agent told her not to worry about it till they came back and to just tell him she had done it. It seems to me that being told she had done as requested and increased insurance to $130,000 in favour of him would be pretty good motive. He also got the house... Hmm thinking about that Gabe has another reason to be very angry with her folks.

In defense of the photographer. They were focusing on getting their chosen subject in frame not background stuff. I came close to drifting onto a huge bull ray that way. I was glancing around every few seconds to make sure I wasn't going to bump into anything which is why I finally saw it. When I looked at the video later the ray was visible long before I saw it.

The event quoted where the diver went to the surface for help. He did so AFTER ditching his weight belt, turning on the tank and making a reasonable attempt at rescue. They were surfacing so I also assume they were closer to the surface than Gabe and Tina. Danger to the rescuer extinguishes "duty of care". I do not see any evidence that Gabe was in enough danger to extinguish is "duty of care" as a husband, dive buddy and rescue diver. They were closer to the bottom. I do not think these events are comparable.

Other divers did "step up to the plate" and Rescue Tina when they became aware of the need.

IMO Is he guilty of contributing to Tina's death.... ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Was is MURDER? Jury is still out on that one..

 

[MikeFerrara]

The point is - Gabe Watson assured Tina and her parents that because of his rescue diving skills, he could take care of Tina.

What else might this tell us? Why should he need to take care of her? She was a certified diver, wasn't she? Shouldn't she have been able to take care of herself and even assist him if need be? If not then the dive was beyond her training, abilities and should have never taken place.

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 PADI rescue course (is that what he took?) does focus heavily on problem avoidence and self rescue. There are only a couple of excersizes where the student is required to surface an unresponsive diver and those excersizes start on the bottom. There isn't much in the rescue class or OW, AOW or even DM training that would do much at all to provide practice in initiating any kind of rescue midwater where problems really occure.

There isn't even much, if anything, in the course that would prepare students for the fact that descents and ascents are times in the dive when problems are most likely nor is their practice for such situations.

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.

I sure would have liked to be the one asking the questions at the inquiry. You can't get the right answers if you don't ask the right questions.

The fact is that a PADI rescue diver hasn't been required to even demonstrate the level of buoyancy/position control or efficient propulsion needed to even control one's own dive let alone be very useful in a rescue.

 

[Epinephelus]

I've been sort of following this case for a few years now. My initial impression was that this fellow panicked when his wife had trouble and grabbed him. Instead of getting her to the surface and buoyant, he went into 100% save-self mode, and in his own rush to get himself to the surface, he pushed her away and let her drown.
He did not want to admit he'd utterly failed as a "rescue diver" and as a manly man, so he lied about what happened from the very first interview.
All else that has followed is consistent with this scenario, so I still think that's what happened.
E

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I've been sort of following this case for a few years now. My initial impression was that this fellow panicked when his wife had trouble and grabbed him. Instead of getting her to the surface and buoyant, he went into 100% save-self mode, and in his own rush to get himself to the surface, he pushed her away and let her drown.
He did not want to admit he'd utterly failed as a "rescue diver" and as a manly man, so he lied about what happened from the very first interview.
All else that has followed is consistent with this scenario, so I still think that's what happened.
E

How is this scenario "consistent" with his dive computer, which showed a slow controlled ascent, or with his unusual interest in her life insurance even before they were married, or with the body being found in a place inconsistent with his story?