Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[TekISBest]

Unless he did some thing to deliberatly cause her death it is not murder. There is another side that can be told to this story instead of seeking out the side of murder. How about a husband when faced with the worse thing he could possibly imagine found himself not able to save her. He was on his honey moon. This would be the best of times for the both of them, not the worst of times. It is much more believable that this became the worst moment in his life. I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Unless he did some thing to deliberatly cause her death it is not murder. There is another side that can be told to this story instead of seeking out the side of murder. How about a husband when faced with the worse thing he could possibly imagine found himself not able to save her. He was on his honey moon. This would be the best of times for the both of them, not the worst of times. It is much more believable that this became the worst moment in his life. I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

If you see no evidence to suggest otherwise, you haven't been paying attention. To start with, his computer profile shows a slow ascent, hardly the reaction of someone stricken with the "worst moment in his life". He lied about his computer malfunctioning, changed his story multiple times, was caught ripping flowers from his wife's grave, began hitting on her friends after she died, made no attempt or even request to go to her as she lay dying on another boat, asked that she change the beneficiary on her insurance policy BEFORE they were even married, etc. None of us were there, HOWEVER, those other divers who WERE there didn't believe a word of his account at the time.

He may or may not be found guilty, in that the evidence may not rise to a criminal standard, but to say you see NO evidence to suggest otherwise is a bit much.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Yeah I have to agree with shakeybrainsurgon here. You need to open your mind and your eyes and actually look at everything that is present in the case. You are purposefully ignoring information if you see nothing that says he played a part in Tina's death. I am not saying he is guitly or innocent but there certainly is evidence that points towards guilt (or involvement).

 

[Seadeuce]

Have been following this all along.

Have to say this - as a qualified Rescue Diver he had the KNOWLEDGE of what to do when his wife got in to difficulties.

If he found that he didn't have the SKILL to complete the rescue, by "hugging" her it showed he had the TIME to inflate her BC and send her up.

She may have suffered DCS, maybe even a lung injury, but she would have had a better chance of survival had he done this.

The fact that she ended up on the bottom shows that he DECIDED not to get her to the surface by all the means open to him at that time.

Her equipment was checked and shown to be in full working order after the incident.

Guilty by intent.

Show me evidence to the contrary if you will. I certainly don't see any.

Seadeuce

 

[K_girl]

This here is the central rub of the issue in an already excellent post. In all of the pages in which we have provided speculation on what guilt might or might not look like, all any of us are left with are our respective leanings about Gabe and his potential for murderer.

This is why I was interested in what the doctor-witness who saw the bear hug had to say. As the good brain surgeon has already pointed out, the explanations given thus far for Gabe's odd behavior could be run through several Innocence filters leaving plenty of reasonable doubt for one looking for an explanation for his behavior. If the non-diver sitting on the jury is a critical thinker and able to grasp Shaky Brian Surgeon points, then the prosecution is going to have a hard time getting a conviction in my opinion.

Eye Witness Dr. Stanley Stutz describes Tina struggling and fearful on her back, arms out to the side. Then, a male diver embraces her, he is on top of her, his arms underneath her armpits, Dr. Stutz thought he was trying to rescue her, but Dr. Stutz sees him let go and Tina sinks and the male diver goes to the surface. He tried to get someone else's attention and then sees the instructor make a bee-line for Tina. The instructor brought her to the surface, her eyes fixed open, vomit coming out of her mouth. Dr. Stutz felt at that point, she was dead.

Source: Haunted memory

***********

I'm back from Cozumel and Akumal, MX. I've added the link to my thread on the issues in the case in my signature as some have requested. Thanks for asking.

 

[K_girl]

It is because of possible inconsistencies that many experts tell people to NEVER SPEAK TO THE AUTHORITIES. Consider the following: There is a bank robbery by an unknown person. The only evidence to connect you with it is that a witness comes forward and says he saw you two blocks from the bank. In this situation, the police have nothing. But, if you say you were somewhere else, even if true, the police have an inconsistency and that leads to a suspicion and further investigation. And, if you say anything more, there may be more inconsistencies. (Of course if you have sufficient, credible, independent witnesses who can unqualifiedly identify you as being elsewhere at the exact time, you may get off. However, you may get to spend a few days in jail and get to pay for a lawyer in the meanwhile.)

You are right - if Gabe had never spoken to the authorities, they would have no case. His statement will be the heart of the case. Without it, the best they would have to date would be his statements to other divers when he surfaced and that would have been hearsay evidence. Even though Australia's hearsay rules are less restrictive in the U.S. (one of my posts in my thread below), a conviction based on what other people heard Gabe say would make this case much, much tougher, almost impossible. But because of Gabe's statements I do believe the prosecution has an execellent case.

 

[peterbj7]

The concept of "hearsay evidence" is much misunderstood or wilfully misinterpreted, not least by members of the legal profession. I don't know why, as it's such a simple logical concept - if I heard something being said and report it that is not hearsay. If I didn't hear the original statement but was told by someone else that it had been made and reported that, then THAT would be hearsay.

Here in Belize I was recently the defendant in a civil action, and when I was giving my evidence I was frequently interrupted by opposing Counsel (yes, Queen's Counsel, no less, not just ordinary lawyers) who said I was breaching the rule of "hearsay" evidence when I related what had been said to me.

I stood my ground and on each occasion appealed to the Judge, on the grounds that I was being prevented from answering questions and giving my evidence, and that if this was allowed I would later use it as evidence of a mis-trial. The judge saw my point, and sensibly ruled that anything I reported as having been said was by definition NOT hearsay, even if it was not said to me but to another and I merely overheard it, and only if I reported what I had been told was said by someone to another without actually hearing it myself would that be hearsay.

What Gabe said to other divers, whether reported to the Court by those people who were his intended audience or by other people who heard him speaking, is NOT hearsay. Not in any court in the world.

 

[muzicgirl]

I saw this MSNBC rebroadcast recently - it was an hour special. It freaked me out - but, it really sounded like the husband was guilty!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

The court of public opinion and the media have had a heyday on this one all right. Looks pretty sus to me but I am trying to remember he is not guilty of murder until found so by a court. Sometimes I have trouble holding to that goal... but there has to be stuff we don't know about from both sides of this tragic story!

IMHO the guy is a ******* and an i***t but I am not sure he is smart enough to put his shoes on without assistance.... planning such a murder....

 

[pengwe]

Found it http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Watson20080620.pdf the inquest.

Well, that was interesting.

The coroner and the pathologist agree that death was due to drowning. They list 4 possible causes of accidental drowning and discount each one.

According to the doctor-witness, Tina was alive and struggling, then apparently went unconscious, and dropped to the bottom. At that point she was probably still alive, with a reg in her mouth, air in the tank, and the tank switched on, so how did she drown?

It doesn't really make sense to me either way.