clownfishsydney
Contributor
This is a link the index for the 20 pages about the accident. http://www.michaelmcfadyenscuba.info/viewpage.php?page_id=844
Fatal Honeymoon or just poor judgment
- Thread starter PhatD1ver
- 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
Ayisha
Contributor
Ah yes, my apologies; it's been years. Singleton brought her onto the other boat for rescue efforts, but he did work for the victim's liveaboard. The victim's father described Singleton as a hero and there was some testimony about how quickly he came up with Tina compared to Watson alone. Watson's lawyer painted him as derelict in his duties to uphold the Spoilsport's own health and safety policies in omitting the orientation dive, and I do recall agreeing with that back in the day, and the Spoilsport was certainly fined.
I did read your pages in the past, Michael, and as you are aware, I did not find them compelling compared to everything else I read and watched at the time, sorry. I believe Watson deserved every bit of the time he served and then some, IMHO.
I did read your pages in the past, Michael, and as you are aware, I did not find them compelling compared to everything else I read and watched at the time, sorry. I believe Watson deserved every bit of the time he served and then some, IMHO.
Every couple weeks you read about somebody offing their wife or parents or husband or fiancee. Often times this is thought out (at least they think so) with deliberate actions before and after. I see absolutely nothing in this scenario that is out of line of what many another psychopath has done. You and I cannot conceive of this because we are not psychopaths and have empathy.
Ayisha
Contributor
Here is one of the many threads on this topic:
http://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/watson-murder-case-issues-statements-sources.242102/
And another:
http://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/watson-murder-case-discussion.355511/
http://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/watson-murder-case-issues-statements-sources.242102/
And another:
http://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/watson-murder-case-discussion.355511/
clownfishsydney
Contributor
Ayisha, I will repeat my comment to you from 15 March 2012: "Ayisha, I know there is nothing that will make you change your mind, you have made that clear over the past month."
Why do you and others continue to believe what the media published when a huge amount of it was just lies?
Why do you and others continue to believe what the media published when a huge amount of it was just lies?
BDSC
Contributor
Lies usually make for a more interesting story as the actual truth can be quite boring.
CuzzA
Wetwork for Hire
Michael, thanks again for going the extra mile on investigating diving accidents. I had not made a firm judgement on this case; however, the media reports I read and watched definitely had me leaning toward foul play. I reserved judgment, because at the time I had no knowledge of scuba diving, but now that I do and better understand diving and accidents I agree with your conclusions (first time I have read them).
God forbid, if I were to ever die during a dive I would want you to take a look at what happened. Your work on the Laila/Coolidge accident was fantastic as well. Many accident reports are never updated and your commitment to solve and/or bring about more evidence should be commended.
Thanks!
Ken Kurtis
Contributor
The caveat up front is that I'm quite friendly with Mike Ball and he and I discussed this at length over dinner sometime after this all happened. I should also mention that when the Alabama proceedings started, I was in contact with the local prosecutor about being a prosecution witness, but when the state took over the case - and IMHO mangled it - my potential involvement ended. I also read through Michael's initial link on the "How I Got Involved".
Couple of quick thoughts without getting too deep into this.
1. As many of you know, I'm the forensic consultant to the L.A. County Coroner for scuba fatalities. Doesn't mean I'm always right but does mean I've looked at a number of cases here in L.A., including a couple where foul play was suspected.
2. I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor: When faced with a series of possible solutions, the simplest answer is often correct. (Think back to the Watergate tapes and the 18-minute gap: Is it more likely that Rosemary Woods contorted herself while answering a phone on the other side of the room and somehow erased the crucial part of the tape, or that Nixon or someone implicated deliberately erased it themselves?)
3. I agree with Michael that the Aussie police did a lousy job with their investigation. But I think some of that stems from that they had a strong suspicion about Gabe and then saw whatever evidence they needed to confirm that suspicion rather than looking at the totality of the facts to see if their suspicion was supported.
4. I think the Aussie explanation is about him turning off her air and then back on (explaining the bear-hug) is pure fiction. The easiest way to kill someone is to wait until they exhale, rip the reg from their mouth, and then hold them for 30 seconds or so until they go unconscious. The Aussie explanation is too complicated IMHO (see Occam).
5. Key aspects of Gabe's story seemed to change every time he told it and as he got better at telling it, he got better at explaining seeming anomalies.
6. Michael, in your narrative, you say the key thing that made you got "Aha!!! Not guilty" was the backwards computer battery and that it was the transmitter, not the actual computer. According to Mike Ball's people on the boat, it absolutely WAS the wrist computer battery that was backwards, NOT the transmitter battery.
7. Also, the idea of whether or not they should have been escorted and if they had Tina would be alive is moot because they weren't escorted. You can't argue that something that didn't happen would have changed the outcome because there's no way to test that theory. All we can go on is what DID happen and try to understand why.
8. It may be backwards reasoning, but the came-up-to-fix-the-computer scenario, DOES separate them from the group. It may have created an opportunity and Gabe acted on impulse thinking, "This may be my chance."
9. Circumstantial, but don't forget there's a video of him before the trip telling Tina to increase her life insurance policy and evidence that he thought she had (Tina's dad's a strong proponent of this) but she never signed the papers, although Gabe might have thought she had.
10. For me, the damning act - and what throws everything else Gabe says into question - is the bearhug or embrace underwater. I'm doing this from memory so can't cite the specific interview, but Gabe acknowledged that it happened however he claims that what it was was that he realized Tina was going to panic and what he was trying to do was calm her down and prevent her from bolting to the surface. I don't buy this at all.
11. First of all, Gabe's an inexperienced diver. For him to "realize" this would take a level of perception far beyond what it would seem his awareness was.
12. Secondly, I've been a NAUI instructor for over 35 years. I'm constantly on the lookout with new divers & students for signs of panic and bolting. It's hard to discern because it happens quickly. And even when I think I've spotted it, it's hard for me to get to them in time.
13. But let's assume that Tina was about to panic. Let's assume Gabe realized this. Let's assume he realized this just as Tina started to bolt and Gabe's "embrace" was meant to stop her. Ask yourself this: If a diver is starting to bolt and you as their buddy go to grab them, where on their body are you most likely to be able to make contact and hold on? For those who said legs or ankles, give yourself a gold star. Because once that diver has started up, they're rising above you and their shoulders will not be in range.
14. Miraculously, though, Gabe was able to hold Tina by the shoulders.
15. A truly panicked diver WILL be taking you to the surface with them. Unless you are holding them AND holding on to something solid (in this case, the Yongala), they're almost impossible to stop.
16. Yet, miraculously, Gabe - who's not skilled enough to retrieve a sinking diver - is somehow able to hold a panicky diver in place mid-water?
17. This is the part of the story I don't buy. I think this is the time when Gabe has popped the reg out of her mouth after an exhale, is holding her to prevent her from putting the reg back in and to make her go unconscious, and then he lets her go, she falls to the bottom, he says he can't go get her, and he goes to the surface. (And then there's the whole idea of whether or not he did a safety stop on the way up.)
According to Mike Ball's people, Gabe was weirdly calm on the boat while all of this played out. Tina was brought to a second boat and Gabe apparently had no interest in going to that boat to be with her. Other divers on the main boat say Gabe showed zero remorse or signs of being upset while all of this was happening. Again, certainly not direct evidence. But certainly makes one stop and think.
Michael makes a point in his linked narrative of saying that he didn't find Gabe to be a monster (my term) when he first met him and actually sounds like he found him to be likable and even charming throughout the course of the trial. Fair enough but also not direct evidence. And don't forget that that's the way a lot of people described Ted Bundy too.
- Ken
Couple of quick thoughts without getting too deep into this.
1. As many of you know, I'm the forensic consultant to the L.A. County Coroner for scuba fatalities. Doesn't mean I'm always right but does mean I've looked at a number of cases here in L.A., including a couple where foul play was suspected.
2. I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor: When faced with a series of possible solutions, the simplest answer is often correct. (Think back to the Watergate tapes and the 18-minute gap: Is it more likely that Rosemary Woods contorted herself while answering a phone on the other side of the room and somehow erased the crucial part of the tape, or that Nixon or someone implicated deliberately erased it themselves?)
3. I agree with Michael that the Aussie police did a lousy job with their investigation. But I think some of that stems from that they had a strong suspicion about Gabe and then saw whatever evidence they needed to confirm that suspicion rather than looking at the totality of the facts to see if their suspicion was supported.
4. I think the Aussie explanation is about him turning off her air and then back on (explaining the bear-hug) is pure fiction. The easiest way to kill someone is to wait until they exhale, rip the reg from their mouth, and then hold them for 30 seconds or so until they go unconscious. The Aussie explanation is too complicated IMHO (see Occam).
5. Key aspects of Gabe's story seemed to change every time he told it and as he got better at telling it, he got better at explaining seeming anomalies.
6. Michael, in your narrative, you say the key thing that made you got "Aha!!! Not guilty" was the backwards computer battery and that it was the transmitter, not the actual computer. According to Mike Ball's people on the boat, it absolutely WAS the wrist computer battery that was backwards, NOT the transmitter battery.
7. Also, the idea of whether or not they should have been escorted and if they had Tina would be alive is moot because they weren't escorted. You can't argue that something that didn't happen would have changed the outcome because there's no way to test that theory. All we can go on is what DID happen and try to understand why.
8. It may be backwards reasoning, but the came-up-to-fix-the-computer scenario, DOES separate them from the group. It may have created an opportunity and Gabe acted on impulse thinking, "This may be my chance."
9. Circumstantial, but don't forget there's a video of him before the trip telling Tina to increase her life insurance policy and evidence that he thought she had (Tina's dad's a strong proponent of this) but she never signed the papers, although Gabe might have thought she had.
10. For me, the damning act - and what throws everything else Gabe says into question - is the bearhug or embrace underwater. I'm doing this from memory so can't cite the specific interview, but Gabe acknowledged that it happened however he claims that what it was was that he realized Tina was going to panic and what he was trying to do was calm her down and prevent her from bolting to the surface. I don't buy this at all.
11. First of all, Gabe's an inexperienced diver. For him to "realize" this would take a level of perception far beyond what it would seem his awareness was.
12. Secondly, I've been a NAUI instructor for over 35 years. I'm constantly on the lookout with new divers & students for signs of panic and bolting. It's hard to discern because it happens quickly. And even when I think I've spotted it, it's hard for me to get to them in time.
13. But let's assume that Tina was about to panic. Let's assume Gabe realized this. Let's assume he realized this just as Tina started to bolt and Gabe's "embrace" was meant to stop her. Ask yourself this: If a diver is starting to bolt and you as their buddy go to grab them, where on their body are you most likely to be able to make contact and hold on? For those who said legs or ankles, give yourself a gold star. Because once that diver has started up, they're rising above you and their shoulders will not be in range.
14. Miraculously, though, Gabe was able to hold Tina by the shoulders.
15. A truly panicked diver WILL be taking you to the surface with them. Unless you are holding them AND holding on to something solid (in this case, the Yongala), they're almost impossible to stop.
16. Yet, miraculously, Gabe - who's not skilled enough to retrieve a sinking diver - is somehow able to hold a panicky diver in place mid-water?
17. This is the part of the story I don't buy. I think this is the time when Gabe has popped the reg out of her mouth after an exhale, is holding her to prevent her from putting the reg back in and to make her go unconscious, and then he lets her go, she falls to the bottom, he says he can't go get her, and he goes to the surface. (And then there's the whole idea of whether or not he did a safety stop on the way up.)
According to Mike Ball's people, Gabe was weirdly calm on the boat while all of this played out. Tina was brought to a second boat and Gabe apparently had no interest in going to that boat to be with her. Other divers on the main boat say Gabe showed zero remorse or signs of being upset while all of this was happening. Again, certainly not direct evidence. But certainly makes one stop and think.
Michael makes a point in his linked narrative of saying that he didn't find Gabe to be a monster (my term) when he first met him and actually sounds like he found him to be likable and even charming throughout the course of the trial. Fair enough but also not direct evidence. And don't forget that that's the way a lot of people described Ted Bundy too.
- Ken
CuzzA
Wetwork for Hire
Ken,
Is it possible her death was simply an accident due to negligence?
Btw, if God forbid I should die of a diving incident, I hope BOTH you and Mike look into it.
Is it possible her death was simply an accident due to negligence?
Btw, if God forbid I should die of a diving incident, I hope BOTH you and Mike look into it.
Ken Kurtis
Contributor
I think there are just too many things here that don't make sense to think it's a simple accident. What I have generally found when you look into these things is that initially, there are a number of questions about what happened and why. And as you investigate, you start finding answers to those questions that seem to make sense. But when you investigate and as you seek to find answers you keep coming up with more questions (If this happened, then why didn't this happen), that raises a pink, if not red, flag.
Btw, if God forbid I should die of a diving incident, I hope BOTH you and Mike look into it.
I think I can speak for both Mike & myself in saying let's hope we never have to perform that service for you.
Also, sort of for everyone reading this thread, don't take any of my comments as a denigration of Mike. Many times over the years, I've been in situations where other experts who I like and respect look at the same evidence I see and come to very different conclusions. One of the things I find challenging and interesting/exciting about all of this is that it's usually like trying to put together a very complex jigsaw puzzle and you never have all of the pieces. So there's a lot of guesswork and assumptions that have to come into play and that's one reason two equally competent experts can come to radically different conclusions.
- Ken
Similar threads
