Tina Watson Death - The Full Story

[Foxfish]

Thanks Michael. That gives a bit of insight into where the defence was heading.

I found a couple of things interesting. Firstly the time taken to die from asphyxiation is greater when underwater. When doing a freediving course I was taught about the mammalian dive reflex which we humans posess. It is triggered by the presence of water on the face and water pressure and causes the hearbeat to slow and hence reduces oxygen consumption. Extreme cold can also extend the period until a person becomes clinically dead.

Edmonds comments appear to be in brief note form and require some deciphering.

Her problem was from aspiration leading to hypoxia, leading to unconsciousness. PROB < 1 minute"

This comment suggests that the time to drown after aspiration of saltwater is less than 1 minute. I'd be interested to know what the 1 minute refers to and whether this time is greater than a typical drowning. This may be due to the laryngospasm occurring in normal drowning but not in saltwater aspiration.

I found an article on saltwater aspiration here:

Saltwater Aspiration Syndrome

It states that Dr Edmonds first described the condition. It goes on to claim however that it would be unlikely to be a cause of death.

Quote from the article:

In saltwater drownings and saltwater "wet" near-drownings (those that involve aspiration), the hypertonicity of the aspirated fluid draws intravascular fluid into the already fluid-filled alveoli, resulting in ventilation-perfusion abnormalities and intrapulmonary shunting. Intravascular hypovolemia, hemoconcentration, and electrolyte abnormalities can result, although this is not usually seen clinically in near-drowning survivors because they rarely aspirate enough water to produce these effects. It is doubtful that there is enough volume aspirated through a regulator to cause significant electrolyte abnormalities.

Salt water aspiration sounds a lot like pulmonary aspiration. In the following link it states that death from pulmonary aspiration can occur within a couple of minutes.

Pulmonary aspiration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consequences of pulmonary aspiration range from no injury at all, to chemical pneumonitis or pneumonia, to death within minutes from asphyxiation. These consequences depend in part on the volume, chemical composition, particle size, presence or absence of infectious agents, and underlying health status of the person.

After looking at these references I re-read the comments in McFadyen's post from Edmonds on the condition. They are posted below.

The collection of sea water in the regulator may produce a bubbling or &#8220;wet&#8221; sensation during inspiration, and a nebulised spray is inhaled into the lungs. This has two major consequences. Shunting of the pulmonary circulation across poorly aerated alveoli rapidly results in hypoxia. Any concomitant reduction of carbon dioxide exhalation is overcome by the body increasing the minute ventilation (a natural physiological response to carbon dioxide) &#8211; thereby aggravating the over-breathing but not appreciably correcting the hypoxia. The hypoxia induces fatigue, with unconsciousness, then hypoxic spasms and death in severe cases, The cause of death is usually attributed, at autopsy, to drowning. The lungs become fluid filled and heavy with sea water, mucus and oedema.

A somewhat more delayed effect is the accumulation of osmotic fluid in the lungs, from the blood, aggravating the pulmonary oedema, and the other clinical effects, associated with drowning.

Salt water aspiration is a prelude to 37% of the recreational diving fatalities. In some series it is incorporated, incorrectly, as "asphyxia"."

My interpretation of this is that salt water aspiration is when you inhale air from your regulator with an amount of water that forms tiny droplets in the air stream. These small droplets get inhaled into the tiny sacs in you lungs called alveoli (I'll call them sacs) where the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide take place. The salt water droplets reduce the effectiveness of the oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange in the sacs. (I don't understand how!). This results in a reduction of oxygen transferred to the blood stream. If your oxygen level falls to dangerously low levels you are said to be hypoxic. High levels of carbon dioxide makes you want to breathe. The reduction in oxygen levels and increase in carbon dioxide levels makes you want to breath more. The increased breathing rate doesn't really help you get the oxygen where it is needed and the increased breathing rate increases the amount of water spray that is inhaled into the lungs. If this continues for long enough the victim will become unconscious, have 'samba' convulsions and then die. Salt water in the lungs also aggravates the sacs. A delayed affect of inhaling salt water is fluid from blood in the sac tending to collect in the sacs. This fluid plus mucous plus the seawater in the lungs gives the appearance that the person drowned when in fact they could have died from saltwater aspiration. Edmond's believes saltwater aspiration occurs in 37 % of fatalities in recreational divers.

That said, I thought the person who did the autopsy was adament that Tina drowned in the recent testimony given in court.

(Edit: Added comments about saltwater aspiration from Edmonds)

 

[~zeroed~]

1. As mentioned previously, by 'propaganda' I was referring to ongoing attempts by some on this thread to incriminate Gabe with more of the same old hearsay and innuendo. From what I've seen in the discussions to date on this forum, the people who have refused to swallow the media tripe and who have shown the greatest regard for truth and substantiated evidence as a basis for prosecution have concluded that Gabe did not have a case to answer. Apparently you feel the same way so clearly my previous comments are not directed toward yourself. If they were phrased in terms that could be construed in such a manner may I offer my humblest apologies.

They are as entitled to their opinion as you are. If it goes over and over the same old arguments (may I say this thread does too to an extent) then that's the way it is. Those supporting the Watson case have had their say, here in this thread and other threads. You're implying you have a right to "speak" but if those personally involved find that painful they shouldn't read. I cannot accept that argument.

2. Explain why discussing the moments before Tina drowned is not relevant. Have you read the OP. This thread was intended to discuss the experience and knowledge gained by Michael from his time in the US with the defence. I gave a number of reasons why I consider the matter to be important. I'd infer from Michael's response that he at least did not consider it to be irrelevant.

Because I believe our "right to know" does not show respect for either family. I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not appropriate in THIS thread. Let me ask: if someone you cared for died by drowning and you were reading here, would you find the examination of that type of death to be painful and hurtful? I would. I believe that could have been discussed elsewhere or even in private if you "needed to know".

3. Tell me where I stated you should not post on this thread. I did say that if you find the topic of discussion unpalatable no one is forcing you to read it and engage in the discussion. The topic for discussion was defined in the OP. It is expected that if you engage in the discussion you should remain on topic. I don't see what this has to do with censorship.

I wasn't alluding to me; I was alluding to the fact you suggested family members shouldn't be here if they don't like what they read. I disagree on this point. I think we should show respect because we KNOW they read here. I also believe that people being human will read because they need to know what's being said, hurtful as that can be.

4. The fact that a number of people are engaging in sensible and civil dialogue regarding Michael's recent experience in the US would suggest to me that this discussion has not run its course. I'm left with wondering why there are some who resent this information being shared and discussed. Any attempt to stop such discussion would smack of censorship.

My opinion, my words. I'm allowed to post my thoughts just as you are. I did not suggest anywhere that anyone be silenced or censored. I'm stating an opinion that I think this topic needs to come to an end, and I thank Bowlofpetunias for her post on that subject.

5. As mentioned before, it was Tommy Thompson who unlatched the gate and let the media horse bolt, putting the whole case into the public areana. Claiming now that all discussion on this forum should now desist out of respect for the family smacks of irony - and hypocrisy. Can I suggest that if Mr Thomas really did want to keep the feuding between the families as a private matter he should take a leaf out of the Watson families book. From what I've seen and read, the way they have responded in the media in spite of the gross miscarriage of injustice that Gabe and the family has endured has been impeccable.

People will do what they will, and it is not up to us to say whether they should or shouldn't be here. I believe though that respect shown for one family should be shown to the other no matter that we disagree with them or the way they have reacted.

This is the way I feel. My apologies to you also if it doesn't jell with your opinion; we are still entitled to express them though and I thank this board for that opportunity.

 

[Foxfish]

So Zeroed, lets get this straight - answer Yes or No.

1. Do you think that the Gabe haters have a right to use this thread as a springboard for their ongoing insinuations that Gabe murdered Tina with little reference to the OP?

2. Do you think that the Gabe haters should limit their discussion to the points relevant to and raised in the OP (original post) of this thread?

3. Do you think there is anything wrong with the Gabe haters coming onto this thread and suggesting that Gabe probably murdered Tina in spite of the case being dismissed in two courts?

4. Do you think ongoing insinuations on this forum that Tina was murdered by Gabe shows respect (the kind of respect you say that should be shown toward the Thomas family) for the findings of the court or for the Watson family?

5. Do you believe that it is wrong for those of us trying to gain a better understanding from Michael McFadyen's experience to continue this discussion?

6. Do you think it is appropriate for the Gabe haters to come onto this thread and express their hate for Gabe with little attempt to address the matters raised in the OP?

 

[~zeroed~]

So Zeroed, lets get this straight - answer Yes or No.

1. Do you think that the Gabe haters have a right to use this thread as a springboard for their ongoing insinuations that Gabe murdered Tina with little reference to the OP?

2. Do you think that the Gabe haters should limit their discussion to the points relevant to and raised in the OP (original post) of this thread?

3. Do you think there is anything wrong with the Gabe haters coming onto this thread and suggesting that Gabe probably murdered Tina in spite of the case being dismissed in two courts?

4. Do you think ongoing insinuations on this forum that Tina was murdered by Gabe shows respect (the kind of respect you say that should be shown toward the Thomas family) for the findings of the court or for the Watson family?

5. Do you believe that it is wrong for those of us trying to gain a better understanding from Michael McFadyen's experience to continue this discussion?

6. Do you think it is appropriate for the Gabe haters to come onto this thread and express their hate for Gabe with little attempt to address the matters raised in the OP?

I'll answer with this:

We can choose to ignore their posts, we can block them I believe, we can report them, but unless they are violating the terms of service they still have a right to post. We do not have to agree with everyone who posts here, just as you and I do not agree. We may never understand everyone's motives for posting, and we may find some people intensely annoying. I've said this before: those who made their mind up Gabe was guilty will never be swayed no matter how many more words are written here; those who have concluded he is innocent do not need to be convinced.


Look elsewhere on this board. There are many threads which get off-topic, do not answer the original poster's question, or have opinions expressed with which you heartily disagree, and maybe even loath. But as Evelyn Hall said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".


For myself, I have nothing further to add on this topic.


I have to say, "Goodnight."

 

[Divedoggie]

Media bias has been so extreme. At least this continued discussion lends a tiny bit of balance and enables passers by to examine other perspectives, and diver's perspectives.

I like K_girl's comments. I like the emotion and the logic used together to sum up her feelings about the events and the outcome of the trial. She does an objective and wonderful job of bringing it down to a personal level and lending insight into the Thomas's view.
Like Clownfishsydney, she has dedicated much time and research over the years and draws a conclusion in this thread, that I missed seeing from her at the end of the previous thread.

The exchange between zeroed and my friend Foxfish is a little over the top. Both have valid points. As Foxfish suggested, maybe some people can stop reading, and as zeroed suggested, maybe some people can stop posting.
I've already learned a bit more than I knew before, especially from the post on Dr Edmond's observations and Foxfish's follow up. I've been working on an outline of the entire situation to use as a teaching tool in my University courses. The specific science that Clownfishsydney relayed from Dr Edmonds, really helps.

Ayisha has been steadfast in her support for the Thomases and I respect that as well. She asked that I not insult her intelligence, and I really apologize if she took any of my posts as such. I did infer that some people who have shown up here with the continued opinion of premeditated murder, have not actually read and absorbed the material provided by McFadyen, Edmonds, bowlofpetunias, Foxfish, myself, and many others. I know that Ayisha has read and considered everything and has an unbiased final opinion.

Bowlofpetunias does an amazing job of researching/reading, digesting and then organizing her thoughts into a very sensical and readable form. Her posts are sensitive, thought provoking, helpful and intelligent.

Clownfishsydney has had the commitment and patience and dedication to research and compile a massive amount of information. He has then taken the time to put together extensive posts and links to his extensive blog. He has also taken the time to travel half way around the world on his own dime, to do the right thing. I have the utmost respect for him.

In the end, if any understanding and healing can occur in the Thomas family, maybe the fact that we keep this story alive, in some way keeps Tina alive. By that I mean that we and others can continue to learn from her situation, that the dive industry makes some adjustments by teaching more thoroughly, by organizing dive trips more meticulously, by approaching diving with more humility, by not pressuring anybody into diving, and so on.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Just a couple quick comments (I seem to spend a lot of time here lately).

Years ago I was tested for asthma. The test involved breathing in a mist of normal saline (medical salt water). MY lung function was tested before and after to measure the difference. They told me that the "salt water" was the most effective way to trigger an asthma attach in someone prone to it. Normal saline matches the ph balance of human cells, sea water does not. I am not really sure if that is relevant or just an interesting fact to me

IN my classes I tend to simplify things so students with no previous knowledge can relate. Your lungs are pretty much like an upside down tree with the branches being the Bronchi the twigs being the bronchioles and the Alveoli kinda like the leaves (in reality more like clumps of grapes). You have to understand that the air passages get to tiny diameters as do the alveoli. The oxygen jumps from the alveloi to the capillaries surrounding them and carbon dioxide jumps back to be exhaled. It takes very little in the form of swelling, fluid or spasm to interfere with this exchange in some of these tiny cells.

We have a system in place where (in a normal healthy person) the increased level of carbon dioxide (think of that as an waste product produced when we process oxygen) causes us to exhale ... that is followed by inhalation. Too much carbon dioxide makes us exhale and therefor inhale quicker.

Spoiler

This is why it made sense to me when I was taught "If you are stressed or feeling out of breath underwater the best thing you can do is settle to the bottom if it is not too deep or grab onto something if it is safe or just try and be as still as you can... exhale deeply and relax and just breathe until it settles. (I don't know if Tina was taught this and couldn't follow it or what but a stationary diver normally will get attention fairly quickly and is easier to locate than someone swimming around in a panic)

I describe it like this.. Think of Homer Simpson.. sitting his little control room at the base of your brain. His job is to watch the needle that measures your carbon dioxide levels and hit a button to make you exhale to clear it and replace it with oxygen. Something happens so when he pushes the button... the carbon dioxide level stays high... he pushes the button again and again.. pretty soon that carbon dioxide gets so high there isn't enough oxygen in the control room to keep him awake and he goes to sleep and no longer pushes the button. The system fails and unless external intervention occurs death occurs.

 

[Kreed]

I think it's interesting that because I am Tina's cousin, my posts are viewed as some vendetta against the Watson's. That simply is not the case. Because I miss my cousin also doesn't mean that my views should be invalid. Because I disagree with Michael and Carl Edmonds doesn't mean that I'm wrong for thinking that Gabe murdered Tina. What most people seem to be overlooking is that there was a time when Tina wasn't dead. We saw the things that Gabe did to her before they were even married that were just not right. Holding her engagement ring hostage for several months before the wedding for . He had it in a bag on top of the tv and told her if she touched it, she would never get it. Throwing pizza in her face at a restaurant, because she went to eat with her sister. Standing on top of the hill at Blue Water to make sure she did all her dives. Tina NEVER wanted to scuba dive, she was terrified. She did it because Gabe said if she expected him to do things she liked to do, then she needed to do things he liked to do. He chose scuba diving even though it terrified her. Then there were the things he did after she died. My uncle was not even notified that Tina had died until 15-20 hours after it happened. He promised he would fly back with her body, and didn't saying that he had a terrible earache. The doctor found nothing wrong with his ears. The day of the funeral the Watson's demanded all the wedding gifts and the rest of Tina's belongings. Could this maybe have waited a few days? At the funeral, when Amanda said how pretty she was, Gabe replied, "at least her breasts are perky.".Gabe said that he and Tina talked on the flight to Australia, what she wanted at her funeral. Anyone that knew Tina at all, knew she would never have had that conversation, she always changed the subject when it came to death. Gabe said he wanted doves released at her funeral, Tina was a huge animal lover, it would have upset her very badly to know that doves were caged. Is all of this information proof that he killed Tina? No. But it does say alot about his character. There are so many other things that make Gabe look like a sociopath, it's scary. He said he was taking the flowers off Tina's grave because she wouldn't have liked them, purple was her favorite color and most of the time that's what was put there. They were replaced often. Why did he remove the fresh flowers that were placed? They weren't "fake". So who was taking the flowers off the grave when he was in Australia? So our belief that Gabe killed Tina was not based on just the information we were given, it was also based on the past 8 1/2 years of dealing with all the horrible things that happened both before the wedding and after her death. Michael and Carl may have done lots of research, but they don't know everything and have never had a conversation with me or any of my family. Gabe was not found not guilty two times. He made a plea deal and admitted to being a bad dive buddy. In Alabama, he was aquitted. Neither time is that considered not guilty. We all miss Tina very much, but we go to bed every night knowing that she is in a good place and that she can never be hurt again. I do know that one day Gabe will have to answer for anything that he's done, and that brings us the most peace.

 

[clownfishsydney]

Kreed, I do not doubt that some things Gabe might have done were not to the liking of the Thomas family. However, some of what you have written and is in statements made by friends and family of Tina cannot be corroborated by anyone else. A simple one is the "perky breasts" comment. If Gabe did indeed say this and it so upset Amanda, why did she invite Gabe a few weeks later to come to a football match with her and her husband? Surely if it was said, she would not invite Gabe to the game. Also, why is this claim not in her statement made to the Police?

It is not true that Gabe did not have ear damage. The NZ doctor said that there was scar tissue visible from previous damage. Even without this, it is very possible (as all divers will tell you) to get tremendous pain in the ears from changes of pressure. There might not even be much visible damage. However, in this case, I tend to agree (as if you read my web site) that this was an exaggeration so Gabe did not have to confront Tommy at the airport.

Just because Gabe might have done some things that were not right in terms of accepted "normal" behaviour to the Thomas family does not mean he killed Tina.

Both Dr Edmonds and I looked at all the evidence without ever having spoken to Gabe. We came to the same conclusions independently. Dr Edmonds and I never met till after this. Both of us thought, based on the book and media reports, that we would not like Gabe. However, once we did we found him to be totally different to the person made out in the book and media. This did not change our opinion of what happened, but gave us a different viewpoint of him.

Finally, I repeat the offer of Dr Edmonds and myself to discuss this matter fully with Tommy. He can contact me at any time via my web site or ask me for Dr Edmonds' contact details.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Kreed I am glad you are finding peace in thinking of Tina in a better place. It is terrible that you have gone through all this but it is also terrible that EVERYONE INVOLVED has gone through this. Many of us have said that some of Gabe's actions were bizzare many feel they would have acted differently in his position.. non can say for sure unless they are in that position. We all want to think the best of ourselves and that leads us to believe we are capable of things we are not on occasion. It is a pretty nasty experience when you realize what you are and are not capable of. Kinda bursts your bubble A LOT.

I can not say I understand how you and your family feel.. nobody can really do that! I can say I remember the pain and anger within my family when my brother was killed by a drunk driver two weeks before his daughter was born. I know how the pain and anger impacted my loved ones and their memories of the event, relationships before and after the event became so distorted for some I was there through it all and my memories and those of others are wildly different.. everyone believes their memories are correct but All the pain and emotion colour things, distort things and some of my family still has not recovered:crying2: Some of my family members even turned on each other and the damage done has never been repaired. It is terrible to lose a loved one who is healthy and young and full of life then just gone under terrible circumstances.

We as divers are trying to look at this in a respectful way and honour Tina's memory by learning from the event. I hope this will give some comfort that others may be safer because of her. Nothing will bring her back and nothing can justify her death but we hope to learn from it so it is not in vain We are trying to respectfully put emotions aside and look at the facts of the event. Dr Edmunds is one of if not THE world leading expert on dive deaths. He has investigated so many tragedies, he has written the Dive medicine text book. I personally trust his analysis of what happened to Tina on that day. That does not mean that He or I or anyone necessarily think Gabe is a knight in shining armour either. I can not know the truth of what happened between Tina and Gabe or the rest of the family. I can only look at the evidence and facts presented on that dive and the evidence presented that was acceptable to the judicial system.

It would be unfair of me to judge you or Gabe or anyone based on other people's opinions who have a bias. I can only judge what I see personally. What I see are a lot of people in pain trying to figure out a reason for the unreasonable. Time does make things easier, the pain may never go away but in my family's case holding onto the anger only heightened and extended the pain. I pray you will find peace, solace and joy in your memories of Tina.

 

[Lookmanohands]

Kreed, I think the problem is you are treating things that are not "facts" and trying to use them to support your case.

Don't you think it would best serve your claim if you used "facts" from the dive to support your murder claim instead of things that can't be proven and happened after the fact? Like I don't know, maybe Dr. Stutz saying he didn't see Gabe turn Tina's air off. That Gabe's hands were at her armpits, and that they were only together for 10-30 seconds and possibly up to 1ft apart? Only conjecture and speculation can lead to a result of turning her air off in this scenario.

Maybe look at the math of the dive. The air consumption rates on Micheal's website. Do you realize it is mathematically impossible for Tina to have consumed that much air in that short amount of time if her air were shut off for the time required to die? If I am understanding the chart right she consumed 1/3 of her tank, 1000psi in about 5 minutes. The time needed for Gabe to pull off what you and others allege is just not there. Other than just speculating about what happened. Darn those silly verifiable and scientifically tested facts.

You should look at the time frame of Gabe getting back to the mainland before you criticize the time it took for Tommy to be notified. It was about 6-7 hours after Tina died until Gabe got back to land. Then however many more hours until he called home to notify his parents. Then it was up to his dad to track down Tommy. And if you remember Tommy stated somewhere Mr. Watson left him a message and then Tommy called him back.

BTW, ignoring dive related advice from Dr. Carl Edmunds is like ignoring Tiger Woods on golf related advice. That's just plain silly.

And here is why we don't allow anyone to be convicted of a crime on speculation and hearsay.

"Kerri, Tina told me, you told her she needed to wear 20 lbs of weight for her ocean dive." This led to her being grossly over weighted and being unable to get herself to the surface and was the first contributing factor to her death. "Tina told me she was always afraid to be around you because you were obsessed with her Gone With the Wind stuff and you told her you would kill her if she didn't give it to you."

Now, everything in bold and " " is made up. But see how now all the sudden it could have been you that was responsible for Tina's death based on statements that can't be proven. It is now up to you to prove those statements are not true if they are to be accepted as fact. That's not how the system works and that is the reason why. To keep people from making stuff up to send someone to jail.

Kreed, I do want to know one thing. Everyone keeps saying Gabe killed Tina for life insurance money. Him and his family are very well off. Well into the upper middle class. At least before legal fees. So what did Gabe need this money for? Even if it was the best case scenario of I think I read somewhere $210,000. Drug debts, gambling debts, bad investments, several baby mommas? Please explain that one to me. You do realize that his ol' man was in the process of retiring and that amount of money would have been maybe 2 years combined income for Gabe and Tina since he would have been running the family business at that point.