Tina Watson Death - The Full Story

[K_girl]

Kgirl, I knew you wouldn't let me down. Seriously, are you quoting "honeymoon dive"? Please tell me you got your info from some place other than the book and Nancy Grace?
Gabe was yelling at Tina for what he thought she was doing wrong and telling her she has to learn how to dive because he's really a good guy and he really thought that would be the best thing for her
Gabe's dive instructor testified he was not at her training sessions.

Kgirl - Got a question for ya. Dr. Stutz testified at the trial and inquest that as Tina and the other diver believed to be Gabe separated, Tina was alive. If Gabe turned her air off and waited til she was dead before turning it back on, how did Dr. Stutz come to the conclusion she was alive? You have to take Dr. Stutz as all or none. If he is wrong about one part, he has to be suspect to be wrong about everything he saw. At the trial he was asked by the defense was Tina alive when the two divers separated, he answered yes, she was alive. When the state re x Stutz, he said again, she was alive, but dying. If she was "dying", she was not dead. If she was not dead, and Gabe already was on the way to the surface as reported by Stutz, her air was on. If her air was on and she was alive as per Stutz, how did Gabe commit murder by turning her air off?

I had personal information that Watson was at her training sessions and yelling at her from a personal non-public source that I trust. I did not see any reporting about the trial that stated otherwise that the dive instructor testified that Watson was not at her training sessions, if you have the link to that report, I would be interested.

The case is over and I think it is useless to go over the Stutz information as I am not interested in trying to convict Watson of murder in the blog-es-sphere when that is clearly not going to happen in a court of law. My premise has always been that it should have gone to trial. The judge said there was not a prima facie case and I am going to accept that ruling. When I discussed this before that happened, I tried to talk about how a jury could potentially see all the information, and actually discussed it from both sides. Once the case was over, any analysis as to how the jury could intrepet the information is over for me. I will no longer participate in that discussion.

I do still think that Gabe Watson had major cuplability for the numerous mistakes he made that led to Tina's death because of his behavior as a controlling, manipulative and arrogant personality. Tina never would have gone scuba diving otherwise, let alone jumped into a 90-foot, strong current dive. She trusted Gabe Watson more than Wade Singleton and there was a reason for that. She and Watson were both offered the orientation dive twice, but refused both times. Watson ultimately convinced Tina that she didn't need anyone but him. There is no denying that fact.

But I think there can be a lesson learned here and acted upon to help protect future divers who face overbearing pressure to dive. I do think that certifying agencies can put together criteria that helps to weed out these kinds of situations and save lives. I personally think that the certifying agency had more culpability than the dive operator in Tina's case. Everytime I go diving, I sign a disclaimer that I understand the rules and the dangers of diving, that I am adequately trained and that I will listen carefully to the briefing. Apparently, dive ops in Australia try to go a little further to protect the divers with an orientation dive required under certain circumstances, but that is not the case in the U.S. And Gabe Watson was from the U.S. Here, we are basically told which way to go and it is up to you to get back. We don't have DM's or guides here unless you pay extra for one. If the dive op in Australia was operating under the same procedures practiced here in the U.S., you could not blame the dive op in this case. That would simply go away and that is why I think that argument basically goes nowhere in terms of the Watson case.

So if you want to protect divers worldwide, and not just in Australia, it really needs to start with the certifying agencies. Add a section to the health questionnaire about why someone wants to learn how to dive. Train instructors on what to look for and encourage instructors to tell someone they are not diving for the right reasons and refuse to certify. Most especially if they are having panic problems in the water. That person who doesn't get certified will more than likely, be grateful. In Tina's case, she most certainly expressed that she under extreme pressure to be certified to the DM which should be mentioned to the instructor. I don't recall if the question was asked whether or not the DM discussed it with the instructor. The DM apparently felt sorry for Tina because she was under pressure to be certified and he was trying to help her do that. In a situation like this, the instructor should have the right to say (and be trained to say) that they want to speak to the person who wants the diver to be certified. If they determine the potential diver really does not want to dive and are under too much pressure, they should refuse to certify. You can't control what each and every dive op does in each and every country. Really, this needs to be done by the certifying agency.

I want to clarify that I don't blame Tina's instructor or DM because I don't think that there are any standards set for this kind of thing. I'm saying that maybe there should be. If Tina's statement didn't mean anything to the DM, he would never have remembered as being significant and it would not have ever been mentioned. Most certainly something about Tina's statement stuck in his mind.

These are the kinds of discussions that I think will help to heal, do a better job and move on. But in order to that, you have to learn to identify and understand how to deal with personalities like Gabe Watson. Pretending he was not controlling, manipulative and arrogant, had basically little culpability in Tina's death and is really some kind of great guy doesn't get us there. Because he's not. We need to use him as the model in order to identify potential divers who are under too much pressure to learn how to dive.

There were statements made by both Tina and Watson that should not be overlooked and should raise a red flag. Tina's statement that she had to get certified or her boyfriend will kill her was a statement that should not be dismissed. Certainly, Tina did not think Watson was going to kill her, but it is a clear indication that she was under pressure to learn how to dive. At that point, there should have been further questions asked of both Tina and Watson. We can take a lesson from school shooting incidents that have been prevented because students and teachers were taught not to ignore and dismiss certain statements.

I would like to see Tina's family refocus their efforts in this area. Kreed - read the book "The Last Dive." You will see how close, personal and disfunctional relationships can actually be dangerous in diving. Tina should have never gone scuba diving. Help us to shed light on why she chose to do it against her own fear and desire and how it can be prevented from happening again in the future by setting new standards by the certifying agencies.

I think what your family has accomplished so far is that if someone does get the idea that murder-by-scuba is easy, they better think twice. I think dive ops and enforcement have also learned some valuable lessons in the preservation of evidence, not just in case of answering whether or not a scuba death is a murder, but in order to provide more answers for all scuba deaths. For instance, I think the position of the tank nozzle could have been key. That tank should have been set aside and thoroughly examined.

 

[boulderjohn]

She and Watson were both offered the orientation dive twice, but refused both times. Watson ultimately convinced Tina that she didn't need anyone but him. There is no denying that fact.

Is that true? I thought that in the last thread it was determined that no orientation dive was offered. In any event, according to the rules, it should not have been a choice. It was thus the operator (not Tina or Gabe) who made the decision.

I do think that certifying agencies can put together criteria that helps to weed out these kinds of situations and save lives. I personally think that the certifying agency had more culpability than the dive operator in Tina's case. Everytime I go diving, I sign a disclaimer that I understand the rules and the dangers of diving and that I will listen carefully to the briefing.

This has nothing to do with scuba diving agencies. That is a policy of the operator. Agencies have no control over those policies.

Apparently, dive ops in Australia try to go a little further to protect the divers with an orientation dive required under certain circumstances, but that is not the case in the U.S. And Gabe Watson was from the U.S. Here, we are basically told which way to go and it is up to you to get back. We don't have DM's or guides here unless you pay extra for one.

Again, this has nothing to do with an agency. In Australia, it is a matter of law and operator policy. An orientation dive is different from a general dive with a DM or guide. Once again, the need for such a dive or having a DM in the water with you varies greatly from area to area and operator to operator around the world. I, too, was on a liveaboard in Australia at just about the same time as this incident--within months of it. I was never offered an orientation dive, and at no time did I have a DM lead a dive I did. A DM was often in the water in case a diver wanted to make use of him, but I never did. I have encountered similar situations all over the world.

So if you want to protect divers worldwide, and not just in Australia, it really needs to start with the certifying agencies. Add a section to the health questionnaire about why someone wants to learn how to dive. Train instructors on what to look for and encourage instructors to tell someone they are not diving for the right reasons and refuse to certify. Most especially if they are having panic problems in the water.

That is already true. No instructor should ever certify someone who is not ready to dive. Each agency uses different language to say that, but a diver who is prone to panic in benign conditions should not be certified. When I saw the depth and duration of her certifying dives, I saw that she had even less than the bare minimum time required for those dives.

In a situation like this, the instructor should have the right to say (and be trained to say) that they want to speak to the person who wants the diver to be certified. If they determine the potential diver really does not want to dive and are under too much pressure, they should refuse to certify. You can't control what each and every dive op does in each and every country. Really, this needs to be done by the certifying agency.

It is up to the instructor now, and it was up to the instructor then.

I want to clarify that I don't blame Tina's instructor because I don't think that there are any standards set for this kind of thing.

We don't judge the person's dive skill by the motivation for diving. MANY successful divers were talked into getting certified. Many such people are enthusiastic about diving by the end of the class. If they come through the training with the necessary skills and knowledge, then they are certified. If they are panicking during skills demonstration, then they should not be.

 

[K_girl]

Has anybody here checked out this thread? http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/diving-related/237087-why-so-many-female-divers-codependent.html There are heaps of posts about women (and some men) who were/are pressured into diving by their partners. Nothing ominous or sinister about it. Some really take to it others don't. Every person who starts to dive does so for a reason that they feel is worth the effort. Choosing to continue is also a personal choice. It seems to me every time I hear about Tina taking up diving the quote goes along the line of.."he said if I wanted him to do the things I like that I need to do the things he likes" sounds like fair reasoning to me

I will try to get to the link you provided, but I have to disagree with the "fair reasoning" of Tina's statement. I think that is a statement that should have put up a potential red flag and be cause for more questioning of Tina's motivation to dive. It may have turned out that you were right, but then again not. Let me give you my experience. I've told the story of how I started to dive by saying my boyfriend talked me into learning how to dive. I followed up with - I enjoyed the pool sessions, but had some difficulties in cold water, but there was something about that I liked, the feeling of weightlessness. So I kept at it. When I finally got to warm water - it was so awesome. At first, I was very dependent on him, and stuck to him like glue, but I set certain ground rules about depth and things I wanted to accomplish before I went below 60 feet (i.e. open water safety stops). He never tried to talk me into doing anything more than what I was comfortable with.

So Tina says "he said if I wanted him to do the things I like that I need to do the things he likes." You are missing the nuance of her statement. Tina says that Watson is telling her what SHE NEEDS TO DO in order to make him happy. That is the essence of control. What she follows up with may be fine, but this not a good start and should be a potential red flag and followed-up on. My boyfriend would have never talked to me like that. He talked about how much he enjoyed diving and told me stories and he thought I might enjoy it too. Anyone who told me that I had to do something in order to make them happy - I'd walk away. But not Tina. And what is the reason for that? Does she talk about scuba diving in any other context other than she "has to?" Or "Gabe will take care of me." None that we have heard. Sorry, but I think you are wrong.

Also, I don't recall anyone ever saying that Gabe Watson did anything that Tina liked to do that he was not necessarily into himself. He did not like spending time with her family. The pizza-throwing incident had something to do with Tina spending time with her sister if I recall correctly. I'd like to know what thing Watson did to please Tina that came anywhere near the danger level, cost and commitment that diving takes. My guess - probably nothing. Controlling and self-absorbed idiot.

 

[Mark Derail]

K_Girl, I have yet to read, where and how exactly, Gabe crossed the line into 'murder'.

If a girl is pressured into getting into her BF's car and he is DUI, has a crash and she is killed, it is not premeditated murder. If he wasn't DUI, but having an argument, is distracted, accident causing her death, he won't be accused the same. In both scenarios, it isn't murder, even if the GF was coerced by the BF into getting in the car.

If the BF disables the passenger airbag and crashes on purpose, then it would be murder.

Did Gabe take advantage of a situation for an unplanned murder? A murder of opportunity, there still would have to be a motive.

So I agree that Tina was unprepared, pressured into doing something that she wasn't comfortable with. Same could be said of peer pressure into a bunji jump off a bridge.

So, someone explain to me how the facts so far stated lead to her being murdered, vs, death by accident. There is a big difference in my opinion.

 

[K_girl]

John - Yes, check near the beginning of Watson statements on-line. He did not like calling it an orientation dive, but what he described that they offered was essentially an orientation dive.

In terms of what is required in Australia or by the dive op, I am not disputing that. I understand the difference between certification and dive operator policies. You really didn't understand my ulitmate point that if you want to protect more divers you need to start with making changes to the certification process. I think that you and I would agree that the certification process is what ultimately failed Tina. But where we differ is that panic should not be the only measure. It can be a major indicator though. Tina had all the wrong reasons for learning to dive. She wasn't "talked" into it, she was "pressured" into it. And I believe all of that is important to understand the difference and for instructors to recognize the difference. Here is why I think it is important. Someone may be able to get past panic for certification, as Tina must have ultimately done to the satisfaction of the dive instructor. But if they are unduly pressured into becoming certified, they can be unduly pressured into doing a dive they may otherwise not want to do. I think you also skipped over the part where I said the instructor should have the right to talk to the person WHO WANTS THE DIVER TO BE CERTIFIED (i.e. Gabe Watson). Of course, they are going to talk to Tina - duh. In other words, I think they should be able to say to Tina - in order for you to be certified, we will need to talk to your dive partner.

I think I probably had the bare minimum in terms of my certification dive times as well. I definitely had difficulties and panic issues in cold water. And I kept saying to myself near the end of each certification dive, "What can I say to get out of this?" But I would rest between each dive and then say, OK I'm going to keep going. The difference between me and Tina was, I did not feel "pressured" by my boyfriend to dive. If I really didn't want to do it, I know he would have been OK with it. I feel that Tina's statement was an indication that Watson would not have been OK with her not getting certified. And this should have raised a red flag during the certification process for further questioning of Tina's motives to dive. Undo pressure to dive is the wrong motive to dive.

We need to figure out a way to distinguish the difference between "talked into" and "undo pressure." And it is important to understand and to figure out how to deal with it. Many schools have figured out a way to identify potential shooting threats by training students and teachers to recognize what kind of talk should be paid attention to and what can be ignored. I am saying why can't some of the same principals be applied to certification of scuba divers who are under "undo pressure" to learn how to dive?

Mark and 300bar - I have not said, nor will I ever say that Gabe Watson is a murderer. I said he is culpable for her death because of a long series of poor decision-making and his own arrogance. He served 18 months in prison in Australia for that.

 

[300bar]

K_Girl, I have yet to read, where and how exactly, Gabe crossed the line into 'murder'.

If a girl is pressured into getting into her BF's car and he is DUI, has a crash and she is killed, it is not premeditated murder. If he wasn't DUI, but having an argument, is distracted, accident causing her death, he won't be accused the same. In both scenarios, it isn't murder, even if the GF was coerced by the BF into getting in the car.

If the BF disables the passenger airbag and crashes on purpose, then it would be murder.

Did Gabe take advantage of a situation for an unplanned murder? A murder of opportunity, there still would have to be a motive.

So I agree that Tina was unprepared, pressured into doing something that she wasn't comfortable with. Same could be said of peer pressure into a bunji jump off a bridge.

So, someone explain to me how the facts so far stated lead to her being murdered, vs, killed. There is a big difference in my opinion.

@ Mark,
It's not that difficult, we've got a "small"group of friends and family of Tina here.
NONE of them where on the site, none have a clue what REALY went on.
BUT they are emotionaly involved and are determent to keep this going.
They know they are wrong, the court told them so.
But they just want to HANG/SHOOT/ ELECTROCUTE or what ever, a guy called Gabe.
Gabe IMO is just guilty of being simple,incomprtent and maybe poorly trained.(Happens all the time)
Tina and Gabe where just doing a dive they NEVER should have been doing.
IMO. Murder.... NOWAY, just wrong place wrong time and BAD judgement by the dive operator.

CAN SOMEONE NOW PLEASE STOP THIS

 

[Mark Derail]

I like this post. However, here you lean towards an unfortunate accident due to the incompetence of multiple consenting adults, even if one was coerced.
She could have "stayed on the line" to whatever depth she was comfortable with, but was probably not taught or explained that she could do this.

In previous posts, other than name calling aimed at Gabe, not Michael, you seem to hint towards "murder" and that Gabe got off lightly. I fail to understand this part - is it emotionally driven, fact driven, both?

Like Michael, you have a blog/website setup. What is your motivation?

Mine is that anyone newly certified, never dived in the ocean, should be "tested" one dive, to at least 20M, beforehand as a rule by a qualified instructor.

John - Yes, check near the beginning of Watson statements on-line. He did not like calling it an orientation dive, but what he described that they offered was essentially an orientation dive.

In terms of what is required in Australia or by the dive op, I am not disputing that. I understand the difference between certification and dive operator policies. You really didn't understand my ulitmate point that if you want to protect more divers you need to start with making changes to the certification process. The certification process is what ultimately failed Tina in my opinion. Tina had all the wrong reasons for learning to dive. She wasn't "talked" into it, she was "pressured" into it. And I believe all of that is important to understand the difference and for instructors to recognize the difference. he said if I wanted him to do the things I like that I need to do the things he likes.

I think I probably had the bare minimum in terms of my certification dive times as well. I definitely had difficulties and panic issues in cold water. And I kept saying to myself near the end of each certification dive, "What can I say to get out of this?" But I would rest between each dive and then say, OK I'm going to keep going. The difference between me and Tina was, I did not feel "pressured" by my boyfriend to dive. If I really didn't want to do it, I know he would have been OK with it.

We need to figure out a way to distinguish the difference between "talked into" and "undo pressure." And it is important to understand and to figure out how to deal with it.

Mark - I have not said, nor will I ever say that Gabe Watson is a murderer. I said he is culpable for her death because of a long series of poor decision-making and his own arrogance. He served 18 months in prison in Australia for that.

 

[Foxfish]

Foxfish, I suggest you learn about the laws of the USA and the right to free speech. If you are so upset by it sue her for your perceived use of slander, otherwise put a sock in it. Everyone on here trying to be a armchair detective, LOL, perhaps less T.V. and more time outside? I could care less if he's innocent or guilty, because I'm not a attorney nor a detective! One thing you people seem to overlook is that Tina's husband was a P.O.S that did controlling manipulative things in their relationship and that alone is enough to hope that he dies in a fiery car wreck. There is no justification to throwing pizza in someones face, holding their engagement ring over their head or other bullying behavior that he engaged in. You people try to justify those things by downplaying them or suggesting since there was only one person there it must not have happened. Kreed is right, her comment of him having all the makings of a sociopath is right on the money!

The laws of free speech don't give anyone the right to vent their spleen and say whatever they like. Not in Australia. Not in the US. Further, we are on a forum that has its own rules restraining what can be said. Have you read them, because you probably crossed the line in a couple of respects in your last post! Gabe has faced two court hearings and on neither occasion even looked liked being convicted of murder. It is wrong to come onto a public forum such as this and argue that he is a murderer based on the same kinds of silly arguments that were thrown out of court. It may be construed as libel.

People on this forum didn't come down in the last shower. Neither did judge Nail. Most people would be familiar with the kind of things that go on in family feuds. If you aren't, be patient. What we're hearing about Gabe is relatively trivial. Keep in mind that people respond differently and that response is not always an indication of the hate and malice that is boiling below the surface. There are 'respectable' ways in our society to destroy your 'opponent' without lifting a finger in anger or violence. Making outrageous and false accusations against a person would be one of them.

Your hope that Gabe were dead is an expression of intense hate that is way out of proportion with the things you attribute to Gabe. It is typical of the kind of thing we're reading on this forum from the Gabe haters. It would be interesting to highlight the worse things you've done in your own life. What if we took some of those things way out of context, accenting and exaggerating the worst aspects and then flashed them up in the media for the world to pour over?

Hate can be a powerful, ugly and irrational emotion. It is a prelude to murder. To continue to malign Gabe as Kreed has done after the best 'evidence' provided to the court was dismissed suggests hate. If what Kreed is feeding into this forum is typical of the attitude held by the Thomas family then it calls into question their motivation for seeking a trial.

 

[K_girl]

I like this post. However, here you lean towards an unfortunate accident due to the incompetence of multiple consenting adults, even if one was coerced.
She could have "stayed on the line" to whatever depth she was comfortable with, but was probably not taught or explained that she could do this.

In previous posts, other than name calling aimed at Gabe, not Michael, you seem to hint towards "murder" and that Gabe got off lightly. I fail to understand this part - is it emotionally driven, fact driven, both?

Like Michael, you have a blog/website setup. What is your motivation?

Mine is that anyone newly certified, never dived in the ocean, should be "tested" one dive, to at least 20M, beforehand as a rule by a qualified instructor.

If you checkout my links and my posts, you will see that I have not attempted to analyze the elements of the murder case since the case was dismissed. I have really not done much posting since 2009. I've called Gabe Watson an idiot, controlling and arrogant because I believe his statements and behavior indicate such. It is this type of behavior that needs to be identified and avoided because it leads to bad things such as bad accidents. This is what I am hoping we can all learn and take away from this tragic lesson.

I am not one who hopes that Watson dies in a fiery crash or anything like that. I am not a member of the Thomas family, nor do I know any of them. My motivation from the beginning was to understand and gather as much information about this case because if someone did use my beloved sport of scuba diving in order to kill another person, I wanted to figure out if it could be proved. I learned a lot along that journey about the process of drowning, dive computers, eye witness testimony and about human behavior and more and how it plays into the process of a murder trial. I was always asking myself - what does this little piece of information mean? How might a jury interpret it?

One of the things I learned is that it would (and should) be very difficult to convict. You need 12 people to all to agree as to what is fact and who is and is not telling the truth. You have many people on this forum say that circumstantial evidence would not be enough to convict. Unless someone saw Watson turn Tina's air off and/or on again, they would not be able to convict. It boils down to that one simple thing and I respect that. I was one, however, who pondered all the circumstantial evidence and theorized on how it could potentially influence a jury both for the defense and the prosecution. I was one of the few that did argue the prosecution points. I have to say that the prosecution failed in several areas, which I've discussed before. I don't think it is because they didn't put forth the arguments correctly. I think it is because they talked to the press and said they had evidence they ultimately did not have. That is one of the reasons I am not upset about the outcome and I lost respect for the prosecutors. Here is an example:

"Alabama's Assistant Attorney-General Don Valeska told Fairfax Media in June authorities would arrest Watson upon his return to to the US..

'We can demonstrate Watson started plotting here because he went to her job and tried to up the insurance, without her, right before they got married.'.."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/no-justice-for-tina-20090918-fupd.html

I was waiting for this "evidence." It never materialized.

However, it does not change my opinion of Watson, that we need to be vigilant about people of his personality type in the diving community as he is utlimately culpable for Tina's death. It was much more than just being a bad dive buddy.

 

[clownfishsydney]

In order to attempt to dispel the propaganda that Gabe was a controlling, abusive and violent person, I provide the following information from the evidence gathered by the Queensland and Helena police and the FBI. I have refrained from using the names of the women, but they are known to me.

Gabe had at least four girlfriends before Tina.

Girlfriend 1 was when Gabe was in high school. She appears to have been invited to Gabe and Tina’s wedding. Therefore, appears she was still on good terms with Gabe.

Girlfriend 2 was also when Gabe was in high school. Gabe and Girlfriend 4 went to GF2’s wedding sometime between 1999 and 2001. Again, you are hardly likely to invite someone to your wedding if they were a terrible person. I think Gabe was till in email contact with her in 2003.

Girlfriend 3 appears to have been the person Gabe was going with before he decided to take up diving. It was said that he started diving because of the breakup of this relationship. It seems that GF3 was still on good terms with Gabe as she emailed him in June 2003 asking what he was up to. They corresponded a bit about Tina, the house they were buying and the fact they were getting married. Once again, you would hardly contact someone who was nasty to you.

Girlfriend 4 was probably the last girlfriend before Tina. It seems that she was the only one who was interviewed by police in relation to the investigation into Tina’s death. The others may have been, but there is no record of this as far as I can see. She was interviewed by Det Sgt Brad Flynn from the Helena Police Department on 23 February 2005.

GF4 went to Hoover High School like Gabe did. She graduated in 1995. She said she never spoke to Gabe when at school as it was such a large school. She met Gabe in 1999 at The Music Hall. She is not sure if it was then or another time, but she gave him her phone number. She thinks that their first time out, not really a date, was to go bowling together with some friends. They then started going out about a month or two later, probably in the Summer of 1999. They dated full time sort of serious for a year and then dated for another year but not as serious.

She said they had no disagreements over the two years and “pretty much got along”. She said he did not take charge of things and never made her feel like he wanted to be the one making decisions, apart from wanting her to stop smoking. He was never physical or violent towards her nor did he have any deviant habits.

She stated that Gabe never tried to talk her into partaking in any activity that she was not interested in. She said that she had at one time thought about learning to scuba dive, but decided not to. She said that she does not even think that Gabe had asked her to learn.

GF4 stated that Gabe had never get upset about her not devoting enough time to her, in fact, it was the other way around. She said that he had never got upset with her being on the phone and not able to speak to him.

GF4 said she had met Gabe’s parents, his two brothers and his grandmother. She said they were all nice. She also said that her parents liked Gabe. They sensed that as Gabe was still in school (university) that perhaps he did not have enough time to devote to her.

Gabe was someone who she never saw cry, he never was very talkative about the relationship. Six months into the relationship they both said they loved each other, but both felt a bit weird saying it. They were more friends than anything. She did not say why they broke up.

In January 2004 she went to lunch with Gabe after contacting him. They had lunch two more times, the last one was about April or May 2005. She said that she thought Gabe wanted to get back to seeing some people he was comfortable with, that is why he met with her.

She was asked if there was anything else at all that she wanted to say, but there was nothing.

I hope this helps dispels some of the comments being made here.