Tina Watson Death - The Full Story

[Foxfish]

My point is exactly what I stated earlier:

(Interesting. Watson believes there was no way he could have been found "not guilty" in Queensland.)

Watson's counsel really should have advised him to not speak about the incident even after the trial. Especially Watson of all people. He's very quotable, shall we say. His counsel probably will advise him to not speak further after that blunder.

Earlier you said:

That is clearly not true. Watson had only been charged with murder in Queensland - never manslaughter - so the only charge he could have answered to was murder. The plea agreement was manslaughter. Good try, though.

Gabe's statement 'there was no way I could be found not guilty' is made with reference to a breach of a duty of care resulting in a conviction of manslaughter and was obviously intended as such. Suggesting Gabe believed he would get nailed for murder if the case went to trial or that he shouldn't say anything in public because of the way petty minded people with an obvious axe to grind would try to misconstrue his statements is more of the same kind of poppycock we've seen from day one from the Gabe-haters.

If they want to contribute anything other than slimy innuendo on this forum, they could provide a substantiated response to my challenge above. The fact that no one has been able to do this is testimony to the good work done by Michael McFadyen and Gabe's innocence.

 

[Ayisha]

If the they want to contribute anything other than slimy innuendo on this forum, they could provide a substantiated response to my challenge above. The fact that no one has been able to do this is testimony to the good work done by Michael McFadyen and Gabe's innocence.

Why would anyone need to make a case to you? Get over yourself. The points have been made in the original 3 threads on this case. Several people have said that McFadyen's information is not compelling and is biased, so no, it's certainly not "testimony". Whether Gabe is innocent or not, I have no idea.

 

[Foxfish]

The points have been made in the original 3 threads on this case. Several people have said that McFadyen's information is not compelling and is biased, so no, it's certainly not "testimony".

Judge Nail resoundingly dismissed these 'points' to which you refer as hearsay and innuendo and not to be used as a basis for a charge of murder. Are you saying that the judge was wrong and that you believe this should have been admitted as evidence? Yes or no.

With reference the fateful dive, do you still believe there is evidence that indicates Gabe murdered Tina? What is that evidence?

Do you still think that Tina died as a result of asphyxiation or are you now prepared to concede that point?

 

[bowlofpetunias]

This thread is more and more reminding me of this quote. People have chosen what they will believe or accept as fact/evidence/reality and are steadfastly entrenched in their positions. IMHO the necessary information is out there. No matter how many times it is repeated those who have chosen not to believe will not accept it but continue to point only to what they believe supports their position. Obviously if the judgments of two countries judicial systems, the information presented to date from "expert witnesses", the evidence Tina presented via her gear and unfortunately her post mortem, and the only other person who was there Gabe Watson himself have failed to convince someone that he is not a murder clearly my words and partcipation here will not! If something comes up that may provide education to make divers safer I will consider participating. This thread was meant to examine the Full Story according to dispassionate examination of evidence not to keep the topic open for more years of rumour and innuendo. The OP has demonstrated that intent in the way he has presented his information and answered questions. He has further demonstrated that by withdrawing from participation here perhaps he should ask that this thread be locked

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

Stuart Chase quotes

 

[Foxfish]

I'd agree Bowlofpetunias. The detractors have had plenty of time to substantiate their claims and have routinely failed.

 

[Dadvocate]

Ayisha’s musings:

You're picking the parts you like rather than looking at all of it in context.

Why would anyone need to make a case to you? Get over yourself. The points have been made in the original 3 threads on this case. Several people have said that McFadyen's information is not compelling and is biased, so no, it's certainly not "testimony". Whether Gabe is innocent or not, I have no idea.

This is disingenuous on at least one level. To begin with, since you enjoy thumping the semantics with little regard for the linguistic linchpins that hold these types of arguments together, let me illuminate you on one crucial point.

For people other than perhaps Former President Bill Clinton, the auxiliary verb “to be” is clear enough for speakers of the English language. In the only “context” that matters, Gabe Watson IS innocent because the court in Alabama threw the entire case out before ever having heard a peep from the defense team. For all legal intents and purposes, and for the purposes of grammar, Gabe Watson can be said to be declaratively innocent, thus the justification for the phrase “is innocent” in this case. And you “know” this is the case even if you choose to disagree with the decision and its implications. Whether we agree or disagree, the declaration remains the same because practically speaking Watson is innocent. That is the context unless you can establish otherwise.

Sure you can wax the what-ifs all you want, as a disgruntled baseball fan might after disagreeing with the call of the ump. As with the greatest game, your ruminations carry about the same weight. The game goes on as if the call you disagreed with and the reasons you disagreed had no relevance at all. The box score reflects the call and not that of the bemoaning fans sitting in the stands.

What you are apparently implying is that you don’t know if Gabe Watson actually committed a crime on that fateful day. This is a pretty reasonable position to take because there is no evidence of any merit to suggest that he has committed a murder, as the court correctly recognized. However, given the recent turn of legal events the more reasonable position at this point is that he did not do this crime. The only way around this I can see is to make a case that the court erred in its judgment or was corrupt in overlooking relevant evidence. Neither of these two positions seems to be a case you would like to put forward.

And the worst part for you in this scenario is that even if you could put a case forward there would still be no ramifications on the declarative statement because of double jeopardy. Even if you could make a case that transcended the swamp of interview quote mines and innuendo bonanzas, Watson cannot be tried a second time for this crime. The phrase “is innocent” would still apply regardless.

That you continue to allude to excerpts of TV programmes in lieu of answering any of Foxfish’s questions pretty much nails that coffin shut. In ignoring these questions, you are essentially conceding that the court was correct in making the decision that it did, thereby acknowledging that regardless of one’s personal views there was not enough impetus to push forward with a trial. By default, then, you acknowledge that there is no evidence of any real value to imply Gabe’s guilt in this matter, which I am gathering is why you are grasping at the only thing you can at this juncture, the ubiquitous barbs about TV interviews that exist in some kind of Aisha-dom.

I find it telling that after all of the issues that came up about the media and its bias in this case, that you would still choose to hitch your sour grapes to an ambiguous statement made in a TV programme that very well could have been edited before being aired. As before, these vacuous references are all you and your ilk have, and now that Watson has been found innocent they don’t even have the toothless bite that they used to, which wasn’t much to begin with.

And you are accusing Bowlofpetunias of picking the parts she like rather than looking at all of it in context!

The fact that you even brought up the interview quote in the first place shows that you are the one missing the contextual forest for the trees.

Cheers!

 

[MX727]

Not that anyone really cares, but, I had lost touch with this case. When I heard the ruling in the AL trial, I checked back in to see what the response was on SB. I found Michael's posts and read his blog and I will say that his thoughts and arguments were compelling enough for me to completely change my earlier thoughts on this event. Thanks Michael for your time.

 

[clownfishsydney]

I know I said I was not posting again, but I have added a lot of the evidence to my web site. See Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site for an index.

 

[Dadvocate]

Clownfish Sydney

I’ve really only been able to give the docs you have provided a cursory read over before picking those to sink my teeth into and to take notes on. From the looks of it, I’ll be busy with this for quite some time!

What you have provided is far and away better than any filtered newsprint link or other nefarious media source we have seen. The reader has to think critically and weigh what is being offered, regardless of preconceived notions. I appreciate this requirement of me as a reader, as it seems many others do as well.

There is even a feeling of the tactile to many of these resources, with the lovely hole punches and the outlines of pages. I’ll take that over hyperlinks any day!

Thanks again (and for me really thanks for the first time) for putting all of this out there, Michael! There can be no better way to bring this case to a Scuba Board close for those of us who have been engaged in the conversation from the beginning or even from somewhere in the middle. To be able to get some definitive answers on a few burning questions is really quite nice after all of the verbal exchanges.

You’ve done a good thing here, which I think says volumes about the value you place on truth and on giving people the opportunity to make informed decisions.

From one teacher to another…

Cheers!

 

[lane99]

So,when all is said and done, he was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Well, that's sometimes the way the criminal justice system shakes out.

Just glad it wasn't my daughter that he married.