Tina Watson Death - The Full Story

[clownfishsydney]

Mark, answers to your questions. Yes, some doubt as to the quality of the training was made. Mike Moore who learnt with Gabe made some comments about the training that implied it was not great. I know that the rescue course consisted of one 10 minute dive for Gabe, nowhere near enough to get the skills needed.

The BCD had a theoretical lift of 19 lbs, but that is with nobody wearing it. When you put it on, the capacity is actually less as air space is lost when it wraps around you. I guess it is probably 15 to 16 lbs in reality. The dive instructor said (as pointed out above) that his wife had one and it could hardly hold her on the surface.

There was no DM with Gabe and Tina, that is the problem. Did the Trip Director do good job in assessing the divers? He admitted at the trial he did not.

Alcohol as mentioned was not relevant. Dr Edmonds would have testified that it is possible to suck in water with a reg in your mouth. By the way, especially for Kreed, Dr Edmonds is the mostly highly credentialed dive medicince expert in the world, he wrote the text book used to train doctors in dive medicine. He has written dozens of books and dozens of medical papers on dive medicine. You may query my expertise, but should not query his.

Also, it is possible to suck water into your mouth when fully conscious, so I see no reason why you cannot when unconscious. It is possible that all the water was sucked in when she was fully conscious and panicking.

Hope this helps.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

[Roger: Perhaps, what colors me a bit is the other evidence as well. It is too strange that Gabe didn't go over to see his wife during resusitation efforts. I was a paramedic for 5 years, and did CPR almost once a week. In every single case over 5 years, the loved one always tried their best to see what was going on and had to be led away or restrained...especially the younger the loved one and more unexpected the death was. They are there because they are expecting their loved one to be saved. But Gabe, again, a grown macho man, didn't fight to see his "living" bride. I take back the former statement, let me modify it a bit. I've seen a few people that didn't want to see the person being worked on. They were all murders. They always acted very strange while the victim was being worked on. Or perhaps I find it overly strange that Gabe heavily flirted with Tina's best friend in the days after Tina's death. When you flirt with someone just after your new wife has died, it isn't just strange and slightly out of bounds, it's sociopathic. And I'm not using that word lightly.]

[Roger: It's not any one thing that makes me believe he is guilty, anymore than it was one thing that makes me think that O.J. is truly guilty, despite the not guilty verdict. It's a bunch of little things. It's his inaction in saving his wife in clear, warm water. It's his overall slow ascent rate. It's her body position with hands out stretched. It's him not wanting to see her while she was being worked on. It's his speech to the others on the boat. It's his constant lying to the family. It's his flirtation with other women. It's his changing stories (you discount the little changes, but most direct truthful testimonie doesn't change at all).

Wow some interesting concepts here! I too was a Paramedic (for 8years). I have been involved in Emergency care in one fashion or another for 20+ years. My experience has certainly not been the same as yours. I have had people who could not face watching their loved one being worked on not only CPR but other criticle interventions. I have seen people pretty much insensible at accident scenes doing crazy things. IMHO implying the not being able to watch CPR done on their loved one is an indication of criminal behavior well a huge stretch. I agree some of Gabe's reactions and behaviour seem to me to be pretty bizarre but then I am not sure what a person would be capable of after losing a loved on and being the subject of an international campaign of demonization. I will confess.. (with a bit of embarassment) that in spite of my experience in the ambulance service where I was responsible for IV's and the Veterinary field where I also did IV's and even performed som emergency surgical proceedures I can not stand to watch them draw blood from my husband. I start feeling faint and have to look away. He has injured himself a few times where I had to take care of him including initial care of wounds that required sutures. I can hold it together when there is s need for me to intervene but I can't watch them sew him up without feeling sick! If I had to perform CPR on him.. I know I would do so.. but if someone else was there doing it.. I really don't think I would be able to watch!

I don't see any difference between conjecture on behalf of Gabe and conjecture on behalf of those against him. *sigh* it seems to me there was 8 years or so on pretty one sided information and attacks. The Judges in both Australia and the USA found there was not enough evidence to continue a trail with any hope of a murder verdict being found ... all the speculation in the world can not make that fact go away. We can talk about OJ and other cases all we want but in this case not ONE but TWO judicial systems in not ONE but TWO countries found the same thing. Surely that indicates something?

 

[Divedoggie]

Darn.. didn't know this thread was going on.. looks like I have a lot of reading back to do!

I suppose someone should have PMd you! It's about time that you showed up!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I suppose someone should have PMd you! It's about time that you showed up!

lol.. thanks maybe a link at the end of the last thread. Michael... looks like you gave diving a miss this morning too. I was serious about meeting up and shouting you lunch I am still reading back here.. trying to be good and finish reading back before I respond.. :lol: not successfully as you can see!

 

[~zeroed~]

Isn't it about time this subject was taken off Scubaboard? By that I mean it should be privately discussed as Michael has suggested by people contacting him directly if they want information.

When it gets to the point you've got family members or friends of the deceased here, and as anyone from either family involved can read the comments and be hurt by some of them either by misunderstanding or anything else, isn't it time to say "Enough?" I don't see the point of starting down the same track that's been covered over and over again in many other threads on this subject just because we as divers find it "fascinating".

Please, let's show some compassion here and stop. My words, my opinion.

 

[Divedoggie]

Kreed and numerous others have an 8 1/2 year investment into Watson's guilt. They have read, but not understood the facts of the case. I doubt that they have read each line of each post on the previous threads, this thread, and especially on MM's website. With a deep breath or two and an open mind, the explanation of a tragic diving accident would make sense to them.
On another note. The Watson case is incomparable to the OJ case.
OJ was an NFL hero, a movie actor, a sports reporter, and a living legend. He was exceptionally wealthy and had the slickest defense team on earth. The L.A./Brentwood scene and televized trial was a circus.

For the Watson case, until fairly recently, we only knew about the bubble-wrap salesman what we were told by the press. How quickly did they dub him the honeymoon killer? They wouldn't have had too many viewers watching 48 Hours if Watson had been dubbed the "poorly the trained, out of practice and spineless dive buddy."
The Watson defense team never even had the opportunity to give their side of the argument because there wasn't even enough evidence to continue the trial.

The OJ case had all kinds of hard evidence and all kinds of pranks, like OJ trying unsuccessfully to pull the blood soaked gloves on. The all star Defense team wove racism, public sentiment for a well liked celebrity, and legal technicalities into the argument.
The Watson case had none of that kind of pomp and circumstance. If anything, this case was the opposite of the OJ case. Public sentiment was against Watson. The prosecution had hearsay and conjecture that they tried to elevate to evidence of trails of guilt to a gullible audience. That strategy obviously didn't work.

 

[Divedoggie]

Isn't it about time this subject was taken off Scubaboard? By that I mean it should be privately discussed as Michael has suggested by people contacting him directly if they want information.

When it gets to the point you've got family members or friends of the deceased here, and as anyone from either family involved can read the comments and be hurt by some of them either by misunderstanding or anything else, isn't it time to say "Enough?" I don't see the point of starting down the same track that's been covered over and over again in many other threads on this subject just because we as divers find it "fascinating".

Please, let's show some compassion here and stop. My words, my opinion.

You have a good point, and there is a fine line, but this is still certainly a hot topic.
Maybe some good will come of the discussion. If the conversation is adult and civil, there is no reason that we couldn't learn something and that family and those closely involved couldn't learn something. Maybe it will lead to some closure.

 

[clownfishsydney]

Zeroed, it needs to be aired as there has been so much incorrect information put out by the Police, media and Tina's family that it needs to be corrected for history's sake. My offer to email me was for people who do not want to comment in public. There is much for divers to learn about this case to ensure that it does not happen to them or their friends. There is also a lot for the authorities to learn about how to investigate incidents that are out of the ordinary (eg diving deaths, a baby taken by a dingo, a girl "thrown" off a cliff) by calling in independent experts right at the start to review the matter and that full disclosure of all known information must be done.

Kreed, you can pass on to Tommy that both Dr Carl Edmonds and I would be happy to speak to him about this matter at any time. However, we both feel that to do a good job, it would be best done in person as there are things we would need to show him to explain our reasoning. Our aim would be to assist him in understanding things that are known to be facts can be used to show what happened underwater.

Carl tried to contact Tommy when he was in Birmingham via the prosecution but either it was not passed on or it was ignored. As we are now both back in Sydney, to meet in person is obviously not possible. If there is some way that this could be arranged, then we would be very accommodating. My email and phone numbers are on my web site.

As I have mentioned many times, my reason for getting involved was to ensure justice was done.

 

[Ayisha]

Kreed and numerous others have an 8 1/2 year investment into Watson's guilt. They have read, but not understood the facts of the case.

Please do not insult the intelligence of people who have not come to the same conclusion as you. Apparently Kreed has been there throughout. You and I and almost everyone else on this (these) thread(s) have not. I have certainly read everything on these threads and followed and read every link and the information [-]supporting an accident theory, no, [/-] supporting Gabe, isn't compelling to say the least.

Everyone knew from the beginning that there probably wasn't enough admissable evidence to convict Gabe of murder and no smoking gun, no "CSI" type of irrefutable evidence that people have come to expect today. When some of us look at the whole picture and everything put together, a plea agreement and a dismissal don't change much. The manslaughter conviction was probably quite fitting.

 

[~zeroed~]

You have a good point, and there is a fine line, but this is still certainly a hot topic.
Maybe some good will come of the discussion. If the conversation is adult and civil, there is no reason that we couldn't learn something and that family and those closely involved couldn't learn something. Maybe it will lead to some closure.

I must disagree. I don't think our right to discuss a "hot" topic outweighs the rights of others personally involved.

Zeroed, it needs to be aired as there has been so much incorrect information put out by the Police, media and Tina's family that it needs to be corrected for history's sake. My offer to email me was for people who do not want to comment in public. There is much for divers to learn about this case to ensure that it does not happen to them or their friends. There is also a lot for the authorities to learn about how to investigate incidents that are out of the ordinary (eg diving deaths, a baby taken by a dingo, a girl "thrown" off a cliff) by calling in independent experts right at the start to review the matter and that full disclosure of all known information must be done.

As I have mentioned many times, my reason for getting involved was to ensure justice was done.

And you have been involved and did a great job of writing this all up in order to air the misinformation. People can go and read your blog and judge for themselves. But I no longer see the point of this, because it's really obvious that the people who believe Gabe is guilty will not change their minds now no matter how many pages are written, and those who believe he is innocent don't need to be convinced.

I think the 4 or 5 threads on this topic have given every diver who reads here enough opportunity to see what went wrong and how to (possibly) prevent it happening to them.

As for independent experts, the legal system takes note.

My main problem is media reporting and the way we are manipulated by it. And I'm not sure that any discussion of that fact here will change poor journalism.