Unknown Tourist dead, Dive Master ill - Ambergris Caye, Belize

[pauldw]

In 2003, Tina Watson died in strange circumstances in Australia. He husband, Gabe, was blamed, largely because of the highly suspicious details that were reported. To cut to the chase, most of those details turned out to be untrue. When he was eventually tried for murder in Alabama, expert witnesses were on hand prepared to testify for the defense, but they never got a chance because the judge threw the case out out after the prosecution was done. For the internet divers reading all the lurid details online, he was obviously guilty; in a court of law requiring real evidence, the case was laughable.

From what I saw on Death of Tina Watson - Wikipedia, it looks like there might be more than one side to that story (I mean, beside the "the case was laughable" story).

 

[Tripp]

I'm sure the prosecution gave the judge all the information they had to help convict, I'm pretty sure that no-one can seriously believe they had more information than the judge, and he threw the case out. The standard for evidence for inclusion in Wikipedia- as much as I like and use it - is quite a bit more lax than the courtroom.

 

[rmorgan]

I'm sure the prosecution gave the judge all the information they had to help convict, I'm pretty sure that no-one can seriously believe they had more information than the judge, and he threw the case out.

The decedent's husband was charged with murder in Queensland. He was extradited from the U.S. to stand trial in Australia. He ended that case by pleading guilty to manslaughter, and served 12 months in custody based on that conviction; his sentence was actually increased on appeal, something which rarely happens. After serving his sentence, he was deported to the U.S. on account of the Alabama murder indictment there. Before the Alabama state-court judge dismissed the charges, he excluded evidence regarding the defendant's conduct after his wife was recovered, and his attempts to claim her life insurance, thus (rightly or wrongly) depriving the Jury of that information. So, while he had access to the same information as the prosecution, he refused to consider evidence the prosecutors in both countries had deemed significant. I respectfully urge that the case was far from "laughable," and is no basis to conclude that the allegations against him were "untrue."

As an aside: Mike Ball's company, which operates Spoilsport, the boat from which they were diving, pleaded guilty to charges (presumably negligence?) based on the boat's failure to have a divemaster in the water with them.

I'm not sure what connection these tragedies might be thought to have with each other, with one exception: In both, the decedent drowned shortly after starting a dive and was recovered from the seafloor.

 

[boulderjohn]

The decedent's husband was charged with murder in Queensland. He was extradited from the U.S. to stand trial in Australia. He ended that case by pleading guilty to manslaughter, and served 12 months in custody based on that conviction; his sentence was actually increased on appeal, something which rarely happens. After serving his sentence, he was deported to the U.S. on account of the Alabama murder indictment there. Before the Alabama state-court judge dismissed the charges, he excluded evidence regarding the defendant's conduct after his wife was recovered, and his attempts to claim her life insurance, thus (rightly or wrongly) depriving the Jury of that information. So, while he had access to the same information as the prosecution, he refused to consider evidence the prosecutors in both countries had deemed significant. I respectfully urge that the case was far from "laughable," and is no basis to conclude that the allegations against him were "untrue."

As an aside: Mike Ball's company, which operates Spoilsport, the boat from which they were diving, pleaded guilty to charges (presumably negligence?) based on the boat's failure to have a divemaster in the water with them.

I'm not sure what connection these tragedies might be thought to have with each other, with one exception: In both, the decedent drowned shortly after starting a dive and was recovered from the seafloor.

Perhaps it is time to bring in @clownfishsydney to comment.

 

[pauldw]

I'm sure the prosecution gave the judge all the information they had to help convict, I'm pretty sure that no-one can seriously believe they had more information than the judge, and he threw the case out. The standard for evidence for inclusion in Wikipedia- as much as I like and use it - is quite a bit more lax than the courtroom.

I’ve been a prosecutor for a long time, and I have never had a case where the judge knew the facts better than anyone else. The lawyers always know more.

With regard to Belize, I have heard of some corruption issues there, and that has been mentioned here. A good way to get a feel for whether anything can come of this officially is to see whether the incident is being covered up, but the folks who have been down there more recently have not weighed in. Granted, some people will not want to talk if there’s legal action pending, but if no one is talking even in bars, and the thing is not in the press, then something bad is going on in terms of the system getting to the bottom of it.

 

[JonnieB]

This is terrible, and it could happen to any of us out there. Reflecting on what happened, I have a question for the community: How many of you carry a CO2 analyzer during your trips? If you use one, how often do you see CO2 readings in your tanks?

I checked the price, and it's not cheap, plus you have to change the sensor every two years. (Of course, if it could save your life, I’d buy it and stock up on sensors.) Howeve I'm curious if this is something you use. I've never heard about it or seen anyone analyzing their tanks for CO2 during my dive trips—just the regular Nitrox analyzer.

Stocking up on sensors would only mean you'd have a pile of dead sensors when you need one as they are basically just batteries!

 

[JonnieB]

The rescuer was cool as a cucumber but I can't help thinking that a direct ascent, possibly even a positive one, without stop could have made a difference to the outcome. DCS risk is very low on this profile, AGE is possible when positive but when the breathing gas is potentially toxic I want to be on the surface.

Agree...by definition they're doing no decompression diving and during a serious emergency do a safety stop. It boggles the mind.

 

[Catito]

In 2003, Tina Watson died in strange circumstances in Australia. He husband, Gabe, was blamed, largely because of the highly suspicious details that were reported. To cut to the chase, most of those details turned out to be untrue. When he was eventually tried for murder in Alabama, expert witnesses were on hand prepared to testify for the defense, but they never got a chance because the judge threw the case out out after the prosecution was done. For the internet divers reading all the lurid details online, he was obviously guilty; in a court of law requiring real evidence, the case was laughable.

Not following how this is related...?

 

[clownfishsydney]

The decedent's husband was charged with murder in Queensland. He was extradited from the U.S. to stand trial in Australia. He ended that case by pleading guilty to manslaughter, and served 12 months in custody based on that conviction; his sentence was actually increased on appeal, something which rarely happens. After serving his sentence, he was deported to the U.S. on account of the Alabama murder indictment there. Before the Alabama state-court judge dismissed the charges, he excluded evidence regarding the defendant's conduct after his wife was recovered, and his attempts to claim her life insurance, thus (rightly or wrongly) depriving the Jury of that information. So, while he had access to the same information as the prosecution, he refused to consider evidence the prosecutors in both countries had deemed significant. I respectfully urge that the case was far from "laughable," and is no basis to conclude that the allegations against him were "untrue."

As an aside: Mike Ball's company, which operates Spoilsport, the boat from which they were diving, pleaded guilty to charges (presumably negligence?) based on the boat's failure to have a divemaster in the water with them.

I'm not sure what connection these tragedies might be thought to have with each other, with one exception: In both, the decedent drowned shortly after starting a dive and was recovered from the seafloor.

Almost everything you have posted here is incorrect.

First, just for the record, I was Gabe Watson's expert dive witness at the murder trial in Alabama and travelled there to appear at the trial. I also advised his legal team on questions to ask etc.

Gabe was charged with murder in Queensland but was not extradited to there from the USA. He went of his own accord. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter which, to be honest, he should not have as he was not guilty of this. My view is he did this to make everything else go away. He was sentenced to four and a half years with it to be suspended after he served 12 months (not parole). Note Queensland had at that time a unique law that made people liable for the death of their fellow recreational partner even if they did nothing to cause the death, just not saving them adequately.

The Crown appealed the length of the suspended sentence. The three appeal judges were totally split on what to do, one would have dismissed it, one increase to 18 months and one to 30 months. It was increased to 18 months. Increasing sentences in Australia happens relatively often.

He was deported to the USA after he was released. It was NOT because he had been charged in the USA, it was because he was considered an unsuitable person in Australia. Note that we did not deport him till Alabama agreed that he could not be given a death sentence if he went to trial. Australia will never deport a person to a country that has the death sentence for a crime that the person is accused of unless such a guarantee is given.

At the Alabama trial, the judge did not "exclude(d) evidence regarding the defendant's conduct after his wife was recovered, and his attempts to claim her life insurance, thus (rightly or wrongly) depriving the Jury of that information" as there was quite a bit produced. Re the insurance, there was no evidence given about any attempt to claim life insurance, in fact, it was shown that her father claimed it. The fact is also that the prosecutor presented witnesses who had no first hand knowledge of what happened and all this was shot down by the defence.

Many of the claims made in the media and also pushed by the police in Queensland and Alabama were in fact not correct and in some cases totally made up by the police. An example is the claim repeated all the time that a witness saw Gabe holding Tina in a "bear hug". The fact is that this witness used this term when referring to the person who brought Tina back to the surface but the police and media started to claim that Gabe was seen by the witness holding Tina like that. There are many more.

Judges roles in trials are to decide what is relevant and appropriate for presentation at a trial. Just because a prosecutor (or for that matter, a defence attorney), thinks some is relevant and appropriate does not mean it is. That is why judges are there.

Finally, Mike Ball Expeditions was prosecuted under Section 28(3) Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 for breaching their own code of conduct. This breach related to the fact that the code said for dives that are difficult for a person's level of experience, Mike Ball Expeditions was supposed make sure that the diver was accompanied on 'orientation dives' by qualified [presumably divemasters or better] divers. No orientation dive was conducted for either Tina or Gabe and they were not supervised in the water by a qualified diver [at least of divemaster level]. There were also other breaches of their code including relating to interview partners together rather than separately.

After reviewing all the evidence (and only I and less than five people other than the prosecutors have seen it all), I have no doubt that it was a tragic accident that would never have happened if Mike Ball Expeditions followed their own code of practise.

 

[clownfishsydney]

Not following how this is related...?

Relevant because what is reported in the media is sometimes nothing near what the truth is. In fact, in relation to diving accidents, I would say that it is mostly wrong.