Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[FL-Jack]

I fail to see the relevance behind internal dive community debates regarding solo vs buddy diving in this potential murder case. It does serve as a nice distraction though.
Perhaps we could get into rebreather vs freediving next?

FL-Jack:
I gather that you are biased against Watson because you think that you would have had sufficient bravado to have held on to your buddy in an emergency and that he should have, too.

Sounds about right. One thing is certain, in the described situation, both of us would be ascending, or neither would be.

45' depths can hardly considered an 'emergency' situation in any sense, without mitigating factors such as a preexisting medical condition. [Perhaps that is only in my world].

I routinely freedive much greater distances and could easily pull such a small diver topside with no life support system at all. Most of the OW divers I know could. ALL of the certified Rescue Divers I know could. The arguments I have seen thus far that try and make this anything but a potential murder are laughable.

BTW: As far as a jury of one's peers, a "peer" is not someone who thinks he or she is an expert on something because he or she is a diver, a DM, or an instructor. Jurors with specialized knowledge come into a case biased, either for or against a party based on what they think they know and what they think is the right thing, rather than on either the law or the evidence. Even within the scuba community there is debate on MOF/NMOF or on solo diving. If a just verdict required a decision based on MOF/NMOF or solo diving issues, it could not be achieved by a jury with preconceived positions on either. That is why divers cannot be on a just jury. You do want a just verdict, don't you?

I suppose this also disqualifies folks that drink or drive cars from sitting on a jury involving a DUI? Perhaps bicycle riders, or would it be pedestrians, that should only sit in judgment of those accused of vehicular manslaughter or a hit and run?

A fellow diver is this mans 'peer' and should hear all of the available evidence before rendering a verdict. This is the only fair and constitutional course of action, IMO. I take it you would prefer folks that have never actually entered the water, and fear it as an unfathomable deadly force only fools tread in to sit in judgment of his actions?

Further, re mini-season, how many of those deaths are the result of homicides? After all, isn't it your view that an underwater death MUST be the result of a homicide?

That is odd, I do not recall making a statement such as this and cannot find that particular quote.

As a matter of fact, this is the only actual case of potential murder involving SCUBA diving that I know of. Most underwater deaths can be chalked up to stupidity, panic or preexisting medical conditions. From what I can see, none of these factors apply here. It really leaves only one possibility in my mind. Perhaps it comes from seeing many panicked divers over my lifetime actually survive their encounters with the sea.

I certainly look forward to the actual trial, when hopefully all of the evidence will be made available to the public, as I am sure you do, unless it is actually you facing life taking it in the can.

 

[FL-Jack]

I was working on something else when I had an interesting thought: There are a number of people who have expressed views about Watson such that if he suddenly and inexplicably died, they had better have good alibis.

We saw the same thing during the OJ Simpson murder trial. Fortunately he was in good health.

 

[ACES50]

FL JACK

I'm not a diver but have followed this case closely. What, in your opinion with the evidence you have knowledge of, actually happened to cause her death?

 

[Ayisha]

...could look at the picture of that lifeless diver on the bottom, in clear, 45 ft water and not understand the only way this could have happened...

Just to clarify, Tina's lifeless body was laying at about 100 feet in the photo. The incident that precipitated her descent to the bottom occurred at about 40 - 45 feet.

 

[ItsBruce]

Perhaps I rambled so much that the real point of my post got lost. Perhaps I was not adequately clear: Do you have an explanation of the mechanics of how Watson killed Tina? Do you have any evidence that would support this?

 

[ItsBruce]

This is a separate post so that no one is distracted relative to the questions posed in my last one.

It looks to me like the newest member of our discussion group is relying on his experiences in scuba diving to conclude that because Tina died Watson must have killed her and has reached this conclusion without the distractions of any other evidence. Am I seeing things wrong?

If my perception is right, isn't that a perfect reason for not having people with special knowledge on a jury?

 

[bowlofpetunias]

This is a separate post so that no one is distracted relative to the questions posed in my last one.

It looks to me like the newest member of our discussion group is relying on his experiences in scuba diving to conclude that because Tina died Watson must have killed her and has reached this conclusion without the distractions of any other evidence. Am I seeing things wrong?

If my perception is right, isn't that a perfect reason for not having people with special knowledge on a jury?

Yup! Kinda reminds me of the beginning of the original posts about this. People coming in jumping to conclusions on limited evidence, voicing outrage and the desire to personally mete out punishment.

I personally prefer the more cerebral approach with respect for the imput of the lawyer in our midst who actually understands the ins and outs of dealing with legal processes.

 

[K_girl]

Issue of Watson leaving Tina due to "panic". I've heard many people make the point that Watson left his wife because he "panicked." We all understand panic underwater. Something goes wrong and you bolt to the surface in self-preservation. Panic obstructs all thought processes.

However, I would like to point out that the sentencing judge in Australia avoided any reference to Watson panicking when he wrote:

"The deceased experienced difficulties during the dive. You made some attempts to assist her but these were unsuccessful. In the course of this, your face mask and deregulator were dislodged. However, you were able to replace your face mask and to get an alternative oxygen supply from what is referred to as a "safe second". When this happened, you could see that the deceased was sinking but you formed the view that there was nothing you could do and you swam away with a view to getting assistance."

I believe the reason the Australian sentencing judge avoided saying that Watson panicked is - it is very hard to convict someone of panicking. They could not afford to set a precedent where they can make a crime of panic. He said that Watson formed a "view." In other words, that Watson was thinking during the time of incident. Actually, Watson was thinking a lot, according to his statements. He had a lot of thoughts (during the dive) about how he could not help Tina:

1) He thought about how he was not trained (even as a rescue diver) to get someone (uh, that's a flat-out lie. Yes, it's one thing to not remember your training, but he said he was never taught in the first place and he did not say he did not remember. My question is how can jurors make that excuse for him if he did not make it for himself?); 2) he thought about how it might be too deep for him (even though he was a totally "fresh" diver, as it was the first dive of the trip); 3) he signaled to her to inflate her BC, but he didn't inflate her BC because there might be something wrong with it; 4) she was sinking too fast as he was kicking down for her (who in their right mind believes this?)

Watson even thought about and understood the consequences of his actions as he made the decision to leave Tina:

"WATSON: ..I was thinking back to that current and I was like ‘my God she’s going to be lost’ and that was probably the reason why I didn’t want to leave her.."

He came to the surface and witnesses said he started slapping the water saying Tina was lost. But - there she was in plain view in the photograph, the current did not carry her away afterall.

Sources: Sentencing judge remarks and Watson's statements to police.

 

[K_girl]

As far as scuba divers serving on a jury. Anyone with much experience with the issues in a jury trial cannot serve on a jury. That is because they can influence the other jurors and replace their own expertise with the testimony of the experts on the case and that would produce an unfair result. I believe that this is correct and no scuba diver should serve on the jury. It makes it a challenge for the prosecutor to educate the jurors about the issues involved, but our judicial system has functioned very well with this procedure. If I were asked to serve on a case like this, even if I didn't know anything about the specifics of the case, I would have to recuse myself.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

All sounds like someone who wasn't thinking clearly and not coping with a bad situation in a very effective way trying to explain their failure to do what should have been done.

Anyone who has done something awful or failed miserably to do "the right thing" naturally starts creating excuses in their minds. In many cases I believe those excuses are an attempt to regain their self esteem!

Did he fail miserably... yep.... doesn't make him a murderer! I still say that while we would like to think we would react in the right way... nobody can guarantee it! I have seen some pretty amazing /experienced emergency responders stuff things up in ways no one would have believed possible. Training kicks in but mind set, stress level, emotional involvement, even physical and mental health can impact even those who have coped well in the past!

Don't get me wrong... this guy will never be on my buddy list, he will never make my Christmas card list, I wouldn't walk across the street to meet him but I can't condemn the guy at this point either.