Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[burna]

When did Dr Stutz 1st mention what he saw?

For my recollection of watching the doco' when it went to air, and from reading the transcript, it appears it was about 3 years!!

This is where Dr Stutz's statement doesn't add up for me. I am presuming he is a Doctor of medicine, so is trained professionally in some aspect of people's well being and yet he acknowledges that what "...he saw was odd..." but didn't intervene. He saw a larger male diver holding a smaller female diver in a bear hug and that she appeared to be in distress. This bear hug was not just for a moment, it was for thirty seconds! Thirty seconds is a long time to watch someone in distress.

And, it appears he thought this was so odd that the police didn't find out about it until they "finally tracked" him down some 3 years later!

If it walks like a duck...

 

[Ayisha]

My comment was that Gabe's statement that he was afraid of getting bent because of his bolting to the surface may be because he like many divers feel that failing to do a safety stop is dangerous. If that was his erroneous perception at the time then failing to stop was the equivalent of bolting to the surface! :

In that case, then Watson should be prepared to furnish all of his log books and make his dive buddies available to show that he planned and completed a safety stop on EVERY 45 foot or similar shallow dive. His deeper dives and particularly his dive to about 150 feet will be very interesting to see if he planned and completed a safety stop for each one.

It is the safety stop from 45 feet that is at issue.

Kgirl also said earlier that she was not concerned if either side got ideas about how to conduct their cases from our discussion here. I see no reason why exploring opinions and discussions that may contribute to a guilty verdict are any more or less valid than exploring opinions and discussions that may contribute to a not guilty verdict.

Many people are happy to express their opinion of his guilt and choose to examine all the available "evidence" to support that position. Some of us are not so convinced, some of us are trying to be open minded and some of us may even enjoy the role of Devil's advocate

Of course exploring both sides is perfectly fine. Some of us are trying to examine the evidence that has been made public and have tried to determine the type of evidence that could be necessary to show guilt or innocence - not make excuses out of thin air. There are extensive interviews of Watson explaining some of his "reasoning" for the chain of events leading to Tina's death, plus other information that was released in that regard, so why use excuses that he never mentioned? If people made up information "to prove his guilt" that the prosecution did not provide, there would be way more of an uproar.

BTW, I doubt that anyone is "convinced" of his guilt, just as they should not be "convinced" of his innocence. We simply do not have all the facts and may never be privy to them.

 

[ItsBruce]

1. I agree with Don: Watson was never much of a diver. However, the fact of the matter is that most divers are not particularly good. I recall seeing a statistic to the effect that most people who complete OW dive once or twice after that and then never dive again. Of the rest, most dive once or twice a year while on vacation. Only a small fraction of those who complete OW do AOW or rescue. And, even of those who do, my guess is that most still do not dive regularly or practice their skills on a consistent basis. I could well imagine any number of divers thinking they were good without being any good. I could also imagine any number of divers coming to the same, probably incorrect, conclusions that Watson seems to have done. But, being a bad diver does not equate with murder.

2. I, too, would be interested in info from Tina’s computer.

3. It is not Watson's obligation to present evidence about his prior dives. He would not even need to say he did safety stops on every dive. An expert could present evidence that good practice includes a safety stop. Then it would fall to the prosecution to seek out his prior dive buddies in order to show that he did not always do safety stops. If the prosecutor does not do this, a jury might wonder why and might conclude that Watson's slow ascent was proper.

4. There is lots to the case that does not pass the smell test. This includes both Watson's explanations and key evidence that just seems to having been "discovered."

5. Where this discussion will be most useful in the real world is in helping the prosecution and defense get a sense of how real world jurors might evaluate evidence and arguments. I have had cases in which we have had professionals conduct focus groups to help us understand how “normal” people might view evidence or arguments. We, here on SB, are not as “normal” as those who would be used in a focus group, but given the costs of conducting focus groups, we might provide some good preliminary guidance. (Recall that a guilty verdict requires a unanimous verdict.)

6. As to the golf case that Don mentioned, the basic rule in most jurisdictions is that there is no liability for an injury that results from a risk that is inherent in a particular activity. Many courts talk in terms of it being contrary to public policy for the courts to change the “rules” of the game by imposing duties on the participants. One example is in baseball, where a “bean ball” is contrary to the rules, but is a part of the game; a pitcher is not liable if he hits the batter. Or, a late hit or clipping or a facemask in football may result in a penalty, but does not result in liability. However, there IS a duty not to increase the inherent risks, such as by hitting a ball without looking at where other players are.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

It is the safety stop from 45 feet that is at issue.

Of course exploring both sides is perfectly fine. Some of us are trying to examine the evidence that has been made public and have tried to determine the type of evidence that could be necessary to show guilt or innocence - not make excuses out of thin air. There are extensive interviews of Watson explaining some of his "reasoning" for the chain of events leading to Tina's death, plus other information that was released in that regard, so why use excuses that he never mentioned? If people made up information "to prove his guilt" that the prosecution did not provide, there would be way more of an uproar.

BTW, I doubt that anyone is "convinced" of his guilt, just as they should not be "convinced" of his innocence. We simply do not have all the facts and may never be privy to them.

Someone trying to work out motivation or reasons for Watson's actions may seem like making excuses but IMHO it is no different than trying to work out reasons or motivation for Watson's actions to create Motive for murder out of thin air.

We have a forum here on accidents and investigations in which we try to work out what contributed to incidents, what we can learn from them and how we can prevent similar events. It has become clear that there is a misconception among divers.. particularly less experienced divers (my definition of and experienced diver may vary from yours) that diving without doing a SAFETY STOP creates a significant increase in risk of DCI. That is hardly information out of thin air as it has been discussed in other threads here on SB. I think it is worth while to point this out where ever possible to aid in reducing risks of people having delays in getting to the surface which may result in incidents. Some people have commented about the fact that "Drifting Dan" did a midwater Safety Stop in current contributing to his being pulled too far away from the boat to be seen.

I am rather embarrassed to admit that on my 114th dive (Boat dive to 72ft [22M])I was separated from my buddy. We were diving in a larger group of 6 with assigned buddies. I did a safety stop with 3 of the group while my buddy surfaced when he realized I was separated. They knew from the group of 3 sets of bubbles where I was but if my buddy had needed me and been separated from the other two I would never be able to forgive myself! It was only after this incident that I really understood the difference between Safety Stop and Deco Stop.. that I didn't HAVE to do a Safety Stop. I know people who are adamant that even on shore dives where you are following the contours you still should always do a "safety stop" or level out at 5M for 5 minutes! While I think Safety stops should be done where ever possible I also think they may be emphasized too much. Dive instructors, DM's and boat crew often advise that you are required by their policy to do a Safety Stop. That creates some confusion and conflicting information this could be a reasonable explanation as to what was influencing Gabe's decision making. Not all evidence has been released so who knows if he has or has not used this explanation..perhaps he is still under the mistaken idea

I am not sure where the reference to 45ft (13.7M) comes from. See SS "Yongala" Dive Site - Things To See and Do - Queensland Holidays Dive depth from 49ft (15M) on the high point of the wreck to 108 ft (33M) on the sand... which is where Tina wound up. I know they didn't make it to the wreck so has the max depth on Gabe's computer been released?

I disagree with you in that nobody is convinced of his guilt. There have been enough people post their willingness to take justice into their own hands to assume they are convinced of his guilt!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

1. I agree with Don: Watson was never much of a diver. However, the fact of the matter is that most divers are not particularly good. I recall seeing a statistic to the effect that most people who complete OW dive once or twice after that and then never dive again. Of the rest, most dive once or twice a year while on vacation. Only a small fraction of those who complete OW do AOW or rescue. And, even of those who do, my guess is that most still do not dive regularly or practice their skills on a consistent basis. I could well imagine any number of divers thinking they were good without being any good. I could also imagine any number of divers coming to the same, probably incorrect, conclusions that Watson seems to have done. But, being a bad diver does not equate with murder.

2. I, too, would be interested in info from Tina’s computer.

3. It is not Watson's obligation to present evidence about his prior dives. He would not even need to say he did safety stops on every dive. An expert could present evidence that good practice includes a safety stop. Then it would fall to the prosecution to seek out his prior dive buddies in order to show that he did not always do safety stops. If the prosecutor does not do this, a jury might wonder why and might conclude that Watson's slow ascent was proper.

4. There is lots to the case that does not pass the smell test. This includes both Watson's explanations and key evidence that just seems to having been "discovered."

5. Where this discussion will be most useful in the real world is in helping the prosecution and defense get a sense of how real world jurors might evaluate evidence and arguments. I have had cases in which we have had professionals conduct focus groups to help us understand how “normal” people might view evidence or arguments. We, here on SB, are not as “normal” as those who would be used in a focus group, but given the costs of conducting focus groups, we might provide some good preliminary guidance. (Recall that a guilty verdict requires a unanimous verdict.)

6. As to the golf case that Don mentioned, the basic rule in most jurisdictions is that there is no liability for an injury that results from a risk that is inherent in a particular activity. Many courts talk in terms of it being contrary to public policy for the courts to change the “rules” of the game by imposing duties on the participants. One example is in baseball, where a “bean ball” is contrary to the rules, but is a part of the game; a pitcher is not liable if he hits the batter. Or, a late hit or clipping or a facemask in football may result in a penalty, but does not result in liability. However, there IS a duty not to increase the inherent risks, such as by hitting a ball without looking at where other players are.

Interesting and informative as usual Bruce.

I have to agree with you and DON IMHO there may not be enough evidence to indicate he is a murderer but there is enough evidence for me to come to the conclusion that I would not dive with this guy. He certainly wouldn't qualify in my mind as a competent diver or one with a clear enough idea of his abilities. I don't mind diving with inexperienced divers on occasion but I do mind diving with someone who does not recognize their skill level or lack thereof!

I certainly wouldn't dream of taking someone of either Tina or even Gabe's experience level on a dive as potentially challenging as the Yongola without a DM assigned to them! Why they opted out of the DM escort is beyond me! Tina.. a Trust me dive and Gabe arrogance? over confidence? or ???????

You comments in 4 are very interesting and though provoking indeed! It is interesting how much evidence has been released, when and by whom! I have to keep reminding myself that this rather fascinating case is not some fictional soap opera being written by people with fertile imaginations but one effecting real people in real and terrible ways.

IMHO people are often too much in awe of a person just because they have Dr in front of their name. There are a couple jokes that come to mind. What is the difference between a Doctor and God?

Spoiler

God knows he is not a Doctor

and What is the most common psychological condition suffered by doctors?

Spoiler

MDiety complex

Don't get me wrong.. I have some dear friends who are Doctors but they are the first ones to tell you they are just people with training and skill in one area of expertise not Gods or people with super human abilities!

IMHO it is wrong to assume that DR Stutz was better able to observe and analyze what he saw than anyone else. Honestly we don't even know if he does that well in his own field. There certainly are a few Doctors out there who aren't shining examples. Look at the situation where the Emergency Dr ran over a diver with his boat amputating his legs. The ER Doc then left the scene without offering assistance while the dive boat crew pulled him bleeding from the water. The dive boat was broadcasting that they needed someone with Medical training to assist. http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/scuba-related-court-cases/348415-rob-murphys-day-court.html I do not mean to imply that Dr Stutz is a low life.. just that the DR in front of his name and the fact he works in ER does not make him unimpeachable!

 

[DandyDon]

I have a lot of respect and admiration for physicians and other doctors in general, but I've known enough exceptions that I wouldn't give them blanket credit for anything. Professionals vary.

I certainly wouldn't dream of taking someone of either Tina or even Gabe's experience level on a dive as potentially challenging as the Yongola without a DM assigned to them! Why they opted out of the DM escort is beyond me! Tina.. a Trust me dive and Gabe arrogance? over confidence?

Again, we just sorta know some of the possible facts, working with news reports written by reporters, and some questionable investigating - but I got the idea that Gave was a mostly FW diver. Didn't he push Tina into scuba so they could spend more time together weekends? I don't know if he'd ever dived the ocean before at all?

Some of the regulars on the Coz forum talk about how easy Coz diving is to newbies while I am advising them to hire a private DM for the first day - money well spent. Easy diving? No such thing. People die in Coz when they take their regs out before they're back on the boat, get hit with a wave, and choke on a laryngospasm - rarely, but it happens. I included that little story at dinner tonight in advance of a snorkeling class I'm giving family before their cruise there next month. "Keep the mask on your face and the snorkel in your mouth until you're back on the boat - unless you are screaming for help." I am getting off the subject here some, but I like new divers and new snorkelers to dive safer than I survived in my younger dumber days.

 

[Ayisha]

I disagree with you in that nobody is convinced of his guilt. There have been enough people post their willingness to take justice into their own hands to assume they are convinced of his guilt!

That's true. I was thinking of the people here who have made reasoned arguments and varied contributions. I guess we can't disregard or ignore the ones that hope they never need an alibi... :shocked2:

Someone trying to work out motivation or reasons for Watson's actions may seem like making excuses but IMHO it is no different than trying to work out reasons or motivation for Watson's actions to create Motive for murder out of thin air.

I think the difference is that people are interjecting what Watson may have been thinking that has not been privy to us. The issue is that no one can know what Watson was THINKING or what he KNEW or UNDERSTOOD at any time that he did or did not do anything. If people interjected, without supporting information, what Watson may have been thinking when he performed or omitted an action that supported murder, it would easily be recognized as not dealing with the facts that are presented to us. No one can know what Watson may have thought unless he makes us privy to that info...

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I have a lot of respect and admiration for physicians and other doctors in general, but I've known enough exceptions that I wouldn't give them blanket credit for anything. Professionals vary.

Again, we just sorta know some of the possible facts, working with news reports written by reporters, and some questionable investigating - but I got the idea that Gave was a mostly FW diver. Didn't he push Tina into scuba so they could spend more time together weekends? I don't know if he'd ever dived the ocean before at all?

Some of the regulars on the Coz forum talk about how easy Coz diving is to newbies while I am advising them to hire a private DM for the first day - money well spent. Easy diving? No such thing. People die in Coz when they take their regs out before they're back on the boat, get hit with a wave, and choke on a laryngospasm - rarely, but it happens. I included that little story at dinner tonight in advance of a snorkeling class I'm giving family before their cruise there next month. "Keep the mask on your face and the snorkel in your mouth until you're back on the boat - unless you are screaming for help." I am getting off the subject here some, but I like new divers and new snorkelers to dive safer than I survived in my younger dumber days.

I don't think that is too far off topic since it relates to the experience of the participants. IMHO when a comment is made in a post that may contribute to someone who reads it being safer that adds value to the post, tread and SB! I like the way you express the bolded bit:worship:.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

That's true. I was thinking of the people here who have made reasoned arguments and varied contributions. I guess we can't disregard or ignore the ones that hope they never need an alibi... :shocked2:

Merry Christmas. Ayisha Yes this has been a very interesting exercise in reasoned arguments! Perhaps we should get some kind of recognition for a very long running topic with long term participants expressing differing opinions in a very civilized and respectful manner:worship: the others haven't really side tracked things or controlled the prevailing attitude of civility.

 

[Ayisha]

6. As to the golf case that Don mentioned, the basic rule in most jurisdictions is that there is no liability for an injury that results from a risk that is inherent in a particular activity.

Except that in this case, the liveaboard company, Mike Ball Expeditions, was convicted and fined about $8000 (total costs) for "fail(ing) to ensure that other persons were not exposed to risks to their health and safety arising out of the conduct or the employer's business or undertaking". Further on, "This charge related to a failure of the company to comply with its own procedures as set out in its manual", which were higher than state requirements. This is from the Coroner's Report under the section "Prosecution of the Dive Company", sections 38 - 41 at http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Watson20080620.pdf

Merry Christmas to you too, Petunia. Yes, I think we have been quite civil, even though there are over 380 posts...