Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

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!

The defense could decide to go after Dr. Stutz and they may decide to try and get access to his working record in the emergency room. However, juries are often asked to determine who they believe is telling the truth. So, it could depend on who is more "impeachable" - Gabe Watson or Dr. Stutz. We know that Watson has many inconsistencies in his various stories, and even some things he has said is a straight-up lie (i.e. saying he was never taught how to rescue someone as just one example), but we have not yet heard of inconsistencies in Dr. Stutz' statement. He does not have a reason to lie as the other doctor you mentioned, did. Reasons for lying will have some impact on a jury. If they are to believe that someone is lying, they are going to want a reason for the lie. Or they are going to want some kind of proof that the person is a low-life liar. At this point, we don't have anything to say that Dr. Stutz is impeachable or a liar.

More than likely they will challenge Dr. Stutz on a "perfect memory." He was quite detailed about the incident. The defense will have to try and shake Dr. Stutz' confidence in his memory and work on creating guilt for his role in putting a man in jail, possibly for the rest of his life. Will Dr. Stutz stand by his detailed memory under this kind of pressure? That - we don't know yet. This is what I think the scenario will most likely be and it could be very key to the outcome.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

No one has said that a patron has to do anything. The issue is that the liveaboard did not follow it's written procedures in keeping divers safe. If an orientation dive must be conducted, Gabe and Tina should not have been able to opt out of it. If less experienced divers must have a staff with them, then Tina, with 11 total dives, required a leader. If one must have AOW certification for that wreck, someone without at least that c-card (like Tina) should not have been allowed to do it.

my original remark
I find it interesting that when we dive in Queensland there are a number of "regulations" that you are told you must follow. These relate to required gear and amount of air in the tank when you complete the dive. These "regulations" when researched relate to Occupational Health and Safety which technically only apply to employees and professional divers not to the patrons. Most DM's have no idea that these regulations are not Laws or where they come from. There is so much diving up there that I think it is just easier for the operators to try to apply the same requirements to the customers as the employees as an added safety factor.

I stand by that. I also agree that Business Operators have a Duty of Care to reduce the risks that their patrons may be impacted by as a result of the Business they conduct and how it is done. I do not have a problem with Operators claiming the OHS Regulations apply to their patrons in their effort to get compliance. I was just stating a fact regarding this issue.

You are contradicting yourself here. No one has said that a patron has to do anything. The issue is that the liveaboard did not follow it's written procedures in keeping divers safe. If an orientation dive must be conducted, Gabe and Tina should not have been able to opt out of it.

I didn't mention the Mike Ball incident.

My response was in relation to diver257a who said...


And I said I don't think it does and have given the reasons for it.

Glad you turned up Burna. I remember having this discussion with you some time ago when we went to Queensland diving. I agree with your position on this for the reasons you oulined then and now. The words you have bolded make the case IMHO.

I can't imagine a defense attorney trying to isolate the meaning of the word "lost" and discard the context of Watson's statement. It can be easily matched to the context definition bolded above.

"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.."

This is an exercise in silliness and would, in my opinion, be laughed right out of the courtroom if tried.

You commented that Watson would have a lot of trouble explaining away his remarks.... I was only using that one as an example. I doubt this particular wording will be something they make a big deal out of.

I can tell you with 11 dives I would have been "lost" without my regular dive buddy. I stuck to him like glue because I trusted him completely to not get me beyond my skill level and to help me cope with anything that arose. Without him I would never have continued diving. Right or wrong to do "trust me dives"? I think we all do in the beginning. Because of that relationship I can relate to Tina's trust in Gabe which make his actions overstating his abilities and failing to protect her despicable in my book! I could happily apply some very negative terms to Mr Watson but at this time.. Murderer isn't one of them.

 

[ItsBruce]

Ayisha,

I think 'It'sBruce' is talking about a Common Law principle in his post. The MBDE situation is different. It was convicted because it breached a statute (i.e. the Queensland Workplace Health and Safety Act). Have a look at the first link in post #385.

Quite right. I was sloppy in failing to make that point and further in failing to mention that this principle is most commonly applied in the U.S., where it has become quite fashionable.

With few exceptions, a statute trumps the Common Law. Additionally, when one establishes one's own standards and they are higher than what the law requires, one is usually held to those standards.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Actually, Watson said after he reached the anchor line and shook an Asian male diver and then from that point, he "rocketed" to the surface. The defense says that they have witnesses that will say that Watson came up out of the water so fast from "rocketing" to the surface that he came up out of the water up to his waist. So -for now it looks like the defense is going with a truly rapid ascent and not just some diver's perception of a rapid ascent and trying to redefine what "bolting" or "rocketing" means. So, unless the defense changes their apparent tact, I think we can throw-out a theory of trying to redefine rocketing or bolting to the surface.

The proof will be in the dive computer, and whether or not it shows a rapid ascent. Starting from 5 feet and kicking hard, he could appear to bolting up out of the water from a rapid ascent. The police said, however, there was no rapid ascent alarm. Even from 10 feet, I've received a rapid ascent alarm on my Oceanic, but if I'm 5 feet or less, I don't get one unless I am already in one.

It would be a good idea for both the defense and the prosecution to test Watson's dive computer model to see from which depth it stops registering a rapid ascent to the surface. If it turns out that it not register a rapid ascent from 5 feet or less, and there is no rapid ascent on the computer, I think it will hurt Watson - especially if they put witnesses on the stand that say he came up out of the water up to his waist.

It would be very interesting to see exactly what Gabe and Tina's computer logged! Of course the approach the Lawyers use will be based on exactly what the computer shows and not so much on the words... which is the only information we can look at here.

As I said to DD if someone reads this thread an gets a more realistic idea of what a Safety Stop is compared to a DECO Stop then this discussion is worth while don't you agree?

The defense could decide to go after Dr. Stutz and they may decide to try and get access to his working record in the emergency room. However, juries are often asked to determine who they believe is telling the truth. So, it could depend on who is more "impeachable" - Gabe Watson or Dr. Stutz. We know that Watson has many inconsistencies in his various stories, and even some things he has said is a straight-up lie (i.e. saying he was never taught how to rescue someone as just one example), but we have not yet heard of inconsistencies in Dr. Stutz' statement. He does not have a reason to lie as the other doctor you mentioned, did. Reasons for lying will have some impact on a jury. If they are to believe that someone is lying, they are going to want a reason for the lie. Or they are going to want some kind of proof that the person is a low-life liar. At this point, we don't have anything to say that Dr. Stutz is impeachable or a liar.

More than likely they will challenge Dr. Stutz on a "perfect memory." He was quite detailed about the incident. The defense will have to try and shake Dr. Stutz' confidence in his memory and work on creating guilt for his role in putting a man in jail, possibly for the rest of his life. Will Dr. Stutz stand by his detailed memory under this kind of pressure? That - we don't know yet. This is what I think the scenario will most likely be and it could be very key to the outcome.

Oh no. I did not at any time say I thought Dr Stutz was lying. I didn't say the other Doctor lied either. I was only pointing out that Doctors are not Gods who have some magical ability to interpret what they see and act nobly in every situation.

I don't even think it necessarily comes to who they believe is telling the truth. So, it could depend on who is more "impeachable" - Gabe Watson or Dr. Stutz unless Dr Stutz says he clearly saw Gabe turn Tina's air off and Gabe says he didn't.

I think the issue is more about
1)what Dr Stutz saw or thought he saw,
2)how he processed/interpreted what he saw
3)when did he come to his conclusions
4)who did he discuss the information with
5)what influenced him in coming to those conclusions

There seems to be a time lag before this information came forward (see Bruce's post). Why? Could be totally innocent but it could still mean the conclusions were influenced by external factors.

There is a good reason that emergency services providers are asked to write detailed reports at the time of or as soon after an event!

 

[Kern]

Dr Stutz may be lying for a variety of reasons ranging from, "Gee it's nice to be the centre of attention" to "this guys a murderer & someone has to do something" & anything in between. He is after all only human, & there is nothing stranger than folk. I'm sure a competent defence could inject some doubts on the matter.

Due to his actions at the time of the incident, the amount of time it took him to say anything at all, etc., it may not be too difficult to inject some more doubts about his statements.

I wonder what the Qld. police might have said to the Dr. prior to his statement, made 3 years after the fact.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Yes, the same is true in Canada, Petunia and diver257a. I am the Health and Safety Advisor (in addition to a teacher) for our Organization of Montessori Schools, certified by the WSIB (Workers Safety and Insurance Board) under the OHSA. It sounds like Diver257a has it right for Queensland.

I can't speak for how this is interpreted in Canada as a whole altho I suspect there are still differences between Ontario and BC.

Things may be different in BC now (I haven't worked in BC for 10 years). I remember being quite shocked to find out that the Regulations for Qualified First Aiders and their level of training in schools was determined by the number of EMPLOYEES only and had nothing to do with the students!

Sometimes bureaucracy is insane! example.. In our ambulance station we had to have crew members holding Worker's Compensation Board Certified Occupational First Aid Level III to meet the Workers Compensation Board regulations for our "worksite". Our Paramedic Certificates involved much higher level of training but they were not accepted by Worker's Compensation Board:shocked2:. Not sure if that still holds true... sure hope they have resolved those issues.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Dr Stutz may be lying for a variety of reasons ranging from, "Gee it's nice to be the centre of attention" to "this guys a murderer & someone has to do something" & anything in between. He is after all only human, & there is nothing stranger than folk. I'm sure a competent defence could inject some doubts on the matter.

Due to his actions at the time of the incident, the amount of time it took him to say anything at all, etc., it may not be too difficult to inject some more doubts about his statements.

I wonder what the Qld. police might have said to the Dr. prior to his statement, made 3 years after the fact.

Or how he might have been impacted by the media, Tina's loved ones suffering, the removal of flowers at the cemetery etc. All those things can and do have an impact on people who hate to see perceived injustices and suffering!

 

[Ayisha]

I do not have a problem with Operators claiming the OHS Regulations apply to their patrons in their effort to get compliance. I was just stating a fact regarding this issue.

This is incorrect. Let's take more well-known scenarios for a general idea. If a customer (or any other person) slips because a path is not shovelled or a spill is not cleaned up promptly, a corporation, employer, supervisor, etc., can be charged, convicted, and fined under the Act. Patrons are not allowed to walk in the path of a ride in an amusement park. If one does not comply with airport security, one need not be allowed to fly.

This is what your Act says, which is similar to our OHSA:

36 Obligations of workers and other persons at a workplaceA worker or anyone else at a workplace has the following
obligations at a workplace—
(a) to comply with the instructions given for workplace
health and safety at the workplace by the employer at
the workplace and any principal contractor for
construction work at the workplace;
(b) for a worker—to use personal protective equipment if
the equipment is provided by the worker’s employer and
the worker is properly instructed in its use;
(c) not to wilfully or recklessly interfere with or misuse
anything provided for workplace health and safety at the
workplace;
(d) not to wilfully place at risk the workplace health and
safety of any person at the workplace;
(e) not to wilfully injure himself or herself.

You are contradicting yourself here. No one has said that a patron has to do anything. The issue is that the liveaboard did not follow it's written procedures in keeping divers safe. If an orientation dive must be conducted, Gabe and Tina should not have been able to opt out of it.

This is not a contradiction. If the patrons do not want to follow the established rules, they do not have to dive.

Mike Ball Expeditions was convicted and fined for exactly the reasons mentioned in the Health and Safety Act violations link. I am quite sure their lawyer(s) would not let the fine stand if there were no grounds for it. If their CoP was not to a higher standard than the Act required, they probably would not have been charged.

 

[ItsBruce]

There are a number of ways of attacking a witness' credibility. Pointing out inconsistencies is only one. And, just because someone testifies to something that is at odds with "reality," that does not mean he or she is "lying." In a trial, the judge will generally instruct the jury as to factors to consider in evaluating credibility and also as to why witnesses may offer conflicting testimony. In California, the jury is generally instructed with, among other things, the following:

"In deciding whether to believe a witness’s testimony, you may consider, among other factors, the following:
(a) How well did the witness see, hear, or otherwise sense what he or she described in court?
(b) How well did the witness remember and describe what happened?
(c) How did the witness look, act, and speak while testifying?
(d) Did the witness have any reason to say something that was not true? Did the witness show any bias or prejudice? Did the witness have a personal relationship with any of the parties involved in the case? Does the witness have a personal stake in how this case is decided?
(e) What was the witness’s attitude toward this case or about giving testimony?
Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony.
However, if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest."

But, note, as I've said before, if Dr. Stutz testifies that he saw Watson holding Tina in a bear hug, but cannot say he saw Watson touching her tank valve, that might raise a doubt as to whether he turned her air off. (If he turned the air off to kill her and she was found with her air on, that would mean Watson would have had to turn it back on. However, if there is no testimony that he was seen turning it on, that might lead to the conclusion he had not turned it off.) So, the question is whether Dr. Stutz would have been in a position to see Watson turning Tina's air on. Moreover, if Dr. Stutz can put the two together for a period of time that would have precluded Watson from having turned Tina's air off long enough to have killed her, that might also tend to cast doubt on a murder theory.

It could be very subtle. I am reminded of a case a close friend and mentor once tried. The key issue was whether the plaintiff actually owned "stuff" that she claimed was stolen from her in a burglary. At trial she called a friend who was going to testify that she had seen the things in the plaintiff's home prior to the burglary. Before this friend was allowed to testify, my friend was allowed to ask a few foundational questions: (1) Were you and the plaintiff friends; (2) Had you visited the plaintiff's house from time to time; (3) Had the plaintiff visited your house from time to time; (4) Had you called the plaintiff on the telephone and spoken to her; and (5) Had the plaintiff called you on the telephone and spoken to you The witness answered "yes" to each of these. These questions and answers led the court to preclude the witness from testifying! The reason was that the plaintiff had failed to disclose her address or telephone number earlier in the case and thereby precluded my friend from contacting and interviewing the witness before trial and the questions and answers showed that the plaintiff knew where the witness lived and knew her telephone number.

Thus, a good defense attorney could set the scenario up so that a jury would think that in order to have seen what he says he saw, Dr. Stutz would have had to see whether Watson had done something with Tina's valve and that if Dr. Stutz had not seen that, then it didn't happen.

Another point: I would not be comfortable saying that Watson lied when he said he was not taught how to rescue someone. While it is unlikely that such a point was omitted from his Rescue class, it is possible. And, even if the instructor were to say he taught Watson how to rescue someone, perhaps the instructor is not being accurate. Moreover, even if Watson was taught how to rescue someone and forgot it, and based on that forgetfulness, said he had not been taught, that does not equate with a lie. A lie entails being willful.

Yet another point: There have been comments about what the lawyers have said. Do you know how to tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips move. Don't believe what the lawyers say. It is not evidence. It cannot be used for or against a client. Often what a lawyer says is posturing. The lawyer may say something in order to make an opponent think the lawyer has an inside track. Or, the lawyer may say it just so an opponent will spend time and resources being able to address it. Remember, the defense does not need to share any information with the prosecution.

Thus, Watson's lawyer may publicly proclaim that Dr. Stutz saw the DM in a bear hug and saw the DM drop her, just so that the prosecution has to be ready to refute it.

 

[K_girl]

Well, if the defense intends to impeach Dr. Stutz as wanting attention, that is going to be a tough one. First, Dr. Stutz did not talk to anyone for three years after the incident until police contacted him. That shows a complete lack of desire for attention, as he did not talk to police, nor newspapers, nor Tina's family during that time. Second, as far as wanting to bring closure for Tina's family, considering police procedures he should have been interviewed without their suspicions of Watson. Indeed, in Dr. Stutz' police interview, there was no mention of Gabe Watson as being the first diver. There was no mention of Gabe Watson at all. He did not mention anything about Watson's behavior. There is nothing in Dr. Stutz' interview that would suggest that he had any kind of bias against Watson or for Tina's family.

In addition, I think that it actually looks better for Dr. Stutz as a witness due to the fact that he did not initiate contact with the police as it would appear he did not attempt to interpret what he saw and what connection it may have had to Watson. Only police could do that because they had all the information in the case, Dr. Stutz did not. Dr. Stutz did not attempt to identify Watson as the first diver. He did not attempt to characterize any reason why the first diver left Tina, only that he left.

So, if you are going to impeach someone on these kinds of grounds, you need something more than just an accusation.