Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

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?

I think it is more appropriate in the accident or near-misses thread rather than a court-related case thread. I understand what you are saying though. More divers do need to understand that a safety stop is a precaution and if you are doing no-deco diving, safety stops are not required, especially in emergency situtations. Although, it may be a matter of what is displayed on your dive computer, a safety stop can look very similar to a deco stop. If you are doing multiple dives and have a conservative computer (like my last one) diving with other divers who have less conservative computers, you can wind-up with a deco hit, especially if you are trying to stay with the group. That's why I bought a new, less conservative computer, but I dive with both computers.

 

[K_girl]

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.

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.

True - Dr. Stutz did not see Watson turn her air on or off. But what he may have witnessed is that Tina was being deprived of air at the time he saw Watson holding her in a bear hug. Dr. Stutz did see Tina's arms and legs twitching as she sank to the bottom, indicative of asphyxiation. She was in the process of dying on the way down, even though her air was on. You continue to state that she had to be completely dead before Watson let her go, but I don't think that is the case. All he had to do was incapacitate her and it only takes a moment to get water into the lungs. Whether he quickly removed her reg and replaced it, or turned off her air, doesn't matter. What Dr. Stutz did see was that Watson had her in his grasp, let her go, she drifted down, completely helpless and Watson swam away. He did not see Tina knock Watson's mask off. He did not see Watson adjust his mask. He did not see Watson kick down for Tina. I think it will come down to who the jury will believe what happened at this moment. Will they believe Watson? Or will they believe Dr. Stutz? They both can't be telling the truth. To me, that is the ultimate question yet to be decided.

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.

Apparently, you have not taken the rescue course because I can tell you, it does teach you how to "rescue" another person. That is why they call it a "Rescue Course."

"Lengthy testimony was also given by videolink from Gabe and Tina's diving instructor, Thomas Jackson, from Birmingham, Alabama.

The experienced instructor was visibly stunned when shown Mr Watson's police statements claiming that he did not know how to rescue a diver in trouble. Crown lawyer John Tate read aloud Mr Watson's statement made to Townsville police five days after Tina's death stating there had been nothing in his training `about how to get somebody' and asked Mr Jackson if that was accurate.

Mr Jackson emphatically replied `Absolutely not'.

"He took the course. I don't know why he's saying he didn't know how to do it," Mr Jackson said. "When he said he swam down and couldn't get her, that defies everything (that was taught) in training. "In my opinion, there was no reason why he could not have brought her up from the bottom _ he was definitely trained to do that.

"The whole way he says he went about trying to help her - none of it makes sense."

Source: Caught on film | Townsville Bulletin News

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.

Well, I do believe that the defense will have to change some of their strategies that they have released to the public and I believe that is all part of the deal here. But just to make sure that another rumor isn't started, they have not proclaimed that Dr. Stutz saw the DM drop Tina - at least not yet. It's not going help if Wade Singleton, the rescue diver, does not corroborate it. I'm sure he would remember if he dropped Tina and swam away from her.

 

[Ayisha]

...(The Rescue Course) does teach you how to "rescue" another person. That is why they call it a "Rescue Course."

"Lengthy testimony was also given by videolink from Gabe and Tina's diving instructor, Thomas Jackson, from Birmingham, Alabama.

The experienced instructor was visibly stunned when shown Mr Watson's police statements claiming that he did not know how to rescue a diver in trouble. Crown lawyer John Tate read aloud Mr Watson's statement made to Townsville police five days after Tina's death stating there had been nothing in his training `about how to get somebody' and asked Mr Jackson if that was accurate.

Mr Jackson emphatically replied `Absolutely not'.

"He took the course. I don't know why he's saying he didn't know how to do it," Mr Jackson said. "When he said he swam down and couldn't get her, that defies everything (that was taught) in training. "In my opinion, there was no reason why he could not have brought her up from the bottom _ he was definitely trained to do that.

"The whole way he says he went about trying to help her - none of it makes sense."

Source: Caught on film | Townsville Bulletin News

Also, Watson's log book would show exactly which rescue skills he completed, which would have to be ALL of them in order to be certified. Those rescue skills would have had to have been signed off by the instructor, Thomas Jackson, in order to apply for the Rescue Diver c-card. There are a variety of types of rescue techniques and situations that Watson would have had to demonstrate before receiving the c-card. PADI would have a record of his certification and any corresponding documents they may keep on file.

On another note, do we know for certain that Dr Stutz did not make his first statement for 3 years?

 

[ItsBruce]

True - Dr. Stutz did not see Watson turn her air on or off. But what he may have witnessed is that Tina was being deprived of air at the time he saw Watson holding her in a bear hug. Dr. Stutz did see Tina's arms and legs twitching as she sank to the bottom, indicative of asphyxiation. She was in the process of dying on the way down, even though her air was on. You continue to state that she had to be completely dead before Watson let her go, but I don't think that is the case. All he had to do was incapacitate her and it only takes a moment to get water into the lungs.

If I said she had to be completely dead, then I was being careless. If she was incapacitated, that would be adequate.

Whether he quickly removed her reg and replaced it, or turned off her air, doesn't matter.

I started out to say that I must respectfully disagree and that unless the prosecution offers a single explanation with evidence, a jury may might not convict. I was going to continue that in most jurisdictions the jury does not need to agree on every detail, i.e. whether he quickly removed her reg and replaced it or turned her air off and then back on, so long as it agrees he did one or the other. And, I was going to say that nonetheless, a jury might have a problem with Watson having killed Tina unless the prosecution could offer a single explanation.

However, as I typed that, I realized it might not be so problematic for the prosecution. It could simply take the approach of saying Watson killed Tina by getting her to ingest seawater but that is unclear exactly how he did it. It could then offer different means by which he could have done that.

The problem remains that in the absence of someone who could say they saw what it was that Watson did to cause Tina to ingest water, the jury may have a reasonable doubt that he did anything. After all, there are reasons other than having one's air turned off or having the reg pulled from one's mouth that lead to the ingestion of water and death. Defense experts would certainly testify to that. And, I would think that even the prosecution experts would have to concede it.

What Dr. Stutz did see was that Watson had her in his grasp, let her go, she drifted down, completely helpless and Watson swam away. He did not see Tina knock Watson's mask off. He did not see Watson adjust his mask. He did not see Watson kick down for Tina. I think it will come down to who the jury will believe what happened at this moment. Will they believe Watson? Or will they believe Dr. Stutz? They both can't be telling the truth. To me, that is the ultimate question yet to be decided.

I do not think this is the ultimate question. I also think that Dr. Stutz will be the more believable witness. Based on what I currently know from public information, I'm not sure I would believe Watson about anything relative to that dive.

But, in the courtroom, it might not be bad for Watson if he is not believed about anything. In fact, it might lead the jury to conclude that he was so rattled by Tina's death that everything he said must be discounted, and discounted to the point that there is nothing to be contradicted. I've seen it happen. Beyond that, a jury might conclude that the reason he was so rattled was because Tina's death was truly a horrible accident.

As far as "ultimate" questions, since I think Dr. Stutz' testimony might exonerate Watson, i.e. negate his having turned Tina's air off or removed her reg, credibility is far from the ultimate question.

Apparently, you have not taken the rescue course because I can tell you, it does teach you how to "rescue" another person. That is why they call it a "Rescue Course."

I have taken the rescue course. I was taught how to rescue another person. But, just because you and I were taught how to rescue someone, that does not mean Watson was. I find it hard to believe he wasn't taught how to rescue someone. But, I wasn't there, so I can't be sure of what he was or wasn't taught. (See "Schrodinger's Cat.)

Moreover, even if Watson was taught how to rescue someone and was able to demonstrate the skill during the class, that does not mean he could do so at the time of Tina's death. Nor does it mean he recalls having been taught how to do it. For example, I know that I took statistics in college and that I passed the class. However, I do not recall having been taught what standard deviation means or what it does. (Note: Despite the fact I don't recall it, if I were a betting man, I'd bet I was and simply do not recall having been taught it.)

Well, I do believe that the defense will have to change some of their strategies that they have released to the public and I believe that is all part of the deal here. But just to make sure that another rumor isn't started, they have not proclaimed that Dr. Stutz saw the DM drop Tina - at least not yet. It's not going help if Wade Singleton, the rescue diver, does not corroborate it. I'm sure he would remember if he dropped Tina and swam away from her.

What lawyers say in television and newspaper interviews is often just distractions. The more things that the other side must prepare to address, the more likely there will be something it fails to address and that could be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.

 

[ItsBruce]

A further thought: I am glad I am not trial counsel on this case. There are going to be a lot of strategic decisions that I would rather not have to make. This is particularly so because once you go down a particular road, it may be very hard to change to a different one.

For example, asserting insanity as a defense means admitting the act. Thus, if the jury finds the defendant was not insane, the defendant has admitted the act. However, denying the act precludes the defendant from claiming insanity if the jury concludes he performed it.

With Watson's case, I'm glad I don't need to make the decisions.

 

[K_girl]

ItsBruce - It will be up to a jury to determine what degree the prosecution has to prove each and every single detailed element (i.e. did anyone actually see Watson deprive Tina of air), or do the circumstances lead you to believe that is the only logical conclusion beyond a "reasonable" doubt? For instance, some murder cases are won without the body (i.e. proof that someone is acutally dead), or eye witnesses and are based on circumstantial evidence.

Interesting that you discussed "insanity." And I was wondering if the basis of insanity or even temporary insanity would be similar to a "panic" defense in this case and the fact that he admitted that he understood the consequences of his actions at the moment he left Tina would make it more difficult to argue a panic defense.

The jury instructions given by the judge at the end of the presentation of the case, will have an impact and will be important. I think most participants in this discussion have done a good job in pointing out what the issues will be, how they could possibly be argued and how a jury could potentially view them. Now all we have to do is wait for the actual trial (if there is to be one).

 

[ItsBruce]

It will be up to a jury to determine what degree the prosecution has to prove each and every single detailed element (i.e. did anyone actually see Watson deprive Tina of air), or do the circumstances lead you to believe that is the only logical conclusion beyond a "reasonable" doubt?

Sorry, but it is the trial judge, as reviewed by the appellate court, who determines what degree the prosecution has to prove the elements of a case. The jury determines if the prosecution has done so. And, even if the jury determines the prosecution has done so, both the trial court and the appellate courts can find that the determination was unreasonable.

Imagine, if you will, that a person, who we will call the suspect, would receive tens of millions of dollars plus other benefits, if another person, who we will call decedent, were to die. Imagine that suspect has even publicly stated how convenient it would be if decedent died. Imagine that decedent is found dead. Imagine that there is no forensic evidence of foul play or that suspect was anywhere near decedent. Imagine that suspect has no alibi. If suspect were charged with murder and the theory was that he had such a strong motive, that he must have done it, is there any chance that under the English Common Law (as used by the U.S., England, Australia, etc.) that a judge would even let the case go to a jury. I personally think not.

Interesting that you discussed "insanity." And I was wondering if the basis of insanity or even temporary insanity would be similar to a "panic" defense in this case and the fact that he admitted that he understood the consequences of his actions at the moment he left Tina would make it more difficult to argue a panic defense.

I was not suggesting an insanity defense in this case. And, I have not really thought through whether a panic could rise to that level. Without taking the time to really hash this out, I'll toss in my initial thoughts. I may refine hose, either with or without input from other contributors.

If the prosecution's theory is that Watson either turned Tina's air off or took the reg from her mouth, then I do not see how panic would get to the level of an insanity defense. One might say "I turned her air off because I was bonkers and could not distinguish right from wrong / could not control my actions." (Two different tests for insanity.) One can't keep a straight face and say: "I turned her air off because I was panicked."

OTOH, one could reasonably say "I did not act to prevent her death because I was panicked." However, that presupposes there is no proof he turned her air off, etc., first. In that instance, you would have little more than a negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. ...And, I'm not even sure you would have that without there being some sort of proof that the defendant could have actually prevented her death. (Recall all of the discussion on SB about the bad precedent that was arguably being set by Watson pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter?)

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Bruce if it is established that Gabe:

1) pressured Tina into learning to dive
2) picked the Yongala site when he reasonably should have known it was out of Tina's skill level
3) influenced Tina to decline the "orientation dive"
4) knowingly exaggerated his commitment and ability to assist Tina should she get into trouble.

Would those factors support a negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter finding? I think all of those factors were discussed when UnderExposed was posting on the subject. It seems to me there was some discussion that Gabe's contribution to Tina's decision to dive and to waive the orientation dive made the finding in Queensland less likely to set a precedent for the role of the average Dive buddy pairing.

 

[K_girl]

Imagine, if you will, that a person, who we will call the suspect, would receive tens of millions of dollars plus other benefits, if another person, who we will call decedent, were to die. Imagine that suspect has even publicly stated how convenient it would be if decedent died. Imagine that decedent is found dead. Imagine that there is no forensic evidence of foul play or that suspect was anywhere near decedent. Imagine that suspect has no alibi. If suspect were charged with murder and the theory was that he had such a strong motive, that he must have done it, is there any chance that under the English Common Law (as used by the U.S., England, Australia, etc.) that a judge would even let the case go to a jury. I personally think not.

However, "evidence of no foul play with the suspect no where near the decedent" is not the situation in this case. Motive alone is not proof of guilt.

If the prosecution's theory is that Watson either turned Tina's air off or took the reg from her mouth, then I do not see how panic would get to the level of an insanity defense. One might say "I turned her air off because I was bonkers and could not distinguish right from wrong / could not control my actions." (Two different tests for insanity.) One can't keep a straight face and say: "I turned her air off because I was panicked."

The defense would put forth the panic defense as a reason for leaving, not the reason for turning off her air as they would not admit that he deliberately deprived her of air. But I see what you are saying - the insanity defense admits that they killed someone in the physical manner alleged. The similarity between the the panic and insanity arguments would be that the perpetrator did not understand the consequences of their actions. I think that is an argument the prosecution can put forth. Whether or not they win - don't know. However, I think they can successfully argue any panic defense put forth on the basis of Watson's statements.

The defense would have to argue something in light of Watson's statement that he thought Tina would be lost and that is why he did not want to leave her. The only thing I can think of that they can argue is panic. I think both the prosecution and defense will need experts on panic. If I were a juror, I would want to know more about panic other than my own experience. I personally can understand self-preservation panic that obscures all thought processes and makes someone bolt to the surface. I don't understand an argument of panic in this case, especially in light of the Australian judge's sentencing remarks and the manslaughter conviction.

The lack of panic is just one of many elements that brings high suspicion in this case. If you isolate all of the issues and statements in this case, and look at only one issue at a time, you can probably bring doubt to each individual issue. However, if you look at the case in total, there is a case that can at least be brought to trial.

 

[K_girl]

Bruce if it is established that Gabe:

1) pressured Tina into learning to dive
2) picked the Yongala site when he reasonably should have known it was out of Tina's skill level
3) influenced Tina to decline the "orientation dive"
4) knowingly exaggerated his commitment and ability to assist Tina should she get into trouble.

Would those factors support a negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter finding? I think all of those factors were discussed when UnderExposed was posting on the subject. It seems to me there was some discussion that Gabe's contribution to Tina's decision to dive and to waive the orientation dive made the finding in Queensland less likely to set a precedent for the role of the average Dive buddy pairing.

Some of the elements you mentioned were in the sentencing remarks of the Australian judge. Here is the link for you: Tina Watson Dies While Scuba Diving with Her Husband