Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Ayisha]

This must have come from a previously unknown eye witness; a forensic expert who can tell the precise time a tank is turned on or off and by whom, or by a psychic of unmatched capability.

We still don't know if Tina had an air integrated computer, although we know quite a bit about Gabe's. I do hope we find out...

One thing that became clear when we saw Dr Stutz's interview was that it supported the police theory that Gabe may have turned off Tina's air. Dr Stutz stated that when Tina first caught his attention, her facial expression was one of fear and she was flailing. Gabe THEN went to her and had his arms around her for a while and Dr Stutz could not see his hands. During this time, Tina was flailing less and less. Gabe then let her go and she sank to the bottom. At some point, she stopped flailing at all and rested on the bottom lifeless.

The police and prosecution theory is that what Dr Stutz saw was the turning back on of the regulator before Gabe dropped Tina.

 

[kevin316]

I have to say I also think he killed her. I am a new diver and even I don't believe some of the things he was saying.

If you watched the program she was found no where near the wreck and no where close to where she should have been if she sank from where he said they were. All her equipment was in working order (in fact the used it for the reenactment).

To many questions and inconsistencies.

I'm sure everything has been said in the past posts but I hope he goes to trial in Alabama. If he is acquitted again then it's over.

 

[Ayisha]

If he is acquitted again then it's over.

Please note that Watson has never stood trial for Tina's death and he has never been acquitted. He accepted a plea agreement and was convicted in Queensland of criminally negligent manslaughter, I believe it was.

 

[SoccerJeni]

I also watched this, but I watched it online today. I agree, lots of things that don't add up. I'd love to get more into the Watson Case thread there's just so much and I really don't have the time to go through it. Boo! But, I was glad I saw the dateline show to catch me up on some details I didn't know.

 

[spoolin01]

Early error blinded police on dive death | The Australian

In his October 2003 interviews, Watson told the police that his dive computer had beeped during an aborted dive and that he rectified it by removing the battery and replacing it correctly. The battery, he explained, had been put in upside down by him before he left the US for the honeymoon. After setting it up properly, he and Tina descended again and within minutes she was dead from asphyxiation in the ocean about 50 nautical miles off Townsville.

When police tested only the display module and not the transmitter, which is also powered by a battery, they received what they regarded as proof that the dive computer could not have beeped. Their tests showed that a display module with a battery put in upside down cannot beep; in fact it does not work at all.

Blinded by their mistake in not also testing the transmitter, police became convinced Watson was a liar. The police confirmed this in recent interviews. And their investigation proceeded accordingly.

But as an expert witness from the manufacturer of the dive computer has confirmed under oath, Watson's story about the dive computer checks out.

The dive computer in its complete form of display module and transmitter does perform the way Watson had described. If police had tested both parts of the dive computer, they would have established this as fact.

I remember this development from awhile ago. I caught a couple minutes of the piece last night and unless I heard wrong, it was claimed that the computer doesn't beep with the battery in backwards, only the transmitter beeps when its own battery is reversed. That differs crucially from what seemed implied in these earlier reports of the mistaken test. If that's so, the exact nature of his statement would be interesting to know. The reports left the impression (recollection, at this point) that he said he surfaced to reverse the battery in his wrist module. If his statement to police clearly referred to the wrist module, and only the transmitter alerts when its battery is reversed, that would be pretty damning.

 

[SoccerJeni]

I remember this development from awhile ago. I caught a couple minutes of the piece last night and unless I heard wrong, it was claimed that the computer doesn't beep with the battery in backwards, only the transmitter beeps when its own battery is reversed. That differs crucially from what seemed implied in these earlier reports of the mistaken test. If that's so, the exact nature of his statement would be interesting to know. The reports left the impression (recollection, at this point) that he said he surfaced to reverse the battery in his wrist module. If his statement to police clearly referred to the wrist module, and only the transmitter alerts when its battery is reversed, that would be pretty damning.

Yes, you are correct with what you heard. I heard the same thing. If the battery in the tank transmitter is in backwards, the computer would beep. But, if the computer battery is in backwards it will not beep.

 

[gcbryan]

It seems the weakest aspect for the prosecution is the (apparent) lack of a motive.

The weakest aspect for the defense seems to be Gabe's lack of effort in trying to "save" his wife given the reasonable depths and viz. The ear thing seems just a bit too convenient.

The computer battery thing is a problem as well. The idea that it was really the battery in the transmitting unit that he changed seems to be something that didn't come up until after the defense attorney's got involved.

I think he did it but I don't know that there is enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean he won't be convicted however. He is not a very sympathetic character. It is possible that he didn't do it however...the so called "douche bag defense"

 

[ItsBruce]

So, what could have killed her? Coroner said she showed signs of asphyxiation prior to drowning. Investigators found that her equipment was working properly and there was air in her tank. The tank off/tank on theory is plausible since she was found with reg in her mouth.

Sure, it's possible that she got herself into trouble and Gabe was nowhere near as capable as his Rescue Diver card insinuated, and he elected self preservation as his option, and was then too ashamed to tell the real story.

Decisions must be made. You are big, strong and experienced. Victim is small, not powerful, and inexperienced. She is within reach and negatively buoyant. Save her!
Regardless of being taught to avoid turning one victim into two victims, are you saying you wouldn't put yourself at any risk for your new bride? Not that there really was much risk in this situation, for an experienced diver, early into the dive in 40 fsw, very mild current, good viz, warm water, functional equipment, additional divers available...

A much better post.

I agree the tank off/tank on theory is plausible. But plausible is not sufficient in a criminal case. There must be actual supporting evidence, even if it is only to negate the possibility of any other reasonable explanation. Can anyone say that the two facts we have for sure (signs of asphyxiation prior to drowning and equipment working properly with air in the tank) can lead only to the conclusion that the tank was turned off? One might say its a "good bet," but "good bet" is not the standard for a conviction. Do those facts negate any other reasonable explanation?

As noted, it's possible that Tina got herself into trouble and Watson was incompetent as a rescue diver or panicked or made a bad decision, and was then too ashamed to tell the real story. If that is the case, it negates murder.

Quite frankly, it seems to me that Watson made what we can now look back at and say was a poor decision under water. But, I can imagine that at the time his decision may have seemed like the one that was most likely to save Tina's life. I've seen good people make what in hindsight were bad decisions while under pressure, I've done it once or twice (fortunately without consequences beyond being embarrassed and wasting perfectly good fire extinguishers). And, if he simply made a bad decision under pressure, that's not murder.

I would hope that if I were in the same position, I would have had the wherewithal to assess my chances of rescuing my buddy and to have taken a calculated risk if I thought my chances of success were adequate, especially if it was my new bride.

As I've maintained from the beginning: I'm not saying Watson didn't do it. I'm saying proving it beyond a reasonable doubt seems unlikely.

 

[ItsBruce]

We still don't know if Tina had an air integrated computer, although we know quite a bit about Gabe's. I do hope we find out...

One thing that became clear when we saw Dr Stutz's interview was that it supported the police theory that Gabe may have turned off Tina's air. Dr Stutz stated that when Tina first caught his attention, her facial expression was one of fear and she was flailing. Gabe THEN went to her and had his arms around her for a while and Dr Stutz could not see his hands. During this time, Tina was flailing less and less. Gabe then let her go and she sank to the bottom. At some point, she stopped flailing at all and rested on the bottom lifeless.

The police and prosecution theory is that what Dr Stutz saw was the turning back on of the regulator before Gabe dropped Tina.

I'm sorry I missed the interview. I need your assessment here: When you say "it supported the police theory," do you mean it affirmatively supported it or that it didn't tend to negate it? From your description, I can't tell if it was possible that something else had gone afoul other than that Tina's air had been burned off.

What I'm reading and understanding is that no one saw him turn off Tina's air or in a position in which he could have turned it off. I'm also reading and understanding that no one saw him turn Tina's air on (which would have meant it was off), but that it is possible that he did.

If my reading and understanding is correct, absent something more, I'd have to say Dr. Stutz' testimony is equally supportive of both guilt and not guilt.

I sure am glad I am not the prosecutor on this and that my career turns on getting a conviction!!!

 

[Ayisha]

Hi Bruce. When I say it supported the police theory, I mean that "it didn't tend to negate it". Of course we don't know if anything else could have happened.

Before actually seeing and hearing Dr Stutz describe moment by moment what he saw, it was never completely clear to me if he was seeing the whole event (in theory) or only the end part of it. If it was the "whole" event, it did seem too quick to turn off the air, deplete the oxygen to her brain long enough for Tina to lose consciousness, then turn the air back on and let go of her. We don't have a time line, but Dr Stutz would presumably have needed to watch this for at least a couple of minutes if it all started with the bear hug.

However, when Dr Stutz notices Tina looking scared and flailing, Gabe is NOT holding her. Gabe then goes to her and puts his arms around her for an unspecified amount of time and then drops her and swims away. She flails less and less as he is holding her, starts dropping and at some point appears lifeless. It became clear seeing and hearing Dr Stutz, that Tina's trauma was already in progress before the bear hug. We of course do not know what precipitated her trauma and there are apparently no witnesses. Dr Stutz's version of events does not negate the police and prosecution theory of what happened.

According to what is in the public domain, no one saw Gabe turn Tina's valve off or on. We do not know if Tina had an air integrated computer that would show if the air was turned off for a time. Tina asphyxiated with no water in her lungs and her equipment was in working order with gas in her tank.