Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

A written transcript is a terribly unreliable method of determining anything. Unless one includes punctuation marks, those are added by whomever it is that types the transcript, which leaves a lot to interpretation. I have personally seen transcripts where the words are exactly as spoken, but the punctuation essentially changed it to say exactly the opposite of what was actually said.

Consider: "She was wearing two three pounds" and "She was wearing two, three pounds" and "She was wearing two ... three pounds."

The first is read as 23 pounds. The second is read as 6 pounds. The third is read as three pounds.

Then, there is one of my favorites. The question was something like: "Did you see him strike her?" The answer was: "I don't recall that." At trial, the attorney asked the witness the attorney asked the same witness the same question. The witness answered with an emphatic "No." The attorney happily attacked the witness with the transcript: "Isn't it true that when I deposed you, you said you did not recall whether you saw him strike her?" The witness responded: "I told you I did not recall that being what I saw...what I saw was him just standing there."

 

[K_girl]

Except Bruce - you did not quote the transcript correctly. When you do that, you can misinterpret anything. It is clear that Watson said she was wearing between 18 and 20 pounds and he was wearing 30 pounds. I'm sure the police have the information of her weight configuration and would not rely on what Watson said it was. We are just trying to figure it out in the public forum. In the end with regard to this question, the only thing that matters is do you believe that Tina can sink faster than he can kick down, especially when he says he is only 10 feet above her. Personally, I don't believe it for a second. I don't care how much weight she is wearing. I chalk it up as a big fat lie. No matter how you try to dance around it with fancy, shmancy smoke screens, this one stinks to high heaven. TINA CANNOT SINK FASTER THAN WATSON CAN KICK DOWN. PERIOD. USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.

 

[Zippsy]

A written transcript is a terribly unreliable method of determining anything. Unless one includes punctuation marks, those are added by whomever it is that types the transcript, which leaves a lot to interpretation. I have personally seen transcripts where the words are exactly as spoken, but the punctuation essentially changed it to say exactly the opposite of what was actually said.

It's not just puncuation. If the capitalization is assumed incorrectly, it can also change the meaning of what was intended. For example, consider if the capitalization of the following was assumed wrongly... "he helped my Uncle Jack off the horse."

 

[NoDiver]

So, K-Girl, he is unequivocally guilty of murder?

 

[ItsBruce]

It's not just puncuation. If the capitalization is assumed incorrectly, it can also change the meaning of what was intended. For example, consider if the capitalization of the following was assumed wrongly... "he helped my Uncle Jack off the horse."

This is precious. If you're ever in town, I owe you dinner!!!

 

[ItsBruce]

Except Bruce - you did not quote the transcript correctly.

I did not quote from the transcript in this matter at all.

It is clear that Watson said she was wearing between 18 and 20 pounds and he was wearing 30 pounds.

It has been my experience that when someone in the legal field uses the phrase "it is clear," the proposition that follows is usually anything but clear. (Likewise, when a letter starts "As you know ..." it usually means that whatever follows is going to be a complete surprise.)

In the end with regard to this question, the only thing that matters is do you believe that Tina can sink faster than he can kick down, especially when he says he is only 10 feet above her.

I would expect that a competent diver with his or her wits about him or her would be able to kick down very quickly. However, if there is air in the diver's BC and the diver fails to vent it, that could surely impede the diver's descent. Of course, given how long it seems to have taken Watson to surface, I somehow doubt that he had air in his BC.

 

[Divedoggie]

Either the guy is cunningly intelligent, and planned and carried out the perfect murder, only to be foiled by his lack of eloquence, inconsistent testimony and ridiculous actions at the cemetery. Pretty hard to be that smart and then that dumb.
or
He is completely incompetent, incapable, irresponsible, and is foiled by his lack of intellect, lack of eloquence, inconsistent testimony and ridiculous actions at the cemetery. Pretty easy to be that dumb and then that dumb.

I believe that his actions/lack of actions killed her. I just don't believe that he murdered her.

 

[Zippsy]

Either the guy is cunningly intelligent, and planned and carried out the perfect murder, only to be foiled by his lack of eloquence, inconsistent testimony and ridiculous actions at the cemetery. Pretty hard to be that smart and then that dumb.
or
He is completely incompetent, incapable, irresponsible, and is foiled by his lack of intellect, lack of eloquence, inconsistent testimony and ridiculous actions at the cemetery. Pretty easy to be that dumb and then that dumb.

I believe that his actions/lack of actions killed her. I just don't believe that he murdered her.

You don't watch near enough television!!! If you even only caught every episode of CSI, you would know the guy is REASONABLY intelligent, and planned and carried out WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS the perfect murder, only to be foiled by his lack of eloquence, inconsistent testimony and ridiculous actions at the cemetery. That happens several times every week and more often in syndication.

 

[DandyDon]

I haven't had TV since 1988 so I guess I'm not qualified here.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

They may be restricted to Australian IP's

QUEENSLAND police who spent five years investigating the scuba-diving death of an Alabama woman on her honeymoon misstated key evidence. The evidence was presented to the media in ways that made it appear more likely her husband murdered her.
The key evidence was misstated as recently as four months ago in a two-part special by the ABC's Australian Story, in which Gabe Watson was depicted as a cold-blooded and sociopathic murderer of his wife of 11 days, Tina, an examination by The Australian shows.
The program, strongly slanted against Watson, omitted facts and findings which would have shown his actions in a different light. It has added momentum to a powerful public push for Watson to be tried for murder in Alabama where he will this morning face a bail hearing.
Watson has strenuously protested his innocence of murder. Having pleaded guilty to being criminally negligent for failing to rescue Tina, 26, when she got into difficulty on the October 2003 dive on the Great Barrier Reef, he was convicted of manslaughter last year.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

Related Coverage

• Watson after insurance: lawyer The Australian, 14 hours ago
• Husband faces US trial over death Herald Sun, 1 Feb 2011
• 'Honeymoon killer' pleads not guilty The Australian, 31 Jan 2011
• Honeymoon killer granted bail Herald Sun, 14 Dec 2010
• 'Honeymoon killer' back in Alabama Courier Mail, 7 Dec 2010

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.


The Queensland Court of Appeal said he was wrongly accused of murder, and that he had been grief-stricken over the death of his wife whom he had abandoned when he made a reprehensible decision to go to the surface to seek help.
The Weekend Australian reported how police probing the case had made an error in the testing of Watson's dive computer, which led the detectives to come to an early and strongly adverse view that he was lying to them about a beeping alarm minutes before Tina's fatal dive.
The adverse view had a profound impact on the police probe, propelling it in a direction sought by Tina's parents who have relentlessly lobbied Queensland and Alabama authorities to pursue Watson for murder.
In misstating key evidence, police have claimed that Watson, who they suspect turned off Tina's air tanks and then turned the air back on when she was dead, deliberately did not rush to the surface to raise the alarm.
Detective Senior Constable Kevin Gehringer told Australian Story in August: "He said he rocketed to the surface to seek help."
Detective Sergeant Gary Campbell, the lead officer on the case, added: "It took him between two and three minutes. That was classed by some as literally pedestrian."
Widespread reporting of the case has almost universally adopted a slow ascent as fact, contrary to sworn evidence at the 2008 inquest in which a police expert said the dive computer data showed the ascent could have been as quick as one minute 10 seconds. This is a relatively fast ascent, on a par with the rapid ascent of Tina's rescuer.
The claim that Watson went slowly is also contrary to the first statement of witness Stanley Stutz, who described Watson going to the surface "really quickly" when Dr Stutz gave a statement to police on the day Tina died.
Criminal lawyers said Queensland police would be fiercely examined by Watson's legal team in Alabama over their probe and comments made to the media.
The then coroner in the Queensland inquest, David Glasgow, praised the efforts of the detectives in 2008 for having "produced to my inquiry as detailed and complete a picture as I have seen in my role as a coroner".
Mr Glasgow charged Watson with murder in 2008 but the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions, Tony Moynihan SC, abandoned the circumstantial case as too weak to run.
Mr Glasgow, a judicial officer, also appeared on Australian Story in August and has since been reported stating that he would be prepared to go to Alabama to give evidence if asked.