Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ScubaSteve]

No. It just means that in passive panic equipment rejection is not part of what happens and is therefore not a sign. You have to look for other signs. Those other signs include a vacant stare and a failure to respond to communication attempts.

Sorry but the way I read his post was to say that because Tina was still wearing her equipment that she was automatically experiencing Passive Panic. This is absolutely not true. If that was not the intended meaning then OK but it is beyond a stretch if it was.

 

[boulderjohn]

Sorry but the way I read his post was to say that because Tina was still wearing her equipment that she was automatically experiencing Passive Panic. This is absolutely not true. If that was not the intended meaning then OK but it is beyond a stretch if it was.

I don't think he was saying that. I think he said that IF she experienced passive panic, then the state of her body would be consistent with that situation. It would not be consistent with the kind of active panic that would more likely be brought on by someone deliberately turning off the air while holding her in a bear hug.

...

There are accounts by the way that Tina expressed in oral and written forms that she had anxiety while diving, which do indeed shed some light on this case and give more of a voice to Tina than merely what happened on that terrible day.



Again, since Gabe’s account includes a description of her panicking, Dr. Edmonds’ testimony qualifies as evidence in the “independently verified” category for this description of events, thus making the prosecution’s account of him turning off her air in the fashion suggested in the past “not to be true”. Of course Dr. Edmonds has yet to have this opinion vetted under cross examination. We’ll see if it holds up. You seem to want to dismiss what “he” (I am assuming Gabe here) says, but his words are crucial to establishing at least some degree of truth in this case, whatever that ends up being.

Yes, her body was found in the state it was. You are right there. But I do not recall Gabe ever saying that she tore her mask off and spat her regulator out. That they were still in place “independently verifies” that much of the story to be accurate. ...

People react passively and aggressively in a host of situations. And if other people looking at these instances bear any biases toward “usual” panic—mask ripped off, regulator spat out, etc.—then Tina exhibiting signs of inaction in the past when she was stressed underwater may not have been interpreted as panic in the first place and simply forgotten. If there are recorded signs of her panicking in a passive way, would that be enough evidence for you that she couldn’t have active panicked in this scenario? Clearly this wouldn’t be the case, as well it shouldn’t be.

That Tina’s body was found with her equipment intact, replete with mask on and regulator in her mouth, is not conclusive of anything, really, ...

...

It could be argued that the regulator still being in her mouth shows that a violent action such as this never happened.

 

[Ayisha]

There are accounts by the way that Tina expressed in oral and written forms that she had anxiety while diving, which do indeed shed some light on this case and give more of a voice to Tina than merely what happened on that terrible day.

Where are these accounts of Tina expressing verbally and in writing that she had anxiety while diving? I don't believe that I have seen them.

Are you sure that you are not confusing Tina with Shelley Tyre, whose husband David Swain was convicted of murdering her u/w? Shelley had written a few entries in her log book about anxiety and panic while diving.

Regarding the mask on, reg in place, etc., they prove nothing by themselves IMHO. Even if they were off, they prove nothing. Were they yanked off by a perpetrator or dislodged in a panic? Did she fight tooth and nail or did she not know what happened until it was too late?

I said "he said - he said" because Watson and Lutz pretty much cancel each other out, other than some key points which Watson conceded. However, I find Dr Lutz to be a credible witness while Watson does not appear to be a credible witness to me. I am much more interested in what the forensic evidence shows and whether there is any record of her air being turned off.

BTW, John, in your post above, it looks like you're quoting me, but it's not my post. If you or a moderator could remove the "Ayisha said", it would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[boulderjohn]

BTW, John, in your post above, it looks like you're quoting me, but it's not my post. If you or a moderator could remove the "Ayisha said", it would be appreciated, thanks.

My bad--poor editing skills. All fixed.

 

[spoolin01]

Amazing how many people have come to all sorts of conclusions Seems to me many who are doing so have had a lot less access to information and are far less qualified than Dr Edmunds. He was given access to the real evidence and asked his opinion by authorities as part of the investigation. His opinions are sought because he is professional, unbiased, non-emotional unfazed by media hype or emotional campaigns.

I am afraid that if Tina had been an overweight, middle aged woman on a dive holiday and not a lovely young newly wed on her honeymoon the media would not have been interested. Without the media flogging this IMHO there would have been a better chance that justice would have been possible for all involved.

That's quite a generous set of accolades for a guy who seeks publicity for his opinion, knowing a trial is in the offing. Pretty pro. Maybe you know him. From afar it's hard to divine what he meant to accomplish with the interview. Perhaps it indeed was the pursuit of pure knowledge. Mostly what I intended was to point out that IF someone attempts to mask murder as accidental death, opining that it looked consistent with accident doesn't do much to disprove the charge. Does the Dr. have a criminal forensics record?

"The kind of panic that would result from having your air turned off"? Probably, especially for an inexperienced diver.

If there was actual evidence that Tina's air had been turned off, as contrasted with speculation pulled from thin air (excuse the pun), Watson would be in deep (excuse the pun) trouble.

Just as it is unlikely Dr. Edmonds could identify the cause of the panic or say it arose from something else, I do not believe anyone can authoritatively say, based on actual evidence, that it arose from Tina's air having been turned off.

Once again, I invite anyone to provide evidence that Tina's air had been turned off. BTW: faulty syllogisms are not evidence, e.g. having one's air turned off leads to death; Tina was dead; therefore her air had been turned off.

Admittedly the only evidence that her air was turned off is inferential, and while it would be damning to have affirmative evidence of the precise mode (and turning off the air is one, but maybe not the only one), it's not necessary to draw an inference of guilt.

Here's another faulty syllogism, clearly popular but so far devoid of any but broadly categorical evidence in this case: every good SBer knows that most divers without loads of training and experience are bumbling, panicky fools. Gabe was a diver who hadn't gotten enough formal training or experience, therefor he was most likely a bumbling, panicky fool who couldn't get a 125 lb (or whatever) women to the surface under benign circumstances, where only the most elemental marshalling of skills and composure would have sufficed, despite at least nominally having the motive and (multiply redundant) means to readily do so. Maybe he's that guy, but where's any evidence to that effect?

 

[Kern]

I said "he said - he said" because Watson and Lutz pretty much cancel each other out, other than some key points which Watson conceded. However, I find Dr Lutz to be a credible witness while Watson does not appear to be a credible witness to me. I am much more interested in what the forensic evidence shows and whether there is any record of her air being turned off.

Considering what Lutz said & did, about what he said he saw at the time, I don't find Lutz all that credible at all.

How long was it between the incident, & Lutz telling the police what he saw? Why did Lutz, after seeing something that looked so suspicious, do nothing to intervene? Why didn't he say something as soon as he got out of the water? What exactly did the Queensland police officers say to Lutz all that time after the event, that made Lutz tell his story? Too many doubts for me I'm afraid.

 

[ItsBruce]

Admittedly the only evidence that her air was turned off is inferential, and while it would be damning to have affirmative evidence of the precise mode (and turning off the air is one, but maybe not the only one), it's not necessary to draw an inference of guilt.

The question of what inferences can be drawn from what foundational facts has long plagued the courts. I do not believe that given the evidence currently in the public domain, a court, and especially an appellate court, would uphold an inference that Tina's air had been turned off. The current evidence does not precludes an inference of her air having been turned off and then back on. However, given the burden of proof in a criminal case, I do not think a court will permit a jury to make such an inference.

I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but in California, there was a civil case, which was the subject of a published appellate decision addressing inferences. The basic facts were that a tenant of an apartment building was assaulted in the parking garage. She sued the owner. Her theory was that the owner was negligent in failing to repair a broken security gate. Her expert opined that the broken gate would have been the kind of thing that would have attracted potential assailants to the garage area. However, there was no evidence that the assailant entered through the broken gate and no evidence that he could not have entered elsewhere. The court ruled that the tenant's evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the owner's failure to repair the gate was the cause of the tenant's injuries. It declined to draw an inference that the assailant entered through the broken gate. It ruled that the mere possibility that the defendant's negligence caused the particular injury was insufficient to support a finding of liability. It also ruled that the expert's declaration was based on factors that were speculative, remote or conjectural and therefore did not support the necessary inference. It referred to the expert's opinion as being pulled from thin air.

In contrast, a very recent California case held that certain facts supported an inference that the County of Kern had brought a civil suit against the former chairman of the pathology department of a hospital owned and operated by County, to harass him for having brought a prior lawsuit against it. There, the former department head sued the County for putting him on paid administrative leave after he complained about deficient patient care and hospital regulatory violations. While on leave leave, he attended a seminar related to his work and requested reimbursement from the County. The County responded by suing him for making a false claim. After the County lost, the department head sought to recover the legal fees he incurred in defending himself. By statute, he would have been entitled to such fees if the lawsuit against him was frivolous, vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment. Although the County denied that its lawsuit was frivolous, vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment, the court found it was. It recited the evidence as follows: "1. After Jadwin filed suit in federal court, County filed its [False Claims Act] complaint. 2. County filed its action in 'unlimited' jurisdiction of the superior court even though the amount in controversy did not exceed $25,000. 3. County did no investigation of the complaint. 4. County did not propound discovery on its complaint. 5. County was sanctioned for discovery abuse in the [False Claims Act] matter as well as in the federal action. 6. County did not prevail in federal court. 7. County did not prevail in the arbitration proceeding. 8. County did not attempt to cure any deficiency in its presentation at the arbitration hearing when it was asked to do so by the arbitrator. 9. County transparently attempted to dismiss the FCA action to avoid judgment and the entry of an award of attorney fees; and 10. County offered no rebuttal evidence in the superior court when given the opportunity to make out a case against a finding of frivolousness.

You be the judge of whether there is a valid inference that Watson turned Tina's air off and then back on.

 

[spoolin01]

We always hear that appellate courts hear issues of law and process, not findings of fact from the trial per se. In the garage situation the alleged tort is a relatively weak one, but had there been no similarly likely alternative access, it possibly should have gone the other way. When murder is alleged with supporting evidence, I think we have an institutional tendency to find fault - whether that equates to justice on balance is another question. In the Oz situation the precise means of a putative killing wouldn't necessarily be key to an inference of guilt so long as some means were easily conceivable, would it? I've never heard that incomplete knowledge of the mechanics invalidated other evidence establishing a crime.

You seem to keep asserting that because there's no direct evidence her air was turned off, there's no likelihood a jury would find she was murdered, or perhaps the judge or appeals court would therefor invalidate the conviction. That doesn't comport with my layman's understanding of murder convictions.

 

[franny]

We always hear that appellate courts hear issues of law and process, not findings of fact from the trial per se.

Appellant courts are normally dealing with issues of law and process, and will generally only mention the facts as needs, they do not need to deal with all the facts, as many of them will be irrelevant to the matter they are hearing, which is why the lower court did the wrong thing in the trial.

You seem to keep asserting that because there's no direct evidence her air was turned off, there's no likelihood a jury would find she was murdered, or perhaps the judge or appeals court would therefor invalidate the conviction. That doesn't comport with my layman's understanding of murder convictions.

In a criminal case prosecution needs to prove "Beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person died at the hands of the defendant. If they could prove that Gabe turned off Tina's air, and she died because her air was turned off, then the case would have been a slam dunk, but if the air being turned off is only a possibility, then she could have died from any number of other causes, some of which may not be murder. As soon as the defense manages to raise a reaonsable doubt to how she died (e.g. panic), then out goes the entire case. Even if the prosecution can prove that Tina died due to the fact that the regulator was not providing air, they would then have to prove that it was due to Gabe stopping the air, rather than some kind of other issue.

The Queensland DPP may have accepted the manslaughter plea for this reason. The case was going to be long and there was no guarantee of the result. By accepting the manslaughter plea, they saved themselves the expense of the trial, and got a result of some description.

When murder is alleged with supporting evidence, I think we have an institutional tendency to find fault - whether that equates to justice on balance is another question. In the Oz situation the precise means of a putative killing wouldn't necessarily be key to an inference of guilt so long as some means were easily conceivable, would it?

The issue is you have to prove the murder. It is an old legal precedent that is supposed to protect innocent people from being found guilty of offenses didn't commit. The Queensland case will probably be ignored, for a couple of reasons

1. As far as I remember, he never actually admitted to killing her by action rather by inaction. He plead guilty to Manslaughter due to Criminal negligence
2. That the case is technically irrelevant and may be prejudicial.

 

[clownfishsydney]

I have access to the full transcript of the Inquest and have so far read 634 of the 1411 pages. I also have many of the witness statements, the forensics reports, the autopsy report, the printout from Gabe's computer and more. Therefore, I think I can comment on this with a bit of confidence.

Also, Dr Edmonds is probably the most immenent diving physician in the World, so anything he says should probably be listened to. He has nothing to prove, he is retired now and does not need any publicity for himself at all.

A few matters to comment on:

• It is Dr Stutz, not Dr Lutz
• His statements about what he saw are almost identical to Gabe's statements
• He never claimed that Gabe had Tina in a "bear hug"
• This "bear hug" statement was first used by a Police office when describing their reenactment of the incident
• Gabe never, ever said his mask was knocked off his face - he said it was dislodged and filled with water
• The Police divers tried to reenact Gabe finding a mask that was knocked off, then finding his main regulator
• They could not do this as they needed air - therefore their view was he lied about this
• Gabe did not try to refind his main reg, he used his Air 2 (occy or "safe second" as you Yanks seem to call it)
• There are so many holes in what was claimed by the Police when the facts do not support it
• Tina was found about 5 metres off the wreck based on the location of the dropped weightbelt (about 5 different witnesses attest to this) not the 16+ metres claimed by Police and media
• Gabe's computer printout was taken as being absolutely 100% accurate - it is not - that computer only recorded data into memory every time the depth passed 10 feet (that means his ascent was probably much faster than Police have claimed - removing one of the "guilty" indicators)
• Other evidence was produced by Police as being correct (eg Tina's computer data) when in reality it was not data from her computer, but data from Gabe's and Wade Singleton's (the rescuer) computers
• While one person's eye witness evidence (I would rather not name this person) supports Gabe's story, I seriously doubt that they actually saw everything they claimed as the times do not seem to permit everything to be seen
• Some of the Police divers evidence is to be frank, BS - one claimed that no-one uses 88 to 100 cubic feet tanks as they are "very large"!!!!
• Gabe's guilt was also said to be shown by his lies - eg he told a New Zealand doctor when he suffered ear pain on descent into Auckland on his way home that the Townsville doctor who treated his sore ears said it was severe damage
• What he was probably told was he had "acute barotrauma of the ears"
• Do you know what "acute" means in medical terms? I thought I did but was wrong. 100% of the people I asked (10) also were wrong. All answered "severe". It actually means "recent".
• Therefore, what he told the NZ doctor was what he thought he was told - he did not lie

On the basis of what I know, this is a case where there was outside influence to find someone guilty of something, rather than accepting that it was a case of two panicking divers. The Police and everyone have then tried to prove that Gabe was guilty, rather than look at what really happened.

He was, without doubt, guilty of leaving Tina and deserved his Queensland punishment. I have in fact told his father this. He is, however, not guilty of murder. Gabe was a diver who panicked and left his buddy, his wife. He has been punished enough.

I will post later another link to the article on this matter that I have on my web site once I have updated it with my latest research.