Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[VeryRusty]

When I was learning in open ocean, my dive master would knock my face mask off routinely and regularly made us buddy-breathe. I'm thankful for his foresight.

 

[spoolin01]

I completely agree that there seems to be likely no contribution to justice from the trial, unless there is stronger evidence of foul play than what comes across the internet. The original reporting made a modestly compelling case for foul play, but was no doubt written from that perspective. Besides the unexpected death under apparently rather benign circumstances, and the failure of the husband to execute a truly simple rescue, there was his seemingly peculiar behavior before, during, and after the event, with witnesses to some portions of all. Some of the potentially damning particulars - the computer malfunction-as-ruse, the bear hug, the long time surfacing, the insurance motive - have since been disputed or otherwise blunted, and at least to me are far from clear as to factuality (as if anything else isn't, also).

Aside from Gabe, I think the only ones who could truly be expected to have any real insight or instinct into the prospect of foul play are the Queensland investigators, and to a lesser extent, Tina's parents. Not that they clearly do, just that if not them, certainly no one else. Everything else is simply closing the loop on personal predilections. The bar for performance during the incident was not particularly high. Gabe was not particularly experienced, or inexperienced, and no indication of his adequacy to the task, either specifically from diving companions, or generally from other contexts, has been given that I can recall. Many could have performed admirably on their first dive. It's plausible that he simply wasn't up to it, but that simple fact doesn't rule out any alternatives. As to whether the reporting on his 'personality' - some here perhaps is first hand, the rest appears to be retelling of the speculation of others - permits us amateurs to make the call between truly strange but innocent, and calculating or opportunistic psychopath, I think the answer is obvious.

As gripping and tragic in many dimensions as it may be, I hope there is a sound basis to be revealed for this trial underway.

 

[mike_s]

When I was learning in open ocean, my dive master would knock my face mask off routinely and regularly made us buddy-breathe. I'm thankful for his foresight.

it's hard to teach to that level now days when PADI, NAUI,(and all the other agencies) will do an open water class now that only last 2 or 3 days and only 4 open water dives.

 

[boulderjohn]

When I was learning in open ocean, my dive master would knock my face mask off routinely and regularly made us buddy-breathe. I'm thankful for his foresight.

it's hard to teach to that level now days when PADI, NAUI,(and all the other agencies) will do an open water class now that only last 2 or 3 days and only 4 open water dives.

It's even harder when neither skill is allowed. Knocking masks off has been against the rules for a very long time. Very few agencies allow it. Buddy breathing has been dropped by some agencies even as an option because of the belief that there are always safer alternatives, it is a difficult skill to retain well enough to use it when needed, and there is a strong possibility that it will result in two casualties that could have been avoided by using a safer alternative.

 

[K_girl]

I'm curious to see how much of the analysis done by members of SB will be reflected in Opening Statement and Closing Argument when the trial finally starts. My guess is "a lot."

I sincerely doubt it. Everything we've stated here is based on limited information. We don't have everything so our "analysis" is very incomplete.

 

[K_girl]

You are so right!
But, we really don't know what the defense team has or doesn't have. It seems that most of the information that is available on the case is not fact. Everything is based on shakey witness testimony, and now it has been almost 10 years since the accident/crime took place.

We all have our theories. There are 149 pages of blabbing, so you can hardly pin anything on a vocal minority.

It is nice and maybe even useful, that experienced scuba divers can propose theories and discuss them in an open forum. It will be interesting to see if the court case finally gets to the bottom of this and a clearer picture appears.

Maybe Gabe will confess and give all of the details.
Maybe Gabe will admit to overstating his scuba abilities and his utter failure to rescue his wife.
Maybe scuba training in general will be attacked and standards will need to be raised.
Maybe evidence will show a tragic accident that no one could have prevented.

Most likely, it will be a legal mess with each side spinning the story, and in the end it will be as convoluted and unresolved as it ever has been.

He needs to get up on the witness stand and refute his own statements to police that he really did panic, #1 and #2 that he really wasn't thinking about what would happen to Tina when he left her and that he was just elaborating when he said that he didn't want to leave her because he was afraid he would never see her again.

The accident could have most definitely been prevented. Tina should have been more forceful about her fear of diving, but apparently her fear of not pleasing her soon-to-be-husband was greater. Gabe should not have forced her to dive. You are going to hear testimony that Watson was present at Tina's training sessions, in the water overseeing her training and was screaming at her and pissed off at her for what he thought she was doing wrong. Her instructor tries to talk her out of diving, but she says her boyfriend will kill her if she doesn't (figuratively speaking). He set her up for death, whether not it was intentional, that is the question to be decided. But he's an ass for sure, and you are going to hear a lot of testimony about that from multiple sources. It's not all going to come from Tina's family. Do I feel sorry for Watson like some others here for what they perceive as injustice done to him? Nope.

 

[K_girl]

Thanks for the link. Gives a small preview..same old info except we are given a small peek into is logbook! 50 dives. Mostly training and local quarry dives with a couple of trips to the ocean.

Here is a thought:

On a recent dive in Indonesia, a couple was diving with us who are very experienced divers with over a few hundred dives each in oceans all over the world. I was watching them take some photos when the husband's mask strap suddenly broke and his mask started floating off of his face. We were at 25 meters and had been down for quite awhile, and it was all his wife and I could do to keep him down and get him relaxed while we fixed the mask and got it back onto his face. He desperately wanted to bolt. Back on the boat he was embarrassed and very thankful. He hadn't been diving for a number of months, and was simply mentally unprepared for that little surprise. It could have ended very badly.

Now apply the same scenario to a much less experienced Watson with no one there to keep him from bolting. His mask gets knocked off, reg torn out, experience goes out the window and up he goes.

The Defense is saying Watson was a bad diver. Prosecution says he had over 50 dives and a few "NADi" certifications??? It sounds like most of his dives were either training dives with an Instructor, or dives where he really only needed to worry about himself and where nothing went wrong.
Again it seems obvious to me that after some time away from diving and the pressure of actually having to take care of himself and someone else, he folded.

What is scary is any newish diver could find themselves in Watson's shoes. They would likely handle the aftermath better, but still it would be awful.

Well, one thing that will cause a real dislike of Watson will be the fact that he told the Spoil Sport boat operators that he and Tina did not need an orientation dive - that he was a rescue-certified diver, fully capable of taking care of Tina. He told Tina that as well and made her believe it, made her family believe it. Is it evidence that he intentionally killed her? - no. And does a guy like that "mature" from his experience of being responsible for killing his wife? After seeing the video of him going out and using bolt cutters to remove flowers from her grave and throwing them in the trash - I would say he didn't mature all that much. Oh, and let's not forget the postcard he sent just a couple of months after Tina's death to Tina's friend asking - who's that handsome guy with Tina? Oh, it's me. Disgusting - mature and grieving? I think not.

 

[K_girl]

For those in awe of Dr Stutz superior powers of observation from the link above

DR STUTZ'S EVIDENCE OVER THE YEARS

Click here to read a table that attempts to summarise Dr Stanley Stutz's evidence on the five occasions that he has been asked about this matter.
PROBLEMS WITH STUTZ'S EVIDENCE
I believe that Dr Stanley Stutz's various statements and evidence have to be questioned for the following reasons:

he said they got to Yongala at 11 or 12 but it was really about 10 (shows he is not as observant as he says he is)
says you cannot hear people speak underwater - you can, in fact I have had many conversations with my brother and others when diving together
had not dived for 10 years and had only ever done as little as 20 dives - means he was probably totally consumed with the pressure of the dive
at the Inquest he thought his instructor was called Roger - it was Robert - another incorrect recall of the event
said Wade Singleton came from the surface to rescue Tina - false, Wade was at 22 metres when he saw her
said he could see Gabe and Tina from five metres (they were at about 15 metres) but he could not see the wreck (which was at 14 metres)
descended less than a minute before Gabe ascended - as witnessed by Painter, McMahon and England - meaning he could not have seen Gabe and Tina together as Gabe took up to 2.5 minutes (he took at least 2 minutes) to ascend once he left Tina
Wade surfaced about 3 minutes after Stutz descended - again confirms Stutz could not have seen Gabe and Tina together
his descriptions of what he says was Diver 1 and Diver 2 (taken to be Gabe and Tina) can be exactly applied to Wade and Tina except for one thing - Wade did not swim away from Tina
his description of two divers ahead of three other divers is exactly what would have been seen of Wade swimming out to Tina ahead of the three divers in his group
a diver off at an angle could easily look like they were on their back rather than vertical
his description of a diver putting his arms under the arms of another diver could easily apply to what may have been seen when Gary Stempler was photographing his wife, Dawn Asano - the photo of her shows her totally vertical [which is not how a good diver dives - a good diver is horizontal in the water] and waving her arms about - Gary would have had his arms in a position when holding his camera that could easily have looked like he had them under her arms
his recall of what he saw seems to have improved the longer the time from the incident
WHAT DID DR STUTZ SEE?
I think that what Dr Stutz saw at the start of his dive was Wade Singleton and his group. The diver who swam ahead of the group was Wade heading to Tina on the seafloor. The female diver was Dawn Asano who was swimming vertically with her arms out [photo shows and endorses this] and probably using her arms to steady herself - thus giving the impression of someone flailing about. The larger diver who he observed putting his arms under the arms of the female diver was Gary Stempler when taking the photo of his wife and in a direct line with Stutz's vision - Stempler would have had his elbows sticking out and his hands out of view holding the camera.
If the two divers were so close that Diver 2 had his hands/arms under Diver 1's arms, then the eyes and face of Diver 1 would not be visible to a diver high up and off at an angle
The diver swimming down was Jarrod Fisher going down to tell Robert Webster that he could not descend further.
The diver seen leaving the bottom was either Wade starting up with Tina or perhaps Jarrod heading back up again.

This is chock-full of some incorrect information. Let me tell you what it is:

1) maybe you can speak underwater but it is pretty damned hard to understand anyone. My sister and have tried and failed with reg in and out of mouth. Not an impeachable point.

2) Not sure I necessarily believe that Stutz only has 20 logged dives, but even if he did, he definitely saw something that affected him deeply. He knew he was watching a young woman in trouble. So much so, that he tried to get the attention of his instructor as he was studying for his advanced cert. He saw her eyes in panic as the diver who had a hold of her let go of her and swim away while she sank helplessly to the bottom. He described Tina's sinking in detail, like Jesus laid out on the cross - a woman in trouble, panic in her eyes, unable to move, unable to kick, not just spreading her arms out looking at a dive computer - give me a break. You don't just make-up something like that. And that kind of imagery describing that moment is very powerful. If you watched the video of his statement and describing the agony he felt at that very moment was pretty riveting. The defense is going to say that what Dr. Stutz saw was Wade Singleton bringing Tina to the surface, however, Singleton will probably testify that he never let go of her and swam away from her to let her sink "like Jesus on the cross." If the defense says Stutz was just making it up because he thinks Watson is guilty - why wouldn't Stutz just take it a step further and say he saw Watson turn-off Tina's air? Because he saw what he saw, and that was it. Stutz said that he also witnessed Singleton recovery of Tina and that she was vomiting from the mouth underwater as she was being brought to the surface. Will Stutz testify that it was the same woman in the same gear that he saw sinking just minutes before? If so, will make the defense's argument more difficult. This will be some of the most difficult testimony the defense will have to deal with.

3) Wade Singleton went immediately after Tina when Gabe Watson surfaced pounding the water saying his wife was missing. There were multiple witnesses to that. The photograph clearly shows a diver in the foreground in upright position, looking at their dive computer, showing over-exposure of sunlight - a very good indication that diver was on a safety stop. Meaning that the diver in the foreground in the shot is shallow, between 15 and 20 feet. That detail could be confirmed by the photographer's time stamp if it is one of the last shots of the dive. Apparently, the defense plans to say that this diver is swimming in an upright position, being the person who Singleton saw with their arms flailing about. Even sounds like the defense plans to make them out to be a bad diver because they are swimming in an upright position and that's why the flailing arms. The diver has their computer in their hand - it's a safety stop people! Most of us do our safety stop in that position. This is not someone who is sinking with hands out like Jesus on the Cross (with a computer in their hand). Swimming - sinking - not the same thing. The diver in the picture is clearly kicking (swimming) to maintain their safety stop position or is ascending. Ah-ha, kicking in order to ascend, that's not sinking is it? And yes, Tina did sink to the bottom. Singleton is right there behind that ascending diver - making a bee-line for Tina. Didn't look like he touched the diver either or held her or let her go. He was too busy going after Tina who was on the bottom. Where in heck did this guy get that Singleton saw Tina at 22 meters and then went after her? Oh, and 22 meters is 72.6 feet, the bottom is at 93 feet. Evidence is much more compelling that Singleton is making a bee-line for Tina from between 15 and 20 feet and there was much more distance than just 20 feet in the photo. So that part of this guy's "superior" analysis makes no sense to me. Sorry.

4) Excuse me, but the bottom is at 93 feet where the wreck of the Yongola lies. You are saying the wreck is at 14 meters (46.2 feet)? The top of the wreck is 14 meters. Do you realize that Watson gave the reason they did NOT go with the current to get to the second anchor line and instead fought to get back to the first line was because he couldn't see the wreck so he could follow it to the second anchor line? Now you are saying that Gabe and Tina were at 15 meters (deeper than the top of the wreck, which is supposedly at 14 meters)? So, Watson couldn't see it, but Stutz should have been able to? This is the whole reason that Watson's statement does not make sense. They weren't on the wreck, Tina was found on the sand, away from the wreck. It didn't make any sense that she was found way out there. Watson said it only took him a few seconds to reach the line when he left Tina. Truth was - they were nowhere near the line which would have been over the wreck.

5) all of the time-related information is really not useful unless everyone's computers were perfectly synchronized. Just useless banter as far as I am concerned.

http://www.yongaladive.com.au/ss-yongala/

Give me a break. This guy doesn't have it together at all. Superior observation, my a$$. What hogwash - I didn't bother to read any further.

 

[DandyDon]

Well, the monkey trial is making the news which can't be good for scuba - tainting its image, feelings, etc.

US prosecutors have dropped one of the two murder charges against Gabe Watson, who is accused of killing his wife on their Queensland honeymoon.
The decision to drop the capital count alleging Watson murdered his wife Tina Thomas during a kidnapping was a strategic decision, prosecutor Don Valeska told reporters.
'It is just a strategic move to simplify the case,' Mr Valeska said.
A capital charge that he murdered his bride of 11 days to profit from her insurance remains.

I thought the kidnapping angle was weak anyway. The insurance angle is the only hope for the prosecuters. I don't think they have a chance at conviction, but trials and juries go funny ways.

I get called for jury duty now and then, but after all of the questioning - the local prosecutor always cuts me as she knows she doesn't want me on the jury. I'm much too cynical.

 

[alohagal]

Prediction: He will be found not guilty. He is homeboy with sweet, look a-like wife, jury not made up of divers thoroughly invested in this scenario, competing accents AL vs AU, and if he wears a roll tide shirt it will be his saving grace.