Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

Just a few corrections on some of the statements you made here:

I've spent a few hours reading a number of articles and posts on this thread. The following comments represent my opinions, impressions and in some cases conclusions. Maybe they will provide a different perspective or encourage a different way of thinking about what happened.

..No one saw Tina's final moments except Gabe, so the whole case was based on circumstantial evidence..

6. Let's assume for a moment that what Gabe says was true. ..that he did try to get her to inflate her BCD but it failed..

7. I believe that the courts got it right in not convicting Gabe of murder..

Dr. Stutz claims that he saw Tina's final moments. He saw terror in her eyes, he saw her go limp and sink into the depths. However, if the defense can shake his testimony with him on the stand, the case will probably be over in my opinion. It's been a lot of years since the accident and it will depend on his ability to recall. However, the prosecution does have the video-taped statements of Dr. Stutz.

Watson never claimed that he tried to inflate Tina's BC. He said he pointed to his inflator hose showing her essentially how to do it. He said saw Tina lift her inflator hose, but did not know for sure if it was working. When he was asked why he did not attempt to inflate it, he responded because he didn't know if there was something wrong with it. Which would make you think - that would be the very reason you would check it, maybe she was wasn't really pushing the button (most likely), or maybe there was something wrong with it. His answer did not make sense.

I assume you mean the Australian court not convicting Watson of murder. Watson was convicted of manslaughter in Australia. Most likely because of his statement that he did not want to leave her because he was afraid that he would never see her again. It was an admission of negligence and his knowledge that he was aware of what would more than likely happen if he left. Watson was quite detailed in his description of this moment when he didn't want to leave Tina, talking about currents potentially carrying her away and her being lost forever. If he really was doing that much thinking at that moment about what would happen to Tina, it begs the question was he really panicking? This is a question that the jury will need to determine. This is the statement that I think somehow the defense will have to deal with. Somehow, they need to take it back. Watson either needs to get on the stand to say he didn't really mean it or a psychiatrist to say it for him. However, the conviction in Australia could mean that this would be an admission of his conscious knowledge of his act of leaving Tina. I don't think they could have gotten a manslaughter conviction without establishing this point.

Dr. Stutz' testimony of seeing Tina in the grasp of a diver who deliberately let her go and letting her sink to the bottom was never discussed or considered in any of the documents in the Australian plea deal. Australia quite often will not discuss elements of a case with the judge that would be potentially contradictory to the admitted elements of the plea agreement. For instance, one woman in Australia was slashed and stabbed by her boyfriend repeatedly, but no mention of the use of a knife or the wounds that were caused were ever discussed in the plea agreement or with the judge who accepted the plea deal. I believe what Tina's family wants is that all the evidence will finally be heard and considered by a jury. If Watson should be found not guilty, they will be able to move on knowing they did all they could to make sure that Tina has justice. Some people have said that Tina's family is after vengeance. That is not true, they just want a real trial where all the evidence is heard.

 

[K_girl]

Another consideration of this picture. Dr. Stutz said that Tina was sinking down, facing upward, eyes terrified, arms out like Jesus on the cross. Her position on the bottom corroborates his description. There are any number of positions someone who is incapacitated could fall into. It is not positive proof that Dr. Stutz saw what he said he saw, but it does not refute it.

Other elements of this picture I've discussed before. The female diver in the foreground was never touched by Singleton (diver in background kicking down to Tina). The defense plans to say that Singleton passed in front of this diver on his way to Tina and that Dr. Stutz mistakenly thought he saw was Singleton was passing close in front of her. However, Singleton passed well behind the diver and does not look like he ever came close. Not even close enough to make the diver in the foreground turn her head. The defense plans to say that Singleton was at 22 meters (72.6 feet) before he saw and headed for Tina. It appears that this picture was taken in shallow water on a safety stop because the bubbles are over-exposed to sunlight and the diver in the foreground is in a safety stop position. Singleton made a bee-line straight for Tina from the surface and this picture corroborates that. The defense plans to say that the diver in the foreground was the diver that Dr. Stutz saw just in the grasp of another diver, sinking with her hands out like Jesus on the cross. The diver in the foreground is kicking either to ascend or maintain a safety stop, not sinking. The diver in the foreground is holding her computer like she is on safety stop, octopus in the other hand. The defense may also claim that the diver in the foreground is a horrible diver with arms flailing about swimming in an upright position. Or do you believe the diver in the foreground is on a safety stop and kicking to ascend or maintain position? Do you really see flailing arms with an object in each hand? Also, the diver in the foreground has a well-inflated BC and doesn't look like she had just been sinking at all. So, who do you think the jury will believe that Dr. Stutz saw sinking to the bottom with her hands out like Jesus on the cross, the woman on the bottom, or the diver in the foreground?

 

[ItsBruce]

T ...
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.

I had not thought about until just now, but Stutz' observations negate Tina being unconscious. It also negates Watson having turned her air off until she was unconscious and then turning it back on and letting her sink.

 

[K_girl]

I had not thought about until just now, but Stutz' observations negate Tina being unconscious. It also negates Watson having turned her air off until she was unconscious and then turning it back on and letting her sink.

I guess it would depend on whether or not she was incapacitated versus unconscious or if she had actually died and her eyes were still open with a terrified look. I don't know if an incapacitated person or a dead person can have a look of terror in their eyes. That may or may not be a point at trial.

 

[Divedoggie]

Looking at the infamous photo again, there are some more considerations.
The photographer's perspective is a steep downward angle. Singleton is more below, than behind the person in the foreground.
The photo appears to be taken with a wide angle/fish eye lense or setting. This distorts the picture even more. Look at the curvature of the seabed in the background.
The person in the foreground is holding the console in one hand and the Octo in the other whilst in a nearly verticle position. Was someone else out of air? Or were other divers on the wreck just that inexperienced?

 

[Foxfish]

Based on the graphs of produced by Michael McFadyen's and testimony of other divers, it would seem that Dr. Stutz' testimony is compromised. I refer you to the fairly lengthy discussion on the topic on Michael McFadyen's website:

Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site
Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site
Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site

Extract from Michael McFadyen's website:

· 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

I haven't yet seen a good rebuttal of these alleged discrepancies. Looking at Mc Fadyen’s summary of Stutz testimony, it is evident it became more detailed and clear with time. More on that later.

Stutz claims to have been about six metres from Tina and Gabe, to have seen Tina struggling, her eyes wide open and fear on her face. And yet in some of his early testimony, when specifically asked if he could differentiate between the height and build of the two divers, he said he could not. He later claimed he could.

It is my understanding that people who drown after their air supply is cut off typically go through several stages that occur over a period of some minutes. If we go with the murder hypothesis, it would be the time from when Tina started to hold her breath up until the time she blacked out. Then there would be a period of semi consciousness followed by involuntary convulsions or 'samba' and complete loss of consciousness. After the ‘samba’ period, and once the oxygen levels within the brain became low enough the diver would relax, ingest water and die. As an experienced freediver, blackout and drowning is a constant concern and over the years I’ve spent time learning about the topic through personal research, club safety videos and a freediving course. (continued)

 

[Foxfish]

If Gabe planned to murder his wife while diving, I expect he would he would have given at least given some thought to the time required for her to drown after turning off the first stage valve. I’d say that three minutes would be a minimum. People have been revived after spending far longer than that underwater. That means Gabe would have had to turn off the valve for at least that amount of time while restraining his wife and then turn the valve back on again. If this did happen, there are a number of things that are difficult to accept or reconcile.

The first is that no divers in the group three metres away saw this happen. During a significant part of this time Tina would have been thrashing about and struggling. Yet only Stutz claims he saw what occurred. Stempler's photo was apparently taken when he was at about 20 m. To me the visibility looked reasonable to good. There should have been no trouble for divers nearby seeing what was going on if the distances estimated by Stutz between divers, himself and Tina were accurate. I find it very hard to accept that Gabe would have been able to lock Tina in a bear hug for that duration of time while Tina thrashed around and no one three metres away saw what happened. It also begs the question as to why didn’t Stutz go across and intervene. More on that later.

The second is that Stutz stated in early testimony he could not make out the difference in stature between Gabe and Tina during this struggle in response to specific questioning on the matter. The inference is that for the entire duration of this struggle, Gabe managed to maintain his bear hug hold on Tina and the orientation of Tina with respect to Stutz.

Thirdly, given that Tina was so grossly over weighted and falling, it seems logical to conclude Gabe and Tina would have fallen together to the bottom during this period of time. Gabe would not have been able to activate his buoyancy control if he was holding Tina in a bear hug. This evidently did not occur. Even Stutz claims that he saw Tina fall to the bottom on her own. This fall was a significant depth and if it did occur should have been recorded by Gabe’s computer.

Fourthly, if we accept Gabe’s testimony, he apparently maintained this bear hug his grip on Tina while she dislodged his mask allowing water to enter and knocked the regulator out of his mouth resulting in him having to use his alternate air source. That is clearly no feasible.

And fifthly, as mentioned by ItsBruce above, “..but Stutz' observations negate Tina being unconscious. It also negates Watson having turned her air off until she was unconscious and then turning it back on and letting her sink." In other words, if Stutz’ testimony is correct and he saw Tina falling to the ocean floor while still conscious, then she wasn’t murdered by Gabe. If Gabe was intent on murder, why would he turn the valve back on and let her go while she was still conscious with the regulator in her mouth. ItsBruce comment was posted while I was finishing off my own. We’re saying similar things but from opposite perspectives.

It is possible that Gabe turned off the air supply for just long enough to induce ‘passive’ panic in his wife and then rush to the surface to get help or started to murder her then got nervous and turned her air supply back on but it all starts sounding very contrived.

I’d query whether you can go through a ’samba’ and drown while maintaining a frightened look on your face and regulator in your mouth. I’ve always heard that when people drown they get a peaceful look on their face.

It does surprise me that if Tina was still conscious or semi-conscious as she descended to the ocean floor that she could not be revived. I can only assume she was on the floor for an extended period or unfortunate not to have been revived. McFadyen’s graphs indicate she was on the ocean floor for some minutes. Again I find it incredible that Stutz watched this whole thing unfold from six metres away without providing any assistance.

While doing recovery training on a freediving course, we were taught that it was important to avoid raising a drowned person face up as they inhale water and this significantly affects their chances of survival. In the comments by McFadyen, the ascent of Wade with Tina is described as follows: “Cradling Tina like this, he took her to the surface. She was face up. This was confirmed by many who saw it. He signalled to Claudia to look after Gary and Dawn. He ascended very rapidly, far quicker than Gabe had swum up.”

I find it hard to believe that Gabe intended to murder Tina and given the amount of time required to do this would have done it three metres away from other divers.

 

[Foxfish]

Another aspect that doesn’t seem to have surfaced in any of the recent posts or articles I’ve read is the inconsistency between the treatment in the courts of Dr Stutz and Gabe. At no point during this incident did Stutz go over to investigate or offer assistance in spite of the fact that he is a doctor with experience in emergency medicine. I’ve eluded to this several times above.

Based on his own testimony, he witnessed Gabe murdering his wife, saw fear in Tina’s face and eyes, saw her struggling with Gabe for some time, saw her fall to the bottom of the ocean floor, saw another diver rescue her and take her to the surface with blood and vomit streaming from her face - and then continued on his merry dive. Mc Fadyen says that Stutz surfaced '30 minutes later'.

Stutz may not have appreciated that he witnessed a murder. But to me, the callous indifference shown after the ‘murder’ raises the possibility that he did know but chose not to get involved. It could also explain why his early testimony lacked the detail of his later testimony.

It seems inconsistent for the courts on the one hand to find Gabe guilty of manslaughter for his breached of ‘duty of care’ and at the same time fail to investigate Stutz behaviour. There may be reasons why Stutz could not descend and assist Tina as she struggled. It would not explain his failure to ascend and render assistance to a woman who had obviously drowned. These are matters that could be investigated by the courts.

 

[alohagal]

Well...do we really know as fact that Dr. Stutz did not ascend till thirty minutes later? And Michael's analysis does not tell us why. Could be many reasons for his later ascent other than casual diving. Was he near deco and in danger of narcosis which would render him useless to anyone thereafter?

Also, I read through the lengthy analysis...which obviously involved a lot of labor and passion. However, it struck me as biased in favor of Gabe...just as K-gurl "used" to be biased against Gabe. It was quite critical of Dr. Stutz who stated "you cannot hear underwater"...yet conversely adamant that Dr. Stutz could not have seen what he reports and was essentially blind. Personally, I cannot hear a darn thing under water but garbled bubbling!
And believe me I have tried screaming underwater face to face with my regulator out of my mouth to be understood much less to get someones attention. Only thing that works is my tank banger that I get a lot of grief over. Tomorrow Dr. Stutz is on the stand. I doubt he will have the same impact he may have had 8 years ago.

BTW: I have been rereading many of the old posts here. So many of you are just brilliant. I am in respectful awe of many of the posters to this forum. I for one have gone from geez...he must be guilty(a few years ago)...to my god...let me listen to the wisdom of BowlofPetunias.

 

[alohagal]

This is just trivia...but my dear boyfriend lives in Birmingham and his office is a few blocks from the courthouse. We discuss the trial each day. There seems to be an overall lack of interest in this case in Birmingham itself. Currently there is a trial over illegal bingo gambling concerning a lot of upper level politicians and well to do folks that has captured the interest of the local people. The only news vans spotted are local CBS, ABC and FOX news channels (notably CNN is absent) and one unmarked large white van that I suspect could be used by the Australian reporters.

Trivia number 2...it was reported a few years back that Gabe had Tina's grave moved from the spot HER family had chosen to an unmarked grave and that this was another reason he should be viewed suspiciously. I actually paid a visit to the cemetary in 2010 to try and find her grave. It had been moved but not that far away from the original spot. I could not locate it at first and had to go in and ask for the location (I was a bit self-conscious doing so) anyway...her new plot looked odd because the headstone was upside down and directly under another persons headstone. It looked out of place and a bit strange.

Well I just read yesterday...that he left it unmarked for a period of time and then placed a FOOT Marker (I have never heard of before) on her grave. That would make sense as to the odd placement. It butted up quite close to the asphalt road and seemed to be an "ungracious" setting...if you will.

I read that Tina's father was able to gain back rights to her body and have it moved once again and that Gabe is under court order to stay away from her grave.