Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[alohagal]

This would make me question Stutz' credibility. Given what Stutz has said about what he sawand given the prosecution in Australia, I have a hard time believing that he would be surprised that Watson was being prosecuted for murder.

I routinely ask witnesses if they've discussed the case. Most say "no." Then, I ask why it was that they didn't think that it might be a good idea to check their perceptions and recollections by seeing what others had to say before they swore to something. Then: "So you were so intent on not contaminating your testimony that you blinded yourself to everything surrounding the matter." The implication is that the witness is lying about not having discussed the case. And, if the witness would lie about not having discussed the case, there is no telling what else the witness would lie about.

I thought his statement was odd as well. However, I think that the jury is not allowed to know about his conviction and pleading of guilty to manslaughter in Australia. Therefore...maybe Stutz has to make it sound like he is referring to THIS trial when in actuality he is referring to the first implications of murder charges considered in Australia. He just cannot come right out and say it.

 

[ItsBruce]

Regarding what seems to be comments by Snyder about buddy breathing. I get the impression that he was trying to express the importance of staying with your buddy; i.e. if you find yourself OOA or with an equipment malfunction, you go for your buddy's octopus or share with your buddy, and you can't do that if you are separated, so stay with your buddy.

 

[ItsBruce]

From what I can tell from the reports, (1) we have not yet heard anything that is new and incriminating, and (2) what we have heard is not nearly as incriminating as what we had expected to hear.

As far as the timeline and whether Dr. Stutz could have seen what he claims to have seen, I can't tell if the defense is better served by showing he could not have seen it or by showing that he did see it, but did not see acts that could have resulted in Tina being incapacitated.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I suspect you are correct Bruce but it sure doesn't come across very well. I am looking at Snyder's statements to decide how much weight I would personally put on what he has to say. IMVHO The statement he made to the effect that pushing a button (inflating an air bladder) would "Absolutely {have} saved Tina's life is alarming to the extreme. Does he not understand the dangers of AGE, barotrauma, and allowing panicking divers to surface too quickly? If that is the case then he is far from an 'expert witness'. Is he so intent on proving Gabe's guilt that he would knowingly make such a dangerously misleading statement under oath? dontknow: I have no idea what is going on in his mind and of course ...

I agree that a lot of this is rehasing what we had heard before but they sure haven't brought out any "smoking guns"

This is an interesting interview for "Expert Insight into the trial"

Gabe Watson Murder Trial - Expert Insight - CBS 42 Birmingham, AL News Weather Sports

 

[DandyDon]

We're not getting anything new or we - other than opinions of divers who were there.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

We're not getting anything new or we - other than opinions of divers who were there.

Yes but I felt it would be interesting to have some insight as to why Snyder and his friend were so suspicious from the onset. It seems to me from statements made by Mr Thomas that it was the information provided to him by those divers that made Mr Thomas start suspecting foul play. I remember comments about Gabe lied because there is no such thing as feeling of weight underwater. I don't remember any reference to that magic inflater button.

 

[DandyDon]

Ok yeah, some new details I suppose, just nothing really significant. I really thought the prosecutor had more to try this.

I wonder if they'll bring up the confusion over Gabe computer that the local police bungled so badly.

 

[Foxfish]

“Prosecutors contend Stutz saw Watson during the final scene sic of a murderous act. They claim Watson turned off his wife's oxygen and let her lose consciousness or become distressed before approaching her again, turning on her air supply to cover up murder, and letting her sink.”

Honeymoon death: Key witness takes stand

I take it they realize that it was not possible Gabe could have murdered Tina in the short period of time that Stutz witnessed them together. Stutz is now claiming he saw Watson with Tina 'momentarily'. McFadyen records that Stutz has previously said he saw Watson approach Tina for 10-30 seconds. Momentarily sounds more like ten seconds, or less, than 30.

The idea that Watson could have tried to murder his wife by inducing a panic through momentarily cutting off her air supply while her regulator remained in her mouth is dubious. This latest story sounds even more contrived.

Start with a scenario that sounds at least like something that Gabe could have planned if he intended to murder his wife. I will describe this and other scenarios as if they did happen. At the start of the dive Gabe turned off Tina’s valve. He followed her as she sank to the bottom while dying. After she was obviously dead, he turned the valve back on.

The dive profiles generated from both Tina and Gabe’s computers are different to what you would expect in this scenario. Instead they correlate with the description of the dive given by Gabe. The graphs show that after Gabe left Tina at 15 m she drifted to the ocean floor because she was carrying too much ballast. Based on her dive watch profile, she fell from about 17 to 27 metres in a minute. Her rate of descent at the start of the dive is similar. If we assume this rate of descent as an average, that it would take three minutes for Tina to drown, and that Tina had a ‘passive’ panic attack after Gabe turned off her air so that she went into a free fall descent, Gabe would have had to turn off her air near the start of the dive and Tina would have been near the ocean floor when she drowned. The graphs clearly indicate that Tina did not go into a free descent to the bottom. Tina's descent down to 15 metres took over four minutes including periods when she leveled off. The graphs confirm that Gabe left Tina at about 15 m. He did not follow Tina to the bottom of the ocean and turn her valve on. The graphs show that Tina’s dive profile prior to the alleged 'final' encounter with Gabe is markedly different to that of the profile after the encounter when he swam away. In this scenario, the profile rate of descent should be similar both before and after the ‘final’ encounter. That is not what you see on the graphs.

If Gabe did turn off Tina’s valve at the start of the dive and she sank straight down, how did she end up at the location where Wade picked her up? And of course there is the question that if she was dead when Stutz saw her during this second encounter how come she was moving.

Suppose the prosecution chooses to shorten the time after Gabe turns off Tina’s valve from 3 minutes 1 ½ minutes to get around some of these problems. In this next scenario they have both progressed some time into the dive and 1 ½ minutes before Gabe ascends as shown on the graphs he turns off Tina’s valve before Stutz sees what is happening. Gabe allows her to die then turns the air back on at around the time he ascends. Aside from the problem that there is no witness evidence supporting the start of this scenario, there is an extended flat spot just prior to Tina Gabe leaving her for the surface and Tina sinking to the bottom. If she dies during this time you’d expect to see her lose significant depth prior to Gabe turning off her valve and then turning it back on and leaving. Keep in mind that after Gabe leaves she sinks to the bottom at a rate of 10 m per minute. Again her rate of descent would be the same before and after the encounter if she had died. Another problem with this scenario is that it is questionable whether Tina would die during this relatively short time. It seems much more probable that she would become semi-conscious. (Cont)

 

[Foxfish]

Stutz claimed on a number of occasions in later testimony that he saw Tina moving during the ‘final’ encounter between Gabe and Tina which would confirm that she was still alive and moving.

"Then they split apart. After, he went to the surface. She sank," Stutz said. The woman was clearly alive before the encounter, but she was dying afterward, he said.
From here Witness: Alabama Man Held Wife Before She Sank - ABC News.

In McFadyen’s summary of the evidence by Stutz, he testified on three occasions that he saw Tina arms and legs moving at the time she was approached by Stutz.

“she wasn’t like thrashing” “disorganised” and “moving flapping slowly up and down” “flaying basically, and she was moving her arms, not unpurposely, and her legs similarly” later says “thrashing her arms and legs”.

Is it possible to modify this second scenario with Tina’s air turned off 1 ½ minutes before Gabes’ departure so that she is still at least semi conscious. It is possible but it makes the whole idea of premeditated murder seem more dubious and sound like you are dreaming up scenarios to impugn Gabe rather than provide a realistic explanation of what occurred.

McFadyen notes that one of things that has yet to be resolved is how Tina died with a regulator in her mouth. I’ve had a regulator flood before but am not sure if this will cause you to drown if the regulator remains in place. I’d expect once you sucked out all the water you’d keep breathing. The sensible approach would be to purge your regulator. There has been discussion suggesting that you can breath so hard that water is drawn into the regulator.

It could be argued that Gabe turned Tina’s air off and she died of asphyxiation. Try holding your breath until you black out and see if you revive. It happens to freeedivers training by doing dry statics (holding their breath while out of the water) which is why they recommend this training be done while seated and not while you drive a car. Even if Tina had reached the point of having a ‘samba’, she could have recovered. I’d seriously doubt that 1 ½ minutes is an adequate amount of time to kill someone in this diving context through asphyxiation. (Cont)

 

[Foxfish]

The fact remains that Tina died. How did that occur and was that something that Gabe could have engineered? The explanation that she was breathing so deeply that she drew water into the regulator seems most plausible to me. It is an idea that needs confirmation either by the experts or testing. McFadyen notes the Coroner’s report shows Tina had water in her lungs and drowning was listed as a cause of death. Vomit, foam and blood coming from a person’s mouth is consistent with drowning.

The remaining modified second scenario that seems to fit the reported observations and evidence is that somehow Gabe knew turning Tina’s air valve off would cause her to panic and inhale water by over breathing her regulator resulting in death by drowning. Not only did Gabe understand the mechanics of how this would occur, he also knew precisely when to turn the regulator back on even though Tina was struggling somewhat violently knowing that in a few short seconds she would become catatonic through panic. This is in spite of the fact that even people with McFadyen’s expertise and experience have not yet been able to clearly articulate how Tina died with the regulator in her mouth. Personally I think this final scenario sounds contrived.