Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[bowlofpetunias]

Boy, this post really resonates with me. My mind is a ping pong ball over this thing. Honestly. Depends on what I read when, where etc. But, yes, I think many would agree that our gut feeling does not feel right about Gabe Watson.

BTW: K-GIRL is more than a friend, she is my sister. We have hashed this out for years. Believe you me. I have had to play devils advocate many a time.

.

I can imagine two intelligent strong minded people will not agree on everything... you are lucky to have her for both sister and friend. It is great that you can have these conversations. I miss my sister so much! She is in Canada and doesn't get online but we have some pretty interesting conversations. Sure lucky fish found a good package for calling Canada! Not unusual for us to talk for a couple hours when we do manage to connect!

 

[Dave Earl]

One thing that has totally amazed me about this trial is that Milsap and Snyder have been accepted by the Court as expert witnesses because they have 500+ dives (Prosecution insurance-profit motive put in doubt, witnesses refute Gabe Watson's story of how wife died in Australian honeymoon | al.com). This is a huge mistake, because it means they can be asked their opinion on various dive related questions. Regular (non-expert) witnesses are required to report what they saw directly. From these two the jury are getting howlers such as the "press that button and she would be taken to the surface" "she would live?" "asolutely"; "weights are lighter underwater than at the surface"; and only "dead or unconscious divers sink".
Clearly, these two are lacking a basic understanding of the fundamentals of dive safety, and should only be allowed to relate what they saw to the court, not what they imagine.

 

[ItsBruce]

One thing that has totally amazed me about this trial is that Milsap and Snyder have been accepted by the Court as expert witnesses because they have 500+ dives (Prosecution insurance-profit motive put in doubt, witnesses refute Gabe Watson's story of how wife died in Australian honeymoon | al.com). This is a huge mistake, because it means they can be asked their opinion on various dive related questions. Regular (non-expert) witnesses are required to report what they saw directly. From these two the jury are getting howlers such as the "press that button and she would be taken to the surface" "she would live?" "asolutely"; "weights are lighter underwater than at the surface"; and only "dead or unconscious divers sink".
Clearly, these two are lacking a basic understanding of the fundamentals of dive safety, and should only be allowed to relate what they saw to the court, not what they imagine.

1. Letting them testify as to opinions that lack generally accepted scientific acceptance is a high probability reversal on appeal.

2. If Watson had really wanted to kill Tina, the easy way would have been to go deep with her and hit the inflator button on her BCD. A new diver would likely be unable to cope. It would likely be embolism city. It would be quick and easy to implement. It would have been easy to explain away: "She was overweighted and added too much air." If it failed, it would be easy to excuse: " I added some air for her, she started to rise, as she started to rise, she failed to dump air."

 

[DandyDon]

Petunia, I hope you are using Skype for your two calls to Canada.

One thing that has totally amazed me about this trial is that Milsap and Snyder have been accepted by the Court as expert witnesses because they have 500+ dives (Prosecution insurance-profit motive put in doubt, witnesses refute Gabe Watson's story of how wife died in Australian honeymoon | al.com). This is a huge mistake, because it means they can be asked their opinion on various dive related questions. Regular (non-expert) witnesses are required to report what they saw directly. From these two the jury are getting howlers such as the "press that button and she would be taken to the surface" "she would live?" "asolutely"; "weights are lighter underwater than at the surface"; and only "dead or unconscious divers sink".
Clearly, these two are lacking a basic understanding of the fundamentals of dive safety, and should only be allowed to relate what they saw to the court, not what they imagine.

It won't be difficult for the defense to bring in better "expert divers" to blow those remarks out of the water. Sure, once it's said in court, it's heard - and the jury won't hear the others for some time, but their own "expert" can give the defense an opportunity to make them look like newbies whose entire testimonies are questionable.

 

[ItsBruce]

Interesting thoughts Bruce lol I am sure some will interpret that to mean you think he is guilty and some will interpret it that you think he is innocent

...

Like you I am offended that this terrible thing happened but I have tried to keep an open mind and look at the thing from all angles. I have tried to use my own experience with wrongful death to understand how Tina's loved ones feel. I have tried to think how I would have reacted to this event as a diver with 50+ dives or even now. I have tried to interpret information from both sides.. looking for guilty or innocent explanations. I have tried to think how Gabe's family must feel.. how would I feel if this was MY son!

I am also trying to look at it from the selfish perspective.. how does this effect the hobby I am passionate about. What can I learn here to be safer? I have learned some things I didn't know before about passive panic for instance. I have reinforced my conviction that when it comes to dive knowledge and skill.. Certificates mean nothing.. numbers of dives mean nothing! There are too many people making downright dangerous claims and justifying their conclusions by those two criteria. I want to see someone in the water before I accept their evaluation of their skill and trust my life to them! Then I will do everything I can to avoid that situation arising!

1. I have no opinions on guilt or innocence. (I do have trouble with the basic theory of how he accomplished it.) I limit myself to whether there is enough evidence that he will be found guilty. My answer is that it's not likely without some new smoking gun.

2. IMHO numbers of dives and knowledge count for very little when things go wrong. Having done 1,000 dives where nothing went wrong will not prepare one for the one dive where it does, except to the extent one may be more confident in one's ability to respond to the unexpected. Raw knowledge without practice also means very little.

 

[Wookie]

2. IMHO numbers of dives and knowledge count for very little when things go wrong. Having done 1,000 dives where nothing went wrong will not prepare one for the one dive where it does, except to the extent one may be more confident in one's ability to respond to the unexpected. Raw knowledge without practice also means very little.

With all due respect, I most vehemently disagree. Having done 1,000 dives allows muscle memory to really make a difference. When the fin of the white shark knocks your mask off while out in blue water, you know where your inflator is, because it's the same place it's been for 1,000 dives. You know how much air you have left because it's ingrained to check your air supply continuously, and unconsciously. You know which way is up, because, well, you just know. You don't have to perform s-drills or carry a spare mask or whatever cave- and DIR-divers do because you have the instincts and muscle memory to get through whatever the problem is. Most importantly, you should be most comfortable by 1,000 dives down and not so prone to panic as a relatively new diver. Enough little things have gone wrong that you know that you can survive without a mask, or that you can perform a blow and go without harm.

2. If Watson had really wanted to kill Tina, the easy way would have been to go deep with her and hit the inflator button on her BCD. A new diver would likely be unable to cope. It would likely be embolism city. It would be quick and easy to implement. It would have been easy to explain away: "She was overweighted and added too much air." If it failed, it would be easy to excuse: " I added some air for her, she started to rise, as she started to rise, she failed to dump air."

I think you are only partially right. In the embolism cases I've seen, it is way more likely to be an experienced diver with a partial lung/alveoli blockage due to congestion who embolises than a new diver that holds their breath. A newer diver who does an unplanned/runaway ascent is more likely to be breathing heavily/screaming than holding their breath. Low/out of air is a different story.

Sorry for the hijack, back to the regular story...

 

[ItsBruce]

Petunia, I hope you are using Skype for your two calls to Canada.

It won't be difficult for the defense to bring in better "expert divers" to blow those remarks out of the water. Sure, once it's said in court, it's heard - and the jury won't hear the others for some time, but their own "expert" can give the defense an opportunity to make them look like newbies whose entire testimonies are questionable.

I'd almost be willing to pay money to get to cross-examine them.
"Have you ever heard of something called an air embolism?"
"Isn't it true you get one from ascending too fast or from holding your breath?"
"Isn't it true[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif] that when you start to ascend the air in your BCD expands?"
"Isn't it true that as the air expands a diver will rise faster if he or she doesn't dump some.?"
"So, just pushing the button isn't a cure all?"
"Its not like saying 'Scotty, beam me up!' is it?"
"if she forgot to dump air or to exhale, she'd likely embolism?"
"Now, let's talk about sinking; if one has plenty of air and properly operating equipment, what is wrong with going to the bottom, sitting there and either waiting for help or deciding what action to take?"
"Isn't it true[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif] divers are taught that when something goes wrong they should stop, breath, think and then act?"[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[ItsBruce]

With all due respect, I most vehemently disagree. Having done 1,000 dives allows muscle memory to really make a difference. When the fin of the white shark knocks your mask off while out in blue water, you know where your inflator is, because it's the same place it's been for 1,000 dives. You know how much air you have left because it's ingrained to check your air supply continuously, and unconsciously. You know which way is up, because, well, you just know. You don't have to perform s-drills or carry a spare mask or whatever cave- and DIR-divers do because you have the instincts and muscle memory to get through whatever the problem is. Most importantly, you should be most comfortable by 1,000 dives down and not so prone to panic as a relatively new diver. Enough little things have gone wrong that you know that you can survive without a mask, or that you can perform a blow and go without harm.



I think you are only partially right. In the embolism cases I've seen, it is way more likely to be an experienced diver with a partial lung/alveoli blockage due to congestion who embolises than a new diver that holds their breath. A newer diver who does an unplanned/runaway ascent is more likely to be breathing heavily/screaming than holding their breath. Low/out of air is a different story.

Sorry for the hijack, back to the regular story...

I stand corrected and incorporate much of that into my remarks.

 

[DandyDon]

I'd almost be willing to pay money to get to cross-examine them.
"Have you ever heard of something called an air embolism?"
"Isn't it true you get one from ascending too fast or from holding your breath?"
"Isn't it true that when you start to ascend the air in your BCD expands?"
"Isn't it true that as the air expands a diver will rise faster if he or she doesn't dump some.?"
"So, just pushing the button isn't a cure all?"
"Its not like saying 'Scotty, beam me up!' is it?"
"if she forgot to dump air or to exhale, she'd likely embolism?"
"Now, let's talk about sinking; if one has plenty of air and properly operating equipment, what is wrong with going to the bottom, sitting there and either waiting for help or deciding what action to take?"
"Isn't it true divers are taught that when something goes wrong they should stop, breath, think and then act?"

Makes me wonder why defense counsel didn't ask any of these? I hope for his sake he has his own expert. Hate to see this trial repeated later.

 

[Foxfish]

One thing that has totally amazed me about this trial is that Milsap and Snyder have been accepted by the Court as expert witnesses because they have 500+ dives (Prosecution insurance-profit motive put in doubt, witnesses refute Gabe Watson's story of how wife died in Australian honeymoon | al.com). This is a huge mistake, because it means they can be asked their opinion on various dive related questions. Regular (non-expert) witnesses are required to report what they saw directly. From these two the jury are getting howlers such as the "press that button and she would be taken to the surface" "she would live?" "asolutely"; "weights are lighter underwater than at the surface"; and only "dead or unconscious divers sink".
Clearly, these two are lacking a basic understanding of the fundamentals of dive safety, and should only be allowed to relate what they saw to the court, not what they imagine.

Agreed. And I was told the first rule of diving is to always breath. You are not much good to your buddy when you stop breathing.

I have several buddies I dive with but at times they are not available and I dive with the other buddies assigned on the charter boat. I dove today with two others, both of whom hadn't dived for many months. I spent about 5 minutes at the start of the first dive waiting at the bottom because one couldn't descend and had to go back and sort out her buoyancy. Fortunately the other diver hadn't descended. The same diver then spent most of her first dive finning frantically in the vertical position because she hadn't mastered the use of buoyancy control. At the end of the dive she shot to the surface after doing a one minute safety stop. Fortunately conditions were ideal and she was okay. If there had been a strong current running with heavy swell it could have been messy.

This kind of thing is not uncommon. As others have said, for some people, getting the certificate is not enough to impart the skills needed, especially when they rarely dive. Buddies should not be held responsible for another diver's incompetence or poor judgement.

If Snyder was right and all that was required to prevent death was for Tina to inflate her BCD, then, aside from foul play, her inability to do this is ultimately the reason she died. It is unfair to put all the blame on Gabe. A bit like blaming a co-pilot for a plane that crashed as a result of an incompetent pilot. There were many divers in the water that day who did the dive without any problems.

Fact is, if you don't have the necessary skills and right mental attitude, diving is risky. If you panic and lose control you can quickly become seriosly injured or die.