Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

As far as manslaughter, actual realization of Tina's inability to dive or of his unfitness to help is not necessary. He certainly knew the foundational facts that should have triggered the realization.

In my mind, such as it is and now stands, the fact that Watson pushed his wife to dive or did not figure out that she learned just to please him plus the fact he assured the dive operator that he was qualified to take care of her, are the important ones for manslaughter rather than just an unfortunate accident.

I try to keep within 3 or 4 yards of my buddy.

 

[alohagal]

Its Bruce you put it so well in your post about what your gut tells you. Something stinks here...but, at the same time I also see Gabe and Tina as so inexperienced that this was a disaster waiting to happen. Gabe has done himself no favors throughout this fiasco. I am a nurse at a mental hospital and feel most of my colleagues would be very suspicious and jaded towards Gabe and his reactions during and after the incident. He seems disengaged, cold and entitled.

Is manslaughter going to be an option for the jury? Does that have to be a charge up front?

 

[Divedoggie]

Wow! I was tempted to respond with a quote to every post on the previous page. Bowlofpetunias clear thought and links to and summation of Carl Edmund's comments, Foxfish's concise summary of statements, Boulderjohn's clear experiencial example of a male diver grossly overstating his abilities and a quick summation of safety stops, ItsBruces's legal take, Valwood1's meaningful rant, and Foxfishes final comment all come together to portray what I feel is the snapshot of what actually happened that day.

I have tried to draw on my experiences with people making what I feel are the same mistakes that Tina and Gabe made that day and to communicate those examples as clearly as I could. You all have your own experiences and opinions based on what you have read and on your dealings with different people in general.

The following comment from Valwood1 sums up what I have been trying to describe as being self consumed or ego, but it is pride and this really puts Gabe's psychology into perspective:

"...failing to meet the standards to which all good Southern boys are bound (you have to be a southerner to appreciate this stuff), but that's all. He made a lot of mistakes and tried to lie his way out of it (or, if looking at things in the most favorable light, was so confused that he really didn't know what happened and then tried to make up answers) so he wouldn't look like a coward."


It has been and continues to be a pleasure reading all your posts and getting inside your minds a little. Hopefully we will do some diving together one of these days!

 

[Ayisha]

Not sure about McFadyen's academic qualifications. I think his understanding of physics is shaky. He is obviously an experienced and avid diver. I believe he can read and write. It appears that he is involved in rescue work as part of his 'real job'. Michael McFadyen's Scuba Diving Web Site

I am aware of who McFadyen is. I kept seeing a poster who was quite active on this thread until fairly recently watching this thread but not posting, and another post on here confirms my instinct. He has been on this thread each day for some time, but no longer posts. McFadyen said in his blog that he used to think that Gabe was guilty, but now believes he is not. In all the years I have seen his posts on these threads, they have always been slanted for the defence, so I don't know how early that "guilty" impression could have been. A witness, expert or otherwise, should not be involved in giving his opinions on the matter or involved in internet forums about the matter for years before a murder trial. Stopping posting when asked to be a witness or during the trial shouldn't be sufficient. Shouldn't McFadyen recuse himself as an expert witness?

I understand that McFadyen is a rescue diver and has assisted in investigating two out of air/low on air accidents at his club. Beyond the number of dives, I see nothing that qualifies him as an expert witness and he has already shown his bias. I have been assisting in investigating fatalities for the last few years in our province and have access to non-public information, but I would not be considered an expert witness, and the only difference is the number of dives.

 

[VeryRusty]

The trial isn't about other people's liability, but I believe that you are certainly correct in your assertion. Maybe someone can answer your question. I don't know.

It seems like liability lies in a number of places, starting with Gabe, but also with Tina. People need to take responsibility for their decisions and their actions. She was very prone to panic, had a heart condition, and barely made it through an OW course.

Tina did not have a heart condition. She had an irregular heartbeat at one time, but 2 years before the dive she had a procedure to correct that. In followup visits to the cardiologist there was no indication the irregular heartbeat had returned.

 

[Griffo]

Perusing the reports going to Australia on this case they tend to paint the testimony as detrimental to the defense. The reports from Alabama seem to be very weak in relating testimony and report it in a way that makes the prosecution witnesses appear to be defense witnesses. I have spent time scouring the various reports coming out the spin is definitely different. We are not getting the complete picture of the testimony and how it is sounding to the jury. I really wish we had more.

You are seeing the state of the Australian press now that it is controlled by two individuals (Packer and Murdoch). All of our papers have descended to low levels of tabloid style shock-jock writing. It doesn't matter what the truth is, what's the juciest sounding story they can write. Personally, i believe nothing that's not published by our ABC.

 

[ItsBruce]

...A witness, expert or otherwise, should not be involved in giving his opinions on the matter or involved in internet forums about the matter for years before a murder trial. Stopping posting when asked to be a witness or during the trial shouldn't be sufficient. Shouldn't McFadyen recuse himself as an expert witness?

I see no reason that an expert witness should not peruse internet forums. I would be concerned with if he didn't. Because of his interest in diving, I would expect McFadyen to follow this forum just like so many other divers. If nothing else, I would expect that what we have said here and the analysis we have provided might help in solidifying an expert's thoughts or at least providing an analytical framework for an expert to use.

I see no reason why someone should withhold their comments because they may be engaged as an expert or have been engaged as an expert, EXCEPT to the extent that such comments MIGHT provide information with which he or she might later be attacked, e.g. inconsistent statements or confirmation bias..

Do keep in mind that experts are engaged by the prosecution or the defense and as such there will always be some degree of bias. It is not like the Court is engaging an unbiased expert to assist it.

An expert is always open to charges of bias and a good cross-examination is the best means of showing that. It is then up to the jury to decide if the degree of bias renders the expert's opinions unworthy of belief.

For example:

"Isn't it true that you are being paid to come here and give your opinion for the prosecution/defense?"
"Isn't it true that if your opinion was not favorable to the prosecution/defense, you would not be here?
"Isn't it true that if your opinion was not favorable to the prosecution/defense, you would not be getting paid to be here?"
"Isn't it true that in forming your opinions, you understood that if they weren't favorable to the prosecution/defense, the prosecution/defense would find someone else whose opinions were favorable?"

I understand that McFadyen is a rescue diver and has assisted in investigating two out of air/low on air accidents at his club. Beyond the number of dives, I see nothing that qualifies him as an expert witness and he has already shown his bias. I have been assisting in investigating fatalities for the last few years in our province and have access to non-public information, but I would not be considered an expert witness, and the only difference is the number of dives.

An expert is anyone with knowledge, experience or training beyond that of an ordinary layperson who can use that knowledge, experience or training to form an opinion that would help the jury in its quest to find the truth. As noted above, nothing requires an expert to be impartial or unbiased. The question is whether it makes the expert's opinion unworthy of being believed. That turns in large part on whether there is an adequate factual foundation for the expert's opinions and whether the expert has the requisite knowledge, experience or training to form a valid opinion based on that factual foundation.

IMHO, there are any number of people in this forum who would qualify as an expert and whose opinions would be admissible in court.

 

[Foxfish]

As far as manslaughter, actual realization of Tina's inability to dive or of his unfitness to help is not necessary. He certainly knew the foundational facts that should have triggered the realization.

In my mind, such as it is and now stands, the fact that Watson pushed his wife to dive or did not figure out that she learned just to please him plus the fact he assured the dive operator that he was qualified to take care of her, are the important ones for manslaughter rather than just an unfortunate accident.

I try to keep within 3 or 4 yards of my buddy.

So essentially you are saying he had the knowledge and training and his failure to adequately apply that in this situation doesn't absolve him from guilt. Keep in mind that I haven't seen any indication that the judges sentencing comments made reference to Gabe's poor judgement and the nature of his relationship with Tina. Maybe they should have.

By the same token, the need for this rescue did not arise from circumstances that were beyond what Tina should have been able to cope with based on her level of training and certification. If it is argued that her training was inadequate, the same could be said for Gabe. I can understand that intervention by Gabe would have been justifiable if she became entangled or something went wrong with her equipment. That wasn't the case. Gabe's need to intervene was because Tina failed to apply what she had learned while being trained. She was poorly weighted. She showed poor judgement in assessing her competence in handling the conditions on site and flagging her own inadequacies or the fact she was very uncomfortable with the dive to others conducting the tour. She failed to get proper control of her buoyancy. She failed to ditch her weights. Her dependence on Gabe and his judgement in this context were unhealthy. All this lead to her panic and this becoming an out of control situation. Shouldn't Tina's failure in these matters have featured in the sentencing.

Diving has risks. When you engage in the sport you accept those risks. To a large extent you are responsible for your own safety. I don't believe that aspect of this incident features adequately in Gabe's trial or sentence.

 

[Foxfish]

You are seeing the state of the Australian press now that it is controlled by two individuals (Packer and Murdoch). All of our papers have descended to low levels of tabloid style shock-jock writing. It doesn't matter what the truth is, what's the juciest sounding story they can write. Personally, i believe nothing that's not published by our ABC.

Agreed with what you are saying here regarding the tabloid style of reporting. The bias and misreporting in many articles particularly those relating to crime is breath taking. Not sure about the ABC. They probably have their own but maybe not as pronounced.

 

[alohagal]

You are seeing the state of the Australian press now that it is controlled by two individuals (Packer and Murdoch). All of our papers have descended to low levels of tabloid style shock-jock writing. It doesn't matter what the truth is, what's the juciest sounding story they can write. Personally, i believe nothing that's not published by our ABC.

Agreed with what you are saying here regarding the tabloid style of reporting. The bias and misreporting in many articles particularly those relating to crime is breath taking. Not sure about the ABC. They probably have their own but maybe not as pronounced.

Tried to find an example of my meaning on this. I am not talking about salacious reporting. I am referring to WHAT testimony they choose to report. Reports back to Australia seem to include MORE testimony in their reports that is less favorable to Gabe. Where the reporters from Alabama give a succinct wrap up that includes one or two lines of testimony that exonerates him.

Looks as if the Alabama reporters might focus on what the witness states when cross-examined by defense and the Australian reports focus on what the witness states under the prosecutions questioning. I found that interesting because Australia has had to deal with this affair for much longer than Alabama not to mention take the heat from those dissatisfied in the US for the plea deal. Australia appears to be highly interested in the case the prosecution is currently presenting. They already know what the defense is.

Believe me the US has its fair share of Murdoch style reporting. Ours is in the form of talking head pundit shows that will swarm on a televised trial like ants to a picnic and pick it down to the bone. The OJ Simpson trial started the phenomenon and it is a staple of American Television reporting. I prefer to stick with the testimony proferred at this point. Period.

BTW: The witness who took up half the day on Friday was the actual surgeon who did Tina's heart surgery. He states she was completely cured at that point and had a clean bill of health for diving. This testimony from the prosecution is to head off the defense claiming heart issues when they present their case.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/dive-payout-was-rejected/story-e6freon6-1226275245744 Headline states damning evidence and gives more detail about insurance policy at the end of report.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/fourth_day_of_testimony_in_gab.html
This reporter characterizes insurance policy briefly at the beginning of his report.