Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ROMO DIVER]

I do not know which shop trained her but all the ones I know of in Birmingham have their own pools for confined water. I have used the dock platform to review skills before going to the deeper platforms that are suspended in the quarry. Also, why do we assume that all her dives were recorded on her computer. We do not know when/where the computer was purchased or if she ever piggy-backed his computer on a dive.

 

[alien]

the water is cold and murky in the quarry and she chews through her air the times would be correct for OW dives. The standard is either 20 mins OR use 2200 litres. She would have need AOW training in order to be allowed to dive the Yongala

 

[Divedoggie]

Basing evidence on a shaky hypothesis, Watson's inconsistent statements, character witnesses, divers who didn't actually see a crime transpire, and 'expert' testimony as to what a prudent experienced diver should have done has seemed like a farce from the start. Maybe they will get this right, afterall.
Maybe we should stay tuned for a wrongful death suit.

"Honeymoon Killer" judge scoffs at motive:

Honeymoon Trial Judge Scoffs at Alleged Motive - Yahoo!

The judge presiding over the murder trial of accused "Honeymoon Killer" Gabe Watson has openly scoffed at the prosecution's claims and angrily asked the prosecutor if he needs lessons on the rules of court. The actions by Judge Tommy Nail raise questions about the prosecution's case.
Watson is accused of killing Tina Watson, his bride of 11 days, during their honeymoon in Australia by drowning her while scuba diving off the Great Barrier Reef. The motive for the alleged crime was Watson's intention to collect on a $130,000 insurance policy and to sell her possessions, the prosecution argued in its opening statement.
The judge's anger boiled over Tuesday after prosecutor Don Valeska questioned funeral home director Sam Shelton about Watson retrieving his wife's engagement ring from the casket, but asking that her wedding ring remain on her hand.
The judge interrupted the testimony to say, "I took my grandmother's engagement ring when she was buried. I think it's quite common." Nail asked Shelton if most of his customers took their loved one's rings and Shelton responded, "It's quite common."
"Honeymoon Killer" Trial Draws Judge's Skepticism
The sparring between the judge and the prosecutor continued until Nail sent the jury out of the courtroom and posed a sharp question to Valeska.
"You mean to tell me that [Gabe Watson] bought the engagement ring, married her, he and his family paid for a wedding, he planned and paid for a honeymoon halfway around the world, all so he could kill her to get an engagement ring he bought in the first place?" the judge asked.
The courtroom fell silent.
During the prosecution's questioning of Tina Watson's sister, Alanda Thomas, on Tuesday the defense repeatedly objected to Valeska's questions and Nail sustained nearly every defense objection.
When Valeska became visibly frustrated, Nail loudly asked him, "Do you need the definition of hearsay? If y'all can't accept my ruling you know where Montgomery is; take off." During this statement, the judge pounded his desk and pointed at Valeska. Montgomery is the neighboring county from Jefferson County where the murder trial is taking place.
The heated discussions began after prosecutors pressed their witnesses on questions about Watson's character. Throughout the trial, prosecutors have tried to paint Watson as an unemotional, calculating killer.
Valeska later said to ABC News, "I wish we had gotten in the stuff that he ruled out, but I can't do anything but move on."
Watson never received any money from his wife's insurance policy since her father was listed as the beneficiary. Watson had filed a claim for $10,000 in travel insurance to cover what he says would was the total cost incurred as a result of his wife's death in Australia.
Watson, 36, has since remarried.
There was no testimony in the case today.

 

[Ayisha]

Hello Ayisha,
Can you provide your references to back up this statement statement?

As far as I can gather, Tina was said to have died as a result of drowning. I've found no indication in the literature I've reviewed that she was confirmed to have died from asphyxiation.

We really waste a lot of time and energy going over things that are years old. In the mid-2000's, I watched a show, I believe it was Dateline, that had a coroner privy to the case, but not the coroner who worked on her, state that Tina died of asphyxiation and there was no water in her lungs.

I reported it here in a previous thread that was later closed and then later on this thread, and no one believed me because there was no other info. Several years later, the news reports started stating asphyxiation, not drowning. The Appeals court also stated that it was asphyxiation, not drowning.

In 2009, there was finally information on her asphyxiation that could be linked to. Way back:

A little something new I did not catch before. MSNBC reported in their June 5th update of their Dateline story:

"Tina's autopsy suggested that she might have suffered oxygen deprivation prior to drowning.."

Source: Mystery in the deep blue sea - Crime reports- msnbc.com

Wasn't in the Coroner's report, so I'm wondering how MSNBC got a hold of this information. I would like to know exactly what in an autopsy report could potentially have this finding. Small amount of water in the lungs? We need a an expert on drowning.

K-girl, I had posted a couple of times waaaay back in the previous Watson thread that one of your American news shows (MSNBC? Dateline? 20/20?) had an unrelated coroner speaking about the findings of the Watson case and he said that there was NO water in her lungs. I had been surprised since that was the first time I heard that. He said that is why they believed her tank was turned off until she was dead/nearly dead, and then turned back on. He also said that the "bear hug" was important because the pressure on the chest area could speed up the asphyxiation process.

Each time I wrote the above in regard to someone asking about water in her lungs, you discounted the information because it wasn't "in the coroner's report", whatever became public anyway. I think that the possible oxygen deprivation information you are now noticing is more information relating to what I had seen on one of the news shows a couple of years ago. We obviously do not have all the information that is available to investigators.

Here is a quick search of what The Queensland Court of Appeal said here:

Justice Richard Chesterman in the Queensland Court of Appeal said Ms Watson did not drown but died of “asphyxiation”.


Read more: Tina Watson and the Honeymoon killer on Australian Story​

 

[alohagal]

Divedoggie...

I am pretty sure the judge has the discretion to rule on whether the prosecution has presented tangible evidence for the jury to even consider the case. He may rule that, indeed, there is not. So far, I have not heard anything that has come close to convicting Gabe of pre-meditated murder. Not anything. As much as Gabe comes across as a crass, cold, and even cruel after the fact...it does not make him guilty of pre-meditated murder. It can all be explained just as easily...if not more so...to the other side.

 

[DandyDon]

Divedoggie...

I am pretty sure the judge has the discretion to rule on whether the prosecution has presented tangible evidence for the jury to even consider the case. He may rule that, indeed, there is not. So far, I have not heard anything that has come close to convicting Gabe of pre-meditated murder. Not anything. As much as Gabe comes across as a crass, cold, and even cruel after the fact...it does not make him guilty of pre-meditated murder. It can all be explained just as easily...if not more so...to the other side.

Wouldn't that be a hoot. Most publicity since OJ's, a fortune spent, and a throw out? When he laughed off the insurance approach, it really killed first degree didn't it?

My barber asked me for my views on this case this morning and I told her no way in hell could they convict. Gabe and Tina both may have defied explanation in why they went thru the charade of a wedding, but then a close friend runs a battered women's shelter so I know of the illness. Got to wonder about some others too.

 

[ItsBruce]

Divedoggie...

I am pretty sure the judge has the discretion to rule on whether the prosecution has presented tangible evidence for the jury to even consider the case. He may rule that, indeed, there is not. So far, I have not heard anything that has come close to convicting Gabe of pre-meditated murder. Not anything. As much as Gabe comes across as a crass, cold, and even cruel after the fact...it does not make him guilty of pre-meditated murder. It can all be explained just as easily...if not more so...to the other side.

I do not know Alabama procedure, but I would be surprised if the Judge did not have the discretion to rule that there is nothing for the jury to have to decide or even that there is no need for the defense to present its case. Keeping in mind that I have only limited information, I sure have not heard anything that would even warrant putting on a defense case.

I can confidently state that there is little that is more frustrating to a Judge than having to preside over a stupid case or to see bad lawyering. You so want to tell the lawyer what he or she should be doing, but that is not allowed. So, what happens is that it is reflected in rulings or colloquy with counsel.

So, from what I'm hearing of the evidence that is being presented, the State's case is like this: Tina died while scuba diving. Gabe Watson is a jerk. Therefore you should find that Gabe Watson formed a plan to and then intentionally killed Tina.

FWIW, we recently had a case here in California where the jury only needed to decide if the defendant was guilty or not guilty, but instead specifically found the defendant was innocent and then went so far as to recommend that the county reimburse him for his legal fees! I don't see that happening here, but could see the Court ruling the prosecution had not even made a prima facia case.

 

[boulderjohn]

I do not know Alabama procedure, but I would be surprised if the Judge did not have the discretion to rule that there is nothing for the jury to have to decide or even that there is no need for the defense to present its case. Keeping in mind that I have only limited information, I sure have not heard anything that would even warrant putting on a defense case.

I can confidently state that there is little that is more frustrating to a Judge than having to preside over a stupid case or to see bad lawyering. You so want to tell the lawyer what he or she should be doing, but that is not allowed. So, what happens is that it is reflected in rulings or colloquy with counsel.

So, from what I'm hearing of the evidence that is being presented, the State's case is like this: Tina died while scuba diving. Gabe Watson is a jerk. Therefore you should find that Gabe Watson formed a plan to and then intentionally killed Tina.

FWIW, we recently had a case here in California where the jury only needed to decide if the defendant was guilty or not guilty, but instead specifically found the defendant was innocent and then went so far as to recommend that the county reimburse him for his legal fees! I don't see that happening here, but could see the Court ruling the prosecution had not even made a prima facia case.

One of my best friends was on a jury, and in his case by the time the prosecution was done presenting its case, it was clearly obvious that the defendant was totally innocent and only a fool would think otherwise. The judge dismissed the case at that point.

In my only jury experience, the case should have been an easy, slam dunk conviction, but the prosecution was so totally inept that it took us two days to sort through the defense's absurd alternate theory and become convinced that it could not be true. The judge interviewed us after the verdict, and we asked about that. He was surprisingly blunt in his agreement that the prosecution had not been remotely effective in framing what should have been a simple case.

 

[Foxfish]

We really waste a lot of time and energy going over things that are years old. In the mid-2000's, I watched a show, I believe it was Dateline, that had a coroner privy to the case, but not the coroner who worked on her, state that Tina died of asphyxiation and there was no water in her lungs.

Statement you posted previously.

As has been pointed out several times in the distant past, Tina's lungs did NOT have any water in them. She asphyxiated. That forms the whole basis of the prosecution's attempt to understand what happened since everything was ruled out with perfectly working equipment and a reg in her mouth.

Gabe is currently undergoing a murder trial and all evidence is under review. That is also the topic of discussion on this thread so I think it is relevant to discuss it afresh. The cause of death is important. If it was found that Tina died as you suggest then it may provide the prosecution with some evidence for their claims that Tina was murdered.

In support of your claim, you provided a link to an article that gives the opinion of one of the appeal judges on the cause of death. His comments appear to be a case of silly legal semantics that undermines the force of the statements in the autopsy and leads to confusion in the mind of the public. It appears that your own thinking has been confused by this statement. Saying that Tina died of asphyxiation lends support to the idea that Gabe cut of his wife's air supply. If you drown, you die because you run out of air ie. you asphyxiate. The problem with saying the cause of death was asphyxiation is that if the forensic doctor who did the postmortem found evidence that clearly indicated Tina died of drowning then saying she died of asphyxiation alters the intent of his assessment. Unless there was another autopsy with further medical opinion that contradicted the first, I don't believe the judge was at liberty to alter the wording of the postmortem.

Keep in mind the comments by this judge occurred around that Gabe's manslaughter sentence was handed down there was a big outcry from the lynch mob who said it was too lenient. Anna Bligh intervened and there was an appeal that resulted in the sentence being increased. It is easy to conclude this appeal and its outcome was politically motivated.

The following article is testimony of the forensic doctor in the current murder trial who carried out the autopsy. According to the article he clearly stated that the cause of death was drowning.

THE Townsville pathologist who performed an autopsy on Tina Thomas testified today that a pre-existing heart condition had nothing to do with her death, nor did she die of any natural disease.

"I looked at her heart and found no abnormalities," forensic doctor David Williams said as testimony continued in the murder for money trial of Thomas's former husband Gabe Watson.

Tina's father, Tommy Thomas, wept and left the courtroom as Dr Williams showed autopsy photos to jurors and explained that gas bubbles throughout Tina's body were caused by her rescue from the sea floor, and did not contribute to her death.

His opinion was that it was a classic drowning, with foam in her trachea and "slightly heavy" lungs that showed no signs of inhalation of saliva or vomit.

Doctor gives evidence that Tina Thomas's death was a classic case of drowning | The Courier-Mail

 

[Foxfish]

Looks like the prosecution has run out of puff already. Makes you wonder how this kind of thing can drag on for a few more weeks. Glad the judge has intervened.