Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[clownfishsydney]

Both Snyder and Milsap made this claim. It is clearly not correct, there is weight underwater, especially if someone is 9 to 12 lbs overweighted.

Yes, a rescue diver is not a RESCUE DIVER. It does not qualify you to work as a rescue diver (the public thinks there probably is such a thing).

I have not discussed what happened back in Birmingham with Gabe, but someone close to him told me that he cut off the flowers because they were plastic, not real, and he thought that was a demeaning (not sure this is the right word) way to mark Tina's grave.

I am confident that the 20/20 program will be unbiased and represent the truth.

No, not travelling through Colorado, in Tennessee for a few days then Mississippi and Louisiana and then to Dallas.

 

[ItsBruce]

The courts are much less inclined to be influenced by outside forces than jurors. It is one reason judges have long terms of office. Federal judges are appointed for life.

Also, think of it like this: by prosecuting the case, the State demonstrated the complete lack of evidence against Watson. The media must now shut up about the "honeymoon killer"

 

[bluesy]

Does anyone know if Thomas is pursuing something like a wrongful death suit in civil court?
Apparently Watson and Thomas are embroiled in a probate lawsuit over Tina's estate.
Are any other law suits likely?
Also, can Gabe profit from selling his story or is he prohibited due to his conviction in Australia?
Thanks and my apologies in advance if my legal terminology is not correct.

 

[ItsBruce]

Does anyone know if Thomas is pursuing something like a wrongful death suit in civil court?
Apparently Watson and Thomas are embroiled in a probate lawsuit over Tina's estate.
Are any other law suits likely?
Also, can Gabe profit from selling his story or is he prohibited due to his conviction in Australia?
Thanks and my apologies in advance if my legal terminology is not correct.

The probate matter will quickly disappear. In the absent a will, as the husband, Watson will be entitled to Tina's entire estate and since he was acquitted on the murder charge I can think of no basis for a court depriving him of rights to her estate.

As far as a wrongful death action, it is tenuous at best. Watson may have been negligent as a dive buddy, but I cannot imagine how Thomas could establish that that negligence was the legal cause of Tina's death. That is, what evidence is there that but for Watson's alleged negligence, Tina would not have died? There is still no evidence he turned off her air or otherwise caused her to become incapacitated. So, something other than Watson's acts or omissions caused her to die. What evidence is there that had he done everything right, she would not have died anyway, either of drowning, i.e. inhaling water around her regulator, or of an embolism? And, if Watson let go of Tina because she had dislodged his mask and regulator, then her conduct might be considered an ultimate cause of her death and that would reduce any negligence on her part.

There is also the question of whether Thomas would even have standing to bring a lawsuit. Since, Tina married Watson and Watson did not murder her, there is a question whether Thomas would even be the right one to bring a lawsuit.

I would not take a case against Watson on a contingency basis and if I was getting paid by the hour, I'd have a very long disclaimer as to the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

[theduckguru]

How about taking a case on contingency against the Thompsons?

The probate matter will quickly disappear. In the absent a will, as the husband, Watson will be entitled to Tina's entire estate and since he was acquitted on the murder charge I can think of no basis for a court depriving him of rights to her estate.

As far as a wrongful death action, it is tenuous at best. Watson may have been negligent as a dive buddy, but I cannot imagine how Thomas could establish that that negligence was the legal cause of Tina's death. That is, what evidence is there that but for Watson's alleged negligence, Tina would not have died? There is still no evidence he turned off her air or otherwise caused her to become incapacitated. So, something other than Watson's acts or omissions caused her to die. What evidence is there that had he done everything right, she would not have died anyway, either of drowning, i.e. inhaling water around her regulator, or of an embolism? And, if Watson let go of Tina because she had dislodged his mask and regulator, then her conduct might be considered an ultimate cause of her death and that would reduce any negligence on her part.

There is also the question of whether Thomas would even have standing to bring a lawsuit. Since, Tina married Watson and Watson did not murder her, there is a question whether Thomas would even be the right one to bring a lawsuit.

I would not take a case against Watson on a contingency basis and if I was getting paid by the hour, I'd have a very long disclaimer as to the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Interesting insight Bruce thanks.

bluesy my first reaction to your question about selling his story or writing a book was Why would he want to extend this? I thought about that question for a while (I try to take a look at things from all angles rather than discard them out of hand).

I can think of a some good reasons to do so.

There are still so many half truths and downright misinformation that did not really get exposed for the used bull food that they were in the trial. I would have loved to see Watson's expert witnesses tear apart the evidence regarding the Magic button, no weight underwater, Passive Panic and Gabe's so called Rescue Diver/experienced diver status.

A book getting his side of the story out would give people a chance to actually weigh some evidence and possibly shine a light into the shadow hovering over him. I understand that he and his family had to keep quiet so nothing they said could be twisted and held against him. Pretty obvious the way things were going that this was good advice. Thomas and the witnesses against Gabe had nothing to lose and a lot to gain by going public.

It may even be able to generate some income to cover some of his legal costs which no doubt were astronomical. Think of the money it cost SB over the IMHO frivolous and vexatious case they faced and that didn't even get to court or last so long!

Perhaps Gabe may not chose to do this but I would think his parents sure would be within their rights to tell their side of the story! I can only imagine what this cost them emotionally and financially.

Thomas's have had their say in the media and in Court. I hope they find a way to put this behind them and start to heal. Hate and Anger can become self destructive after a point if you let it drive you for too long.

I wish all involved peace, healing and the wisdom to find a way to proceed with their lives in a positive way.

 

[bluesy]

Thank you for your reply and your many posts on the legal aspects of this case.
I hope both families can move forward, but suspect the Thomas family will have a very tough time.
It sounds like they may have been manipulated by the AG for political reasons.
As I understand it, there was really no reason to try and bring this case forward in Alabama.
Instead of using the facts to form a theory, the state tried to fit the facts to show premeditation for the sole purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.
What a waste for all involved.
jmho

The probate matter will quickly disappear. In the absent a will, as the husband, Watson will be entitled to Tina's entire estate and since he was acquitted on the murder charge I can think of no basis for a court depriving him of rights to her estate.

As far as a wrongful death action, it is tenuous at best. Watson may have been negligent as a dive buddy, but I cannot imagine how Thomas could establish that that negligence was the legal cause of Tina's death. That is, what evidence is there that but for Watson's alleged negligence, Tina would not have died? There is still no evidence he turned off her air or otherwise caused her to become incapacitated. So, something other than Watson's acts or omissions caused her to die. What evidence is there that had he done everything right, she would not have died anyway, either of drowning, i.e. inhaling water around her regulator, or of an embolism? And, if Watson let go of Tina because she had dislodged his mask and regulator, then her conduct might be considered an ultimate cause of her death and that would reduce any negligence on her part.

There is also the question of whether Thomas would even have standing to bring a lawsuit. Since, Tina married Watson and Watson did not murder her, there is a question whether Thomas would even be the right one to bring a lawsuit.

I would not take a case against Watson on a contingency basis and if I was getting paid by the hour, I'd have a very long disclaimer as to the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

[bluesy]

Interesting insight Bruce thanks.

bluesy my first reaction to your question about selling his story or writing a book was Why would he want to extend this? I thought about that question for a while (I try to take a look at things from all angles rather than discard them out of hand).

I can think of a some good reasons to do so.

There are still so many half truths and downright misinformation that did not really get exposed for the used bull food that they were in the trial. I would have loved to see Watson's expert witnesses tear apart the evidence regarding the Magic button, no weight underwater, Passive Panic and Gabe's so called Rescue Diver/experienced diver status.

A book getting his side of the story out would give people a chance to actually weigh some evidence and possibly shine a light into the shadow hovering over him. I understand that he and his family had to keep quiet so nothing they said could be twisted and held against him. Pretty obvious the way things were going that this was good advice. Thomas and the witnesses against Gabe had nothing to lose and a lot to gain by going public.

It may even be able to generate some income to cover some of his legal costs which no doubt were astronomical. Think of the money it cost SB over the IMHO frivolous and vexatious case they faced and that didn't even get to court or last so long!

Perhaps Gabe may not chose to do this but I would think his parents sure would be within their rights to tell their side of the story! I can only imagine what this cost them emotionally and financially.

Thomas's have had their say in the media and in Court. I hope they find a way to put this behind them and start to heal. Hate and Anger can become self destructive after a point if you let it drive you for too long.

I wish all involved peace, healing and the wisdom to find a way to proceed with their lives in a positive way.

I was sorry that the defense didn't get a chance to put on their case.
Even though the defendant does not have to prove innocence, I think the defense could have dispelled many misconceptions.
Even so, there are those who will always believe that Tina was murdered.
I also hope that healing can begin.

 

[Dadvocate]

Bluesy:

On the one hand I think you are right that it would have been nice for Watson to have his full day in court, but then I recall the foibles associated with jury trials and the prosecutor’s comments after the fact that the jury were already primed to toss him in jail (or at least some were).

In some ways this outcome is far more emphatic. The case was a loser from the get-go, and the judge made this abundantly clear with this decision. From that standpoint, the lynch mob contingency, those who like to wax philosophical about “Watson’s day in court” as a footnote to his ultimate conviction, had their legs cut out from under them on this one.

I think that is a good thing on several levels.

I agree that there will always be people who will think him guilty. The difference in this case is that those who do and voice their opinions cannot get past the fact that a judge tossed this out without ever having to hear the defense side. So instead of blaming a lay jury and their not understanding the complexity of the evidence or being too sympathetic to the defendant or what have you, these pundits are stuck with their biases and the fact that the evidence was so weak that it wasn’t good enough to get out of the gate.

Any proclamations about his guilt within that context exposes itself as the conjecture it is.

Cheers!

 

[feitr]

It's an interesting case and shows the huge influence the media can have. I remember that I kinda thought he was guilty before I did any reading on it as my understanding was that he was observed bear hugging his wife, couldn't descend 10m to grab her, stood to gain a huge amount from her life insurance, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, etc. Then I read the Michael Mcfayden's articles (big fan of your website - except the time it persuaded me to do a 20cm vis drift dive in the Macleay river entrance to SW rocks where I was closer to being knocked unconcious than see anything alive but I digress) and wondered why it was even put up for a murder charge in the first place. I also couldn't figure out why more blame wasn't being put on Mike Bell (taking a very new diver who panicked in her first dive on the wreck down massively overweighted blows my mind). It just seems so similar to a somewhat routine **** hits the fan, new divers aren't capable of dealing with it, panic ensues, and somebody dies.

Even when I thought he was probably guilty I was still pretty enraged that it had somehow turned into a "he should have had the qualifications to save her" - it is actually terrifying that somebody could expect a rescue diver with minimal experience to be legally responsible for a failure to effect a rescue. Now don't get me wrong, I think the guy was both cowardly and utterly inept but there are plenty of those around and they aren't ending up in jail. Definitely the worst part of this case imo was that they were trying to take qualification which are not only grossly insufficient in recreation diving in general (8 dives and you are an "advanced diver"....ok - I dove with a guy who did his advanced course in Thailand and he couldn't swim - literally could not swim more than 10m without fins) but expensive and turn it into some sort of liability (well what is the point of getting those qualifications then?). I think this has to be a semantic issue both due to the connotations of the word "rescue" and also the use of rescue divers to denote police/navy divers that are deployed to search for missing persons. When I heard that he was a rescue diver with 60 dives and hadn't dived in 2 years (don't think that was actually accurate but that is what was reported iirc) my first thought was that he probably was extremely inexperienced/rusty and couldn't be expected to actually carry out a rescue of any reasonable difficulty. When it turned out he had barely dived at any reasonable depth, in no currents, etc. and only like half of those divers were of any depth at all, I was pretty convinced he would be unlikely to save himself in a problem situation let alone somebody else.

Police did a shocking job imo - not even in regards to the actual incident, which as I said I don't think should have appeared too suspicious other than the implausibility that he would leave her (obviously can't tell that much without actually being there) but it seems to me that the most important factor here to recreate in the water was the difficulty of saving a massively overweighted and panickydiver. Get a competent diver in the water to play Gabe in a current similar to that on the day at the Yongala (which from what I've read sounds like it was pretty slight), underweight him/give him crap swim fins or something so he can approximate an amateur diver (without actually being at risk) - then get a diver of his wife's stature, put the same amount of weight/same gear on her and then get her to panic like crazy and kick "Gabe" in the face. You don't even have to go to the Yongala. What they actually did seemed so irrelevant and ridiculous.

Sounds to me like that situation would make it incredibly easy for somebody to sink uncontrollably. Her losing conciousness is another story but I can't really comment on that.

Gabe going to the surface rather than going after is wife is beyond bizzare though. I've dived the Yongala and it is not deep and the current really didn't sound that bad (there is no such thing as a completely current free Yongala dive). As somebody who would probably have a massive dilemma if I had a random instabuddy that i've known for 20 mins descend uncontrollably to 80m on a bottomless wall as in how far should I follow before I try to prevent 2 deaths, I can't possibly fathom how you could not dip down 10-15m to chase/grab your wife. Nor does rushing to the surface seem like a great idea as opposed to trying to find somebody in water. Vis seemed fine, they were close to the mooring line (somebody saw the body, he can't have been that far away from people). From what I remember the only point on the wreck that is even close to 15m at the top is the rudder side (16-17m i think and other side is more like 23 i think but that might be off by a bit). There are heaps of spots to get hidden away on the wreck tho around the sides (although if they were the first in I don't see why there weren't people fairly close to them). Anyways I think the most important thing is that what I or anybody else thinks is "logical" in a certain situation is irrelevant - the idea of panicking even while entangled or stuck somewhere doesn't make much sense to me as it is just going to get yourself killed/I am comfortable in the water. On the other hand, I have seen full blown panic attacks from people snorkelling, ie. once full blown panic sets in, and especially if you are poor in the water, logic gets thrown out the window. It's certainly possible that 30m in a slight current seemed to Gabe, with no ocean experience and imo highly unlikely to have ever encountered a stressful situation underwater, like the equivalent of diving to 60m in cold water in a strong current to most divers. It is probable some of the comments he made that were suspect (going down after her, etc.) might simply have been an attempt to save face given that by all accounts he really really really messed up here. It's my guess he got his mask kicked off, was too buoyant (it probably wasn't as much a case of her simply sinking as her sinking and him ascending), was in full blown panic once he got his occy/mask sorted and was probably terrified of dying. I don't understand it but that doesn't mean that isn't what he thought and did and if so it isn't criminal. That said, there seems an inherent contradiction between that sort of emotion and a fairly controlled ascent (which also indicates he never lost control of his buoyancy). I can't imagine many people woudl be particularily concerned about "watching their bubbles" if they were fully panicked/wife was drowning. Lots of things don't add up but that still doesn't make much of a case. Nobody will ever know.

I do know that if I was going to murder my wife on the Yongala I would wait until we were around the side and tucked into one of the areas on the deck of the ship down deeper. I'd be terrified of somebody seeing in OW and I definitely wouldn't go down the line first and I definitely wouldn't do it in the first 8 minutes. Oh and I'd definitely wait till nearer the end of my expensive "dream dive holiday"

I don't even understand why people keep talking about the fact that it is possible to be anything but weightless in the water. It's basic physics - if something can sink it is not weightless.