Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Dadvocate]

Very Rusty

Yes, I know this is a lie.

Since your affirmative response comes along with Bowlofpetunia’s suggestion that you have “inside information” as to Gabe’s knowledge beforehand, are you claiming you “know” this is a lie based on a direct conversation with Gabe, an overheard conversation with the dive instructor wherein a direct statement was made about this subject, or were you present when Tina told him she had never been in the ocean before?

Even if Tina told this to you directly, this still would be no guarantee that it was told to Watson as others have already stated.

This could also be that Gabe didn’t remember this piece of information, had made assumptions about her training, was making this statement in the heat of things after the incident at the Yolanga, recalling conversations that may or may not have happened with people at the Mike Ball dive op while admonishments and accusations were being toss around, etc. It could be that he is sticking to his story to save face. There are a host of conclusions that could be drawn if indeed it can be established that he lied.

I’ll grant you that this “lie”, “favourable revisionist history”, whatever it is doesn’t look good, if indeed your “knowledge” of things is based on something other than the assumptions Bowlofpetunia’s outlined earlier. Still, this misstep and a whole lot of non-existent evidence related to murder proves fodder for nothing more than interesting conversation about how crappy a dive partner he really is. But again, this was already established back in OZ with the first conviction he received for manslaughter.

I imagine that if you are privy to any definitive information about Gabe’s knowledge of Tina’s actual ocean experience you are not going to share it here. You are probably going to be a witness in a civil lawsuit of some sort. I do wonder why you started off this statement of “knowledge” with reference to Birmingham’s relative location to the seashore instead of just saying you “know” firsthand that Gabe lied. Seems a bit of a red herring if you have the inside information Bowlofpetunia’s refers to.

It is hard to tell what motivates you to make the claims you do to be perfectly honest.

Cheers!

 

[Valwood1]

I did not see a comment from anyone on this following, so....

In the 20/20 interview, Watson said -- twice! -- that he thought that the diving from Spoilsport would be very easy. If one gives him the benefit of the doubt and assumes that he's telling the truth, his statement is further proof that he was woefully ill-prepared for this diving. Even a small bit of research into the Yongala dive would mention current, etc.

 

[VeryRusty]

Very Rusty



Since your affirmative response comes along with Bowlofpetunia’s suggestion that you have “inside information” as to Gabe’s knowledge beforehand, are you claiming you “know” this is a lie based on a direct conversation with Gabe, an overheard conversation with the dive instructor wherein a direct statement was made about this subject, or were you present when Tina told him she had never been in the ocean before?

Even if Tina told this to you directly, this still would be no guarantee that it was told to Watson as others have already stated.

This could also be that Gabe didn’t remember this piece of information, had made assumptions about her training, was making this statement in the heat of things after the incident at the Yolanga, recalling conversations that may or may not have happened with people at the Mike Ball dive op while admonishments and accusations were being toss around, etc. It could be that he is sticking to his story to save face. There are a host of conclusions that could be drawn if indeed it can be established that he lied.

I’ll grant you that this “lie”, “favourable revisionist history”, whatever it is doesn’t look good, if indeed your “knowledge” of things is based on something other than the assumptions Bowlofpetunia’s outlined earlier. Still, this misstep and a whole lot of non-existent evidence related to murder proves fodder for nothing more than interesting conversation about how crappy a dive partner he really is. But again, this was already established back in OZ with the first conviction he received for manslaughter.

I imagine that if you are privy to any definitive information about Gabe’s knowledge of Tina’s actual ocean experience you are not going to share it here. You are probably going to be a witness in a civil lawsuit of some sort. I do wonder why you started off this statement of “knowledge” with reference to Birmingham’s relative location to the seashore instead of just saying you “know” firsthand that Gabe lied. Seems a bit of a red herring if you have the inside information Bowlofpetunia’s refers to.

It is hard to tell what motivates you to make the claims you do to be perfectly honest.

Cheers!

I don't think there is anything sinister about this particular statement or omission or forgotten information. Its not important in the big picture, other than it frustrates me because the comments of misinformation keep happening and causes me to doubt what is truth and what is not. I don't know that Gabe is guilty, any more than anyone here knows that he is not. I don't know what happened down there. I'd really like to think that he is not guilty. I'm still hoping I'll hear something from him that will reassure me that this was indeed an awful accident. But I'm sure you can understand the frustration when I hear things that cause me to doubt what I can and cannot believe.

As someone said, we all need to move on and I think I will do that.

 

[Dadvocate]

Very Rusty

I don't think there is anything sinister about this particular statement or omission or forgotten information. Its not important in the big picture, other than it frustrates me because the comments of misinformation keep happening and causes me to doubt what is truth and what is not. I don't know that Gabe is guilty, any more than anyone here knows that he is not. I don't know what happened down there. I'd really like to think that he is not guilty. I'm still hoping I'll hear something from him that will reassure me that this was indeed an awful accident. But I'm sure you can understand the frustration when I hear things that cause me to doubt what I can and cannot believe.

As someone said, we all need to move on and I think I will do that.

All good points… I doubt anything could really be said at this juncture that would be the end-all-be-all of truth for anyone. If Watson is wise, he’ll opt out of continued conversations about these matters because engaging in the rehashing of events conversations is only going to end up bad for him.

I think it is wise that you are trying to move on, and I hope that everyone associated with this case can do the same. Much easier said than done for sure. The biggest issue in my mind has to be how Watson handles the issue with Tina’s body. He could really make a mess of things on several levels if he is not careful.

All the best…

 

[Divedoggie]

From what I've seen, most people who do the OW courses go on to become competent and safe divers. Some don't.

The figures that I have heard reflect a 65% dropout rate after the initial Open Water Certification. 35% remain active divers. Active is defined as diving once or more a year.
There has been a lot of discussion on other threads and within the industry in general as to why there is a massive dropout rate in scuba diving. Is it because diving is too expensive? Are people are too busy in other aspects of life? Are people landlocked and too far from diveable waters? Or, do people lack confidence in their training and their abilities and feel that they will neither be competent nor safe when they use their shiny new Cert Card out there on their own?

Of those who continue diving after Open Water, how many become over certified and under experienced? Over excited and under disciplined is a factor as well. Some people can handle stress and anxiety calmly and logically. Others react, and often react badly.

Foxfish, I do agree with your observation in your quote above. Most people who go on to be active divers after the Open Water course are competent and safe. (Depending on how we might agree to define those terms.)
But, we know that a lack of really good training before being introduced to real world diving is a problem.
Young men in particular are vulnerable to viewing themselves in an idealistic light and will assume that if some "older dude or some chick" can do it, that he can surely do it. They don't understand that being brash, bold, and full of testosterone isn't the key to survival. In fact, at that point the ego-diver's key to survival is luck. And sometimes, they are lucky enough to have had good training from the get go.

Pride, over confidence and under competence is what I believe doomed Gabe and Tina. In the recent Watson interview where Gabe is likely lying about whether he knew if Tina had been diving in the ocean or not, it is likely that he was really trying to say that he didn't think about it. It didn't matter.
It didn't occur to him that Tina hadn't been in the ocean. She was certified and they were going to the Great Barrier Reef to dive for their honeymoon! Everything would be great! It would be fine! How well she was trained was inconsequential at the time.

Bowlofpetunias believes that there was a lot of editing in that interview. What if the interviewer said, "Did you know Tina hadn't been diving in the ocean before?" Maybe Gabe said, "No".... snip ... "No, I didn't really ever think about it." ....unsnip... "We never talked about it."

I remember my first dive trips. I was so excited to get underwater, to get wrapped up in the adventure, it never occured to me that maybe I wasn't ready for a particular dive or that maybe I couldn't take care of my buddy, or maybe my buddy couldn't help me in an emergency. A logical progression of thought about my training, lack of experience, inherent dangers, etc.. never crossed my mind. Eventually, the more I knew, the more information and training I sought, and the more conservative my diving became. Such is maturity and such is life.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Actually I think it was alohagal who refered to the editing... but obviously there has been some editing. In the past the media editing focused against him... this one well they weren't gentle... but probably more sympathetic.

When it comes to editing I would like to suggest that all the people with a vested interest in this case have been self editing. Gabe is obviously going to try to say things that make him look good and not say things that make him look bad. Thomases are saying what supports their position and not saying things that don't support their position. Pretty natural I'd say. That is why I do not take anybody's word as Gospel if they have a vested interest in the case. I listen and consider what I think makes sense.

I do put a lot of store in Dr Carl Edmunds statements. I know he has agreed to be a witness for the defense. That carries a lot of weight with me. He has conducted a massive number of investigations, is an authority on dive medicine. Has received recognition for his contribution to Diving safety and Medicine from many sources including DAN in the USA. He is not just known in Australia. He does not need the money to testify, he does not need the recognition of being an "expert witness". He stated in an interview here ages ago that he thought an injustice had been done in interpreting this event. IMHO if Dr Edmunds after seeing the evidence we haven't seen, with knowledge and experience we lack interprets this as an accident I will believe him! It seems to me he has gotten involved because he preceived a need for him to do so to see justice done.. that is good enough for me!

I also have a great deal of respect for Michael McFayden. I know he hasn't the level of credential that Dr Edmunds has so I haven't made a big deal about his blog up until now. I do believe that if you look at his blog and read it with an open mind you will find he makes a very good case. Once again we are talking about someone with acess to evidence we have not seen and a wealth of experience.

Does everything Gabe say make sense to me? Nope... but that doesn't make him a murderer. Here is a new FACT.. GABE WATSON is NOT a MURDERER! He faced two courts .. both found they did not have enough evidence to support a finding of MURDER. The Australian Court would not have allowed him to plead to a lesser charge if they believed there was enough evidence to support a murder trial. The US Court found there was so little evidence that it allowed an Acquittal. It doesn't matter if a jury got to vote. The JUDGE is more familiar with the laws, less impacted by emotional campaigns and better qualified to make that ruling than the jury in this case.

If someone doesn't feel justice was done I guess the citizens of the country involved need to get involved in changing the laws. I do hope that The families can eventually accept that justice was done and move on in their lives.

 

[Foxfish]

Agreed Divedoggie, maybe I should rephrase my comments and say that most of the people I dive with seem competent and safe. Not that I view myself as some kind of adjudicator on the matter. Someone with your experience would have a better idea.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

The ummmm discussion continues :doh: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/scuba-related-court-cases/413916-tina-watson-death-full-story.html