Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

And, now I will really throw a wrench into the proverbial works: There is also the issue of "proximate cause." There are whole treatises on what exactly what that entails. In very simplistic terms, it means "but for A, would you have had B?" or alternatively, "would it have happened anyway?"

I am reminded of the guy who was threatening his wife with a gun. He shot at her, but missed. The bullet went out the window of his apartment, where it hit and killed a man who had just jumped off the roof and was plummeting toward the ground and certain death. Was there a crime vis-a-vis the man who died from the bullet? If so, what?

So, back to Watson: Can anyone say that had he stuck with Tina and done everything by the numbers, she would not have died from whatever it was that she died of?

Wow, I just realized why I never get invited to parties!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

And, now I will really throw a wrench into the proverbial works: There is also the issue of "proximate cause." There are whole treatises on what exactly what that entails. In very simplistic terms, it means "but for A, would you have had B?" or alternatively, "would it have happened anyway?"

I am reminded of the guy who was threatening his wife with a gun. He shot at her, but missed. The bullet went out the window of his apartment, where it hit and killed a man who had just jumped off the roof and was plummeting toward the ground and certain death. Was there a crime vis-a-vis the man who died from the bullet? If so, what?

So, back to Watson: Can anyone say that had he stuck with Tina and done everything by the numbers, she would not have died from whatever it was that she died of?

Wow, I just realized why I never get invited to parties!

Wasn't that one in the Darwin awards.. turned out to be suicide... the guy who jumped off the roof was the son of the guy with the gun who was in the habit of threatening his wife with an unloaded gun. The sun put a bullet in the gun in an effort to have the old man shoot the old lady so he could claim their money. When it didn't work... he jumped off the roof and got shot by the bullet he loaded.......

You don't get invited to parties?

 

[Under-Exposed]

Bruce you are now just teasing...you KNOW that there is no clear legal or philosophical answer to your question

As for negligence, that is something that i know a fair bit about. It is a little complicated because the various states and territories have different good samaritan legislation, so I am going to assume there is no such legislation for the time being.

Assuming non-professional rescuers (who have their own peculiar difficulties), there is ordinarily no duty to rescue. That is the main problem with this case. Let me say again, there is ordinarily no duty to rescue. So no matter what your qualification, if you saw someone drowning in a swimming pool or the ocean, you have absolutely NO obligation (legal anyway) to do anything to assist.

Now, the question is whether there is something inherent in the nature of the buddy system that changes that. That is not a question that could be confidently answered in the absence of some case that decides it one way or the other (and I am not aware of any). But in my view there is nothing in the nature of the buddy system that imposes such an obligation. Now, it might be that in certain circumstances there is some super-added factor whereby responsibility is assumed by the buddy...perhaps in the circumstances postulated where an orientation dive was refused on the basis that Gabe had assumed responsibility for Tina's welfare. But ordinarily, I would think no duty of care.

I do not think it is clear in Australia whether or not there is an obligation to continue to rescue once you have commenced. It seems an odd position to me...if you don't have to start why can't you stop? One reason might be because having started others may not have come to assist. But if there were just a victim and rescuer, then that could not be a factor.

Anyway, it seems to be generally accepted in the text books (based, from memory, only on some North American cases) that there is a duty to continue.

Noe, of course the standard of care is one of reasonableness. I don't think danger to the rescuer removes the duty of care. It simply changes what is required in order to act reasonably. In other words, if there is danger then you can reasonably cease the rescue (or change the course of the rescue).

Now, one needs ot be careful in characterising Gabe's decision as an abandonment of the rescue. On his version of events, he was in fact continuing his rescue efforts by trying to get help. Now, I don't want to debate whether that was good practice etc but simply point out that there are many different ways to render assistance.

Finally, and again at the risk of being flamed, I don't think that the fact you are certified as a Rescue Diver necessarily means that you have the skills necessary and the wherewithall to use them in every situation. While one hopes that having been through the training you won't panic when someone gets into trouble, I think it is unrealistic to expect otherwise in all cases.

 

[alohagal]

Orginally posted by that Its'Bruce dude:
So, back to Watson: Can anyone say that had he stuck with Tina and done everything by the numbers, she would not have died from whatever it was that she died of?

Whatever it is she died of? Sheesh! Okay...hypothetical here. Is it possible that Gabe could have bear hugged her to death without turning off and on her oxygen as put forth by the investigators? In other words, how do we explain her full tank of air and regulator in her mouth? Panicked divers don't hang on to their regulators and just submit to death.

I only bring this up...because you presented the opening! Party tomorrow at 8pm...You are invitited. Dog the Bounty Hunter and Bobby Brown will be there. They are aquaintances of mine whether I like it or not.

 

[K_girl]

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]

Found a web site that teaches investigators about drowning:

"Experts consider some individuals who drown as victims of dry drowning. In these cases, the fatal cerebral cerebral hypoxia or oxygen deprivation, does not result from water occluding the airway but, rather, from a spasm of the larynx. Water never enters the lungs. These instances constitute 10 to 15 percent of all drownings.

When people sink beneath the surface of the water, they initially react by holding their breath. This continues until they have to breathe, thereby involuntarily inhaling a large volume of water, which either enters the lungs (in most instances) or reaches the larynx -- producing a larygeal spasm that results in dry drowning. In both cases, this gasping for air may continue for several minutes until respiration ceases. Cerebral hypoxia will progress until it becomes irreversible and death occurs..

Investigators can look for some distinctive signs to determine cases of drowning. Officers must recognize these indicators and then articulate them to the medical examiner. Presently, no known and proven pathological test exists to determine drowning as the cause of death, so, by itself, an autopsy usually proves insufficient. Authorities can make this diagnosis only with a knowledge of the circumstances and exclusion of other causes..

Over the years, experts have developed and tried a number of tests to determine conclusively whether a person drowned. All have proven unreliable on their own. No morphologic findings diagnostic of drowning exist. Although an autopsy usually is not sufficient by itself, it can exclude other possible causes of death.."

Source: Drowning investigations. - Free Online Library

----------------

The Coroner's Report stated that Tina suffered a laryngeal spasm, which as it states above causes a "dry drowning." So if Tina still had the reg in her mouth as was reported by multiple people, including Watson, at the moment he left her - she may have attempted to tightly breathe through the reg until she suffocated rather than breathing in water. Still, at least a small amount of water may have entered her lungs. My personal opinion - if she drowned because she had panicked, the reg probably would have been out of her mouth because she would have taken in a large volume of water as described above in the 85-90% percentile of drowning cases. Seeing how only 10 to 15% of drownings are "dry drownings" such as Tina's - I would say that the reg held tightly in her mouth as she "drowned" increases the likelihood as the reason for the finding of laryngeal spasm, otherwise known as "dry drowning."

So to answer Bruce's question of even if Gabe Watson hadn't left her, would she still have died from whatever it was that she died from? I think she would have survived if she had gone diving with anyone else but him because I think there would have been air provided to the reg she so desparately hung onto in her mouth and she would have kicked to the surface, as was her initial panic reaction during her cert dives.

 

[livinoz]

Found a web site that teaches investigators about drowning:

"Experts consider some individuals who drown as victims of dry drowning. In these cases, the fatal cerebral cerebral hypoxia or oxygen deprivation, does not result from water occluding the airway but, rather, from a spasm of the larynx. Water never enters the lungs. These instances constitute 10 to 15 percent of all drownings.

When people sink beneath the surface of the water, they initially react by holding their breath. This continues until they have to breathe, thereby involuntarily inhaling a large volume of water, which either enters the lungs (in most instances) or reaches the larynx -- producing a larygeal spasm that results in dry drowning. In both cases, this gasping for air may continue for several minutes until respiration ceases. Cerebral hypoxia will progress until it becomes irreversible and death occurs..

Investigators can look for some distinctive signs to determine cases of drowning. Officers must recognize these indicators and then articulate them to the medical examiner. Presently, no known and proven pathological test exists to determine drowning as the cause of death, so, by itself, an autopsy usually proves insufficient. Authorities can make this diagnosis only with a knowledge of the circumstances and exclusion of other causes..

Over the years, experts have developed and tried a number of tests to determine conclusively whether a person drowned. All have proven unreliable on their own. No morphologic findings diagnostic of drowning exist. Although an autopsy usually is not sufficient by itself, it can exclude other possible causes of death.."

Source: Drowning investigations. - Free Online Library

----------------

The Coroner's Report stated that Tina suffered a laryngeal spasm, which as it states above causes a "dry drowning." So if Tina still had the reg in her mouth as was reported by multiple people, including Watson, at the moment he left her - she may have attempted to tightly breathe through the reg until she suffocated rather than breathing in water. Still, at least a small amount of water may have entered her lungs. My personal opinion - if she drowned because she had panicked, the reg probably would have been out of her mouth because she would have taken in a large volume of water as described above in the 85-90% percentile of drowning cases. Seeing how only 10 to 15% of drownings are "dry drownings" such as Tina's - I would say that the reg held tightly in her mouth as she "drowned" increases the likelihood as the reason for the finding of laryngeal spasm, otherwise known as "dry drowning."

So to answer Bruce's question of even if Gabe Watson hadn't left her, would she still have died from whatever it was that she died from? I think she would have survived if she had gone diving with anyone else but him because I think there would have been air provided to the reg she so desparately hung onto in her mouth and she would have kicked to the surface, as was her initial panic reaction during her cert dives.

Let's say again that the Coroner's report the public has available to it is not the full report. As stated by the Queensland Courts, "Access to coronial documents is regulated by the Coroners Act 2003. During investigations these documents are excluded from the freedom of information process and can only be obtained with the coroner's consent. Most of the material contained on a coronial file is highly sensitive and may be graphic and distressing in nature. Therefore, information is only made available to those who have sufficient interest in the investigation, such as the immediate family of the deceased."

So I too would just love to know how MSNBC got hold of this so-called "information", or are they just in the pursuit of a good story like every other media outlet? What we have again is trial by media or by various persons with an axe to grind or a particular point to make. Watson is in gaol and serving a sentence for manslaughter, and the length of the sentence is being appealed. So the point is? That he is guilty of murder no matter what the courts, who have had access to all the information, have said?

I also have a problem with your statement that you "think she would have survived if she had gone diving with anyone else but him". You can prove that? The Yongala is rated from an intermediate to an advanced dive, as stated in Scuba Diving, as the wreck lies from approximately 14-33m and has moderate to strong currents. Indeed people have died diving there or suffered from DCI. A Canadian woman was air-lifted to Townsville in 2008. This is what happened to her, described by a person on the dive that day on this very board:

When we returned to the boat two of the crew and a customer were performing CPR on Erin. They told us she had completed the deep dive training at 30m, returned to the group at 20m, and then "freaked out". They said she removed the reg from her mouth and acted strangely. The instructor tried to replaced the reg but she removed it again and fought the instructor, eventually swallowing water and drowning..

And also in this forum a Townsville diver who has experience of the Yongala dive has said:

I could imagine an inexperienced diver would find the Yongala a daunting dive even in good conditions. High swells make getting back on board extremely dangerous and generally cause the trip to be cancelled. Strong currents can rip your mask off and poor visibility can make for a scary decent and poor dive experience.

So despite that inexperienced diver being buddied with an instructor, she still drowned. Would Watson, a less experienced diver have therefore been able to "save" Tina anyway? Just throwing that question into the pot.

Therefore I believe it was most likely beyond Tina's capabilities because she had little diving experience, as for that matter did Watson despite his "rescue" certification. I think it was probably beyond both their capabilities and panic ensued, which Tina had previously suffered from, and this caused a lethal series of mistakes. I also wonder at the crew of the dive boat allowing an inexperienced diver to dive a site noted for its difficulty with anyone other than an instructor, and that again is despite Watson's "certification"; they certainly insisted on an instructor with the inexperienced Canadian diver mentioned above. But that's a whole other issue I think.

You also cite that, " Presently, no known and proven pathological test exists to determine drowning as the cause of death, so, by itself, an autopsy usually proves insufficient. Authorities can make this diagnosis only with a knowledge of the circumstances and exclusion of other causes". From that article those other causes may include whether the person had drowned, whether the victim was conscious when submerged, whether they could swim well, if they had consumed any alcohol or drugs, what they were doing at the time, and if anyone witnessed the incident. I'm sure all these points were considered carefully by the Pathologist, the Coroner, the other legal professionals and the law enforcement people involved in this case. The outcome was manslaughter, not murder, and despite all our opinions and suppositions on here, that is still the outcome of this case at this time. If more "evidence" comes to light no doubt it will be made public when the Appeal is published.

 

[Ayisha]

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.

 

[ItsBruce]

K_Girl:

You sure do your homework. I'm really impressed. If anything should happen to me and there is any suspicion of foul play, please do me the honor of being lead investigator. Either you will find the culprit or clear the suspect. But, I am quite sure no one will do a better job than you.

That being said...

We now have some evidence that could support the hypothesis that Tina's air was turned off.

But, at the same time, I am troubled. First, the air was on when she was recovered - could Watson have turned it back on without being observed?. Second, if her air had been turned off, was it off long enough to have killed her or at least made her death a certainty? And, as a corollary, would Watson have known how long to leave it off to be effective?

You may recall Shakybrainsurgeon (sp?) told us that to be fatal, the air has to be off for a long time. I forget how long, but I was surprised by it. If Watson had turned Tina's air off until he thought she was dead, unless he knew how long that had to be, he might have turned it back on in time for her to not to have died. (I know that had it been me, I would have figured a few minutes ... and been wrong.)

One more point: If Watson had planned on killing Tina, wouldn't it have been easier to have waited until they were on the wreck and then released her weight belt and let her shoot to the surface and embolize?

 

[Under-Exposed]

Bruce, I'm shocked...surely you have been around the law long enough to know that media reporting rarely reflects the reality of what goes in in the legal system, whether the courts or the investigation side of things. Perhaps things are different in the Us, but in Oz, unfortunately, it is appalling. I for one would not even bother speculating based upon a news outlet's report of something that may or may not be in the actual autopsy report. I certainly wouldn't do it without knowing that they in fact had a copy of the autopsy report, and would prefer not to do it without knowing what else was in that report.