Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

They had NO evidence or witnesses except for circumstantial evidence and opinions.

Generally, circumstantial evidence is the best kind of evidence. It is much harder to fabricate than most other kinds of evidence.

If you put a cat in a closed big box and then put mouse in it and later the mouse is gone, the circumstantial evidence is that the cat ate the mouse. However, if the mouse is gone and you find a small hole in the box, you only have speculation.

 

[K_girl]

Perhaps it is a debate about there being no aspirant and there being a little aspirant. The focus of the article (that I will send you when I am at work next week, if I still have it...its from a recent text) was on the question of whether anything significant could be read into the absence of aspirant, the point being that in a wet droning there were a number of reasons why there may be little or no aspirant in the lungs.

I don't agree that aspiration means the presence of foam, it simply means the inhalation (in the case of drownings) of fluid into the lungs. There are also many reasons why foam might be present that have nothing to do with water (some foreign substances will react with the mucosal lining to create foam).

Also, the wikipedia entry when it talks about the effect of the vacuum may have to be qualified given that we are talking about a person at depth (so an additional atmosphere of pressure for every 10 meters she descended at any time).

I am not meaning to flame when I say this, so please don't take this offensively, but I think that unless and until we actually have the FULL autopsy report it is a little bit of a sterile debate, because we are looking at a select series of factors that may be consistent with various scenarios, but without knowing the other findings that might disqualify them. My experience with autopsy reports in Australia (well, in NSW anyway) is that they are rarely conclusive and are usually couched in very equivocal terms.

No offense taken. Actually, I have found this to be a very interesting exploration of the subject matter and very worthwhile especially when you consider that we will probably never see the full autopsy report. So waiting for it - well, let's just say, I won't hold my breath. It is interesting to note that the Coroner specifically stated he did not find that Tina's drowning was accidental. I was just trying to explore some of the possible reasons why he came to that conclusion and if any findings in the autopsy had anything to do with it. In the process, I am learning a lot, so thanks to you all for engaging the discussion in a very thoughtful way.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Excellent points U-E.


I'd just like to ask where the "statistics" stating 10-15 % of drownings are dry drownings come from? The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) notes on its Web site that a number of media accounts of "dry drowning" incorrectly cite CDC statistics, which the agency doesn't in fact keep.

And as is stated in Cases of Bodies Found in Water, (Lunetta, Philippe M.D.; Penttilüa, Antti Ph.D.; Sajantila, Antti Ph.D. The American journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 2002, vol. 23, no4, pp. 371-376):
 
The diagnosis of drowning relies primarily on critical examination of the subject's individual characteristics, circumstances, and postmortem macropathologic changes. In this retrospective study, based on 1590 consecutive cases of bodies found in water and undergoing autopsy at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, from 1976 to 1998, the frequency of circumstantial data and macropathologic changes crucial for the diagnosis of drowning were determined…External foam, frothy fluid in airways, and overlap of the anterior margins of lungs were found in 275 (17.3%), 739 (46.5%), and 669 (42.1%) of the cases…but no one of these changes, tested against dry-land controls, were specific for drowning.

And also, the term "dry drowning" is no longer condoned by drowning experts. One of those experts, Dr Deborah Mulligan, says the term went out of medical vogue at the 2002 World Congress on Diving. So I'm not sure if it is a term we should be using here. I'm also not sure that Wikipedia is a good reference source, particularly as the article cited only has one reference itself, but that's just my opinion and I am also not trying to "flame" anyone.

Livinoz,

That's a very interesting set of statistics and conclusions from the Helsinki study. Of course one of the difficulties with this whole area is that all studies are necessarily retrospective analyses in which in many cases there is no certainty as to the events leading up to death. And as Edmonds et al observe in the "Diving and Subaquatic Medicine" text, where someone is in the water there will frequently be the same changes observed whether or not the initiating event that ultimately leads to death is aspiration of water or not, because ultimately in a large proportion of cases the cause of death will be drowning as a secondary consequence of the initiating event that leads to unconsciousness underwater.

As for dry drowning...I have also heard the term used (by my EFR instructor) to refer to the inability to properly exchange gas across the lungs as a result of the disruption to the surfactant lining the lines by the presence of water, although I think this is now properly referred to as "secondary drowning".

 

[Under-Exposed]

As the issue of plea bargaining has been discussed on this thread, and as it has in the past few days been the subject of some controversy in NSW, I thought I would simply provide links to some things that people might find interesting (without wishing to enliven the debate on this thread):

Ruth Pollard | Abuse of plea bargaining system
Forced to take on the system

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/578C6F10C6D98565CA256ECF00083B4D/$File/10-02.pdf

Lawlink NSW: REVIEW OF THE NEW SOUTH WALES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS' POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR CHARGE BARGAINING AND TENDERING OF AGREED FACTS.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Livinoz,

That's a very interesting set of statistics and conclusions from the Helsinki study. Of course one of the difficulties with this whole area is that all studies are necessarily retrospective analyses in which in many cases there is no certainty as to the events leading up to death. And as Edmonds et al observe in the "Diving and Subaquatic Medicine" text, where someone is in the water there will frequently be the same changes observed whether or not the initiating event that ultimately leads to death is aspiration of water or not, because ultimately in a large proportion of cases the cause of death will be drowning as a secondary consequence of the initiating event that leads to unconsciousness underwater.

As for dry drowning...I have also heard the term used (by my EFR instructor) to refer to the inability to properly exchange gas across the lungs as a result of the disruption to the surfactant lining the lines by the presence of water, although I think this is now properly referred to as "secondary drowning".

I thought it was also interesting the Edmonds et al state in Diving Medicine for Scuba Divers in discussion the Physiology of Drowning state:

"If the diver is totally deprived of his air supply for some reason, he initially breath-holds until the "break point" is reached and then takes an involuntary breath. The resulting inhalation of a bolus of water usually provokes coughing and closure of the larynx producing involuntary breath-holding followed by unconsciousness. It is unusual for large amounts of water to enter the lungs after the victim loses consciousness as the tongue and loose tissues in the throat tend to close the airway"

There is no reason that I can see why having a reg in your mouth would stop inhalation of water. I have certainly had the experience of my reg "breathing wet". There is also the chance that water would come in around the mouthpiece if it isn't held in your mouth well enough.

 

[K_girl]

Brisbane Headlines mentions Gabe Watson as one of the stories that is hurting the dive industry there.

Dive deaths killing off Queensland's diving industry

Interesting that this story is being published in the middle of a worldwide economic disaster and they don't mention it. I've seen a significant increase in dive trip deals in my e-mail lately that tells me the dive industry worldwide is suffering.

I am also curious if the dive operators in the area supported the manslaughter plea, seeing how someone obviously thinks that the disappearance of Lonergans still stigmitizes the industry after 10 years.

 

[K_girl]

As the issue of plea bargaining has been discussed on this thread, and as it has in the past few days been the subject of some controversy in NSW, I thought I would simply provide links to some things that people might find interesting (without wishing to enliven the debate on this thread):

Ruth Pollard | Abuse of plea bargaining system
Forced to take on the system

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/578C6F10C6D98565CA256ECF00083B4D/$File/10-02.pdf

Lawlink NSW: REVIEW OF THE NEW SOUTH WALES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS' POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR CHARGE BARGAINING AND TENDERING OF AGREED FACTS.

Thanks for your objectivity towards both sides of the issue. My heart went out to that poor woman. To have so much evidence of a brutal assault, still bargain it away and actually remove the evidence that he cut her up with a knife from the plea bargain so he could get much less time - it's frightening. That woman deserves a medal for her bravery and persistence, instead she has to fear another attack when he gets released.

 

[rockjock3]

Generally, circumstantial evidence is the best kind of evidence. It is much harder to fabricate than most other kinds of evidence.

If you put a cat in a closed big box and then put mouse in it and later the mouse is gone, the circumstantial evidence is that the cat ate the mouse. However, if the mouse is gone and you find a small hole in the box, you only have speculation.

So, we find a body in a lake that is tied at the wrists and hands with a white rope, sealed in a trashbag that is taped up with duct tape, and weighted down with bricks.

We send you to court, you lose and get a nice needle in your arm. Why? Well, we found the same type/brand of rope and duct tape at your house but can't match the pieces used as coming from your specific roll of tape or lenght of rope (ends don't match). You also have some bricks laying around your back yard of various types and from various companies. Too bad for you. See you on the other side.

Too bad that the tape and rope of very common brands and the bricks are ones that you picked up from a junk yard to build a project and everybody else has access to it.

You are going to die for circumstantial evidence. Oh, somebody did see you at the lake where the body was found (1 day after). This is circumstantial evidence and this is how people are not supposed to be sent to jail (at least in America). Beyond a shadow of doubt.

Again, I still (in my opinion) think that he had some part to play, but prosecutions don't offer plea bargains if they think they can win the case on the higher charge. They tried to scare him and got him into a plea bargain deal. He took it because he didn't want to take the chance of losing in another country and facing a much harder sentence. This way they got something, which is always better than absolutely nothing. Point is that other than his stories changing (a good indicator, but not proof), they had absolutely NO factual provable evidence that he did anything.

 

[ItsBruce]

You are confusing circumstantial evidence with inconclusive evidence. So long as the judge or jury is using "beyond a reasonable doubt," circumstantial evidence is as good as, if not better, than percipient evidence. Please recall that just about all forensic evidence is circumstantial.

In your example, if the ends don't fit, you must acquit. But, if the end of the tape on my roll matches the end of the tape on the body, and if the bricks in my yard came from the same lot as the ones with the body and if there is no evidence of anyone having touched my roll of tape or been in my yard, that would tend to support a conviction.

People forget. Peoples' perception is not perfect. People have biases. People fill in blanks in their memory and perception with what they think, not what they perceived. And, those are the ones who intend to be truthful. For those who intend not to be truthful ... forget it. People are unreliable witnesses.

There is a joke among lawyers: How do you tell when a witness is lying? (You can replace "witness" with "your client" if you wish.) The answer, of course: When his/her lips move.

I'll go with circumstantial evidence nearly every time.

 

[rockjock3]

You are confusing circumstantial evidence with inconclusive evidence. So long as the judge or jury is using "beyond a reasonable doubt," circumstantial evidence is as good as, if not better, than percipient evidence. Please recall that just about all forensic evidence is circumstantial.

In your example, if the ends don't fit, you must acquit. But, if the end of the tape on my roll matches the end of the tape on the body, and if the bricks in my yard came from the same lot as the ones with the body and if there is no evidence of anyone having touched my roll of tape or been in my yard, that would tend to support a conviction.

People forget. Peoples' perception is not perfect. People have biases. People fill in blanks in their memory and perception with what they think, not what they perceived. And, those are the ones who intend to be truthful. For those who intend not to be truthful ... forget it. People are unreliable witnesses.

There is a joke among lawyers: How do you tell when a witness is lying? (You can replace "witness" with "your client" if you wish.) The answer, of course: When his/her lips move.

I'll go with circumstantial evidence nearly every time.

I am trying to see what you are saying, but not having much luck. I don't think it is your fault, I am just not putting the pieces together well.

--From a law encyclopedia--
"Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved."

From that I would gather, I see (taking it a bit further), I have a roll of tape that matches and rope that matches, all stored in an open garage. Still can't place you at the scene at the time of the crime, but you have no provable alibi (at home asleep alone for example). Now, you are getting a needle in your arm becasue I have gotten the jury to agree that it is reasonable that you used your tape and rope to tie the lady up and kill her by throwing her in the lake. Too bad that your neighbor walked into your open garage and used your tape and rope while wearing gloves. Point is that your fingerprints are on the end of the tape (because you have of course used it) and fibers from some of your clothes where found on parts of the rope (because you have used it). This is circumstantial evidence and you are going to jail to die. There is no blood at your house, no motive, no nothing, but using circumstantial evidence (based on the definition) you are still gonna die.

You are using a series of facts to prove another fact. The tape was his, the rope was his therefore he killed her.