Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[robint]

the proof that he killed her intentionally - his dive computer, his statements about the dive, and the witnesses before, during, and after the dive.

1. He lied over and over, telling this tall tail about what happened underwater and how he raced to surface to get help. Fact is his computer showed he never was as deep as he said, and he surfaced slowly doing a safety stop. Dive computer doesn't lie. His whole account of the dive didn't jive with the dive computer!

2. He said that he and wife had to go to surface immediately after entering the water because his dive computer was beeping. He said he had to get out of water and turn the battery over as it was installed wrong. That is why they got separated by the rest of group. Well, NO dive computer beeps if battery is upside down, it doesn't work! He used this ploy to separate them from group so he could have her alone. Dive computer doesn't lie.

3. Other divers did see him with his wife, and he was giving her a "bear hug". This is when it is guessed that he turned off her air and held her until he was sure she was dead, then turned her air back on, dropping her to ocean floor. He claimed that she was dropping and he tried to grab her hand but couldn't hold onto her and she slipped away... why not inflate her BC? why not drop her weights? He claimed they were fighting a huge current also... none of the other divers said it was bad. He claimed he went deep fighting to hold her.. dive computer said otherwise. Dive computer doesn't lie.

4. Another diver took a photo and in the background you see her lying on the bottom, not in water as deep as he said she was or where he said they were "fighting with the current". Those other divers said the current wasn't bad, too.

5. After he surfaced, he started telling a story to those on the boat about how she was sinking and he couldn't grab her hand and she slipped away. And he told them where it supposedly happened. He implied that she was carried away into water over 100' deep. In the meantime, another group of divers found her on the bottom, not where he said or that deep, and took her right to surface. They had her on their boat and were performing CPR when his boat was radioed. Upon hearing that they had his wife on the other boat performing CPR, he did not ask to go to that boat. His demeanor was noted by the other divers who were back onboard already and they were stunned. He did not go to the other boat until after they got the call that she was dead.

6. When he gave interviews to police over the next few months, he gave different accounts and changed his story substantially. He was not confronted with the dive computer data as the police weren't familiar with them or how they work.

now add in all the things that happened back home before the trip... like him insisting she increase her insurance policy, how badly he treated her in public, etc.

ALL of this is circumstantial. ALL of this is proof enough he killed her. NO DNA needed.

Just my 2 cents. This is another reason I think all divers should have computers... it can trace exactly what happens to you underwater. If someone gets bent or worse, this is sometimes the only way they can figure out what happened!!!!

robin

 

[Under-Exposed]

Perhaps we can deal with some facts:

1. He lied over and over, telling this tall tail about what happened underwater and how he raced to surface to get help. Fact is his computer showed he never was as deep as he said, and he surfaced slowly doing a safety stop. WRONG!!! His dive computer shows that in the 6th minute he descended though 50ft down to a maximum depth of 54ft then up to 41ft, in the 7th minute he ascended though 31ft and 19ft and in the 8th minute he ascended through 10ft and 3ft

2. He said that he and wife had to go to surface immediately after entering the water because his dive computer was beeping. He said he had to get out of water and turn the battery over as it was installed wrong. That is why they got separated by the rest of group. Well, NO dive computer beeps if battery is upside down, it doesn't work! He used this ploy to separate them from group so he could have her alone. WRONG!!! They were not separated from the group by that conduct. After fixing the problem with the watch (whatever it was) AND fixing a weight problem that Tina was having, they returned to the dive site on a tender with the Trip Director and two other divers.

3. Other divers did see him with his wife, and he was giving her a "bear hug". This is when it is guessed that he turned off her air and held her until he was sure she was dead, then turned her air back on, dropping her to ocean floor. He claimed that she was dropping and he tried to grab her hand but couldn't hold onto her and she slipped away... why not inflate her BC? why not drop her weights? He claimed they were fighting a huge current also... none of the other divers said it was bad. He claimed he went deep fighting to hold her.. dive computer said otherwise. ONE other diver saw them in a "bear hug"

4. Another diver took a photo and in the background you see her lying on the bottom, not in water as deep as he said she was or where he said they were "fighting with the current". Those other divers said the current wasn't bad, too. That photo shows Tina in water deeper than 25m/82ft, according to the Trip Director's evidence that he was AT 25m when he saw Tina BELOW

 

[robint]

Perhaps we can deal with some facts:

1. He lied over and over, telling this tall tail about what happened underwater and how he raced to surface to get help. Fact is his computer showed he never was as deep as he said, and he surfaced slowly doing a safety stop. WRONG!!! His dive computer shows that in the 6th minute he descended though 50ft down to a maximum depth of 54ft then up to 41ft, in the 7th minute he ascended though 31ft and 19ft and in the 8th minute he ascended through 10ft and 3ft

2. He said that he and wife had to go to surface immediately after entering the water because his dive computer was beeping. He said he had to get out of water and turn the battery over as it was installed wrong. That is why they got separated by the rest of group. Well, NO dive computer beeps if battery is upside down, it doesn't work! He used this ploy to separate them from group so he could have her alone. WRONG!!! They were not separated from the group by that conduct. After fixing the problem with the watch (whatever it was) AND fixing a weight problem that Tina was having, they returned to the dive site on a tender with the Trip Director and two other divers.

3. Other divers did see him with his wife, and he was giving her a "bear hug". This is when it is guessed that he turned off her air and held her until he was sure she was dead, then turned her air back on, dropping her to ocean floor. He claimed that she was dropping and he tried to grab her hand but couldn't hold onto her and she slipped away... why not inflate her BC? why not drop her weights? He claimed they were fighting a huge current also... none of the other divers said it was bad. He claimed he went deep fighting to hold her.. dive computer said otherwise. ONE other diver saw them in a "bear hug"

4. Another diver took a photo and in the background you see her lying on the bottom, not in water as deep as he said she was or where he said they were "fighting with the current". Those other divers said the current wasn't bad, too. That photo shows Tina in water deeper than 25m/82ft, according to the Trip Director's evidence that he was AT 25m when he saw Tina BELOW

1. He did not "race" to the surface, taking over 3 minutes to get there is not a race. He said he went up so fast he thought he might get bent. Right!

2. I had not heard that there were 2 other divers on that tender, regardless, the rest of the group was way ahead and the beeping dive computer story was bogus. I have been diving with a dive computer for almost 10 years, I know that there is no dive computer on the market that every beeps at you when the battery is in backwards.

3. Okay, only one diver saw the bear hug. That is still a diver seeing him doing it.

4. Yes, the photo shows her down at about 82' depth. That is not over 100' as he said and it is not in the location he told the people on the boat when he said he lost her. She was on a sandy bottom where she was easily seen and not "lost", well within his reach if he wanted to get her and bring her up. It was not beyond his ability to get there, not too deep, and regardless, it was his wife! The other divers who did bring her up had no problem with it.

So why didn't he dump her weights? Why didn't he inflate her BC? He was a Rescue diver and those are all skills taught in Rescue that he had to perform on another diver in order to pass the course. His story about what happened is full of poop.

And what is your comment to the fact he didn't go to his wife on the other boat once he heard she was brought up?? If it really had happened the way he said, he should have been thrilled someone else got to her and brought her up....

 

[livinoz]

All the points in your post have dealt with and discussed ad nauseam in this thread and two others:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/accidents-incidents/234548-diver-indicted-2003-gbr-mishap.html

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/accidents-incidents/242102-watson-murder-case-issues-statements-sources.html

And please, if you haven't already done so, read the Judge's sentencing remarks. There was insufficient evidence to convict Watson of murder, although obviously others have decided that he is guilty no matter what the Supreme Court here has pronounced.

It's a bit surprising that all this is being bought up yet again. He has been sentenced and gaoled, and except for awaiting the result of the appeal over sentence length there isn't much else to say. What, if anything, happens when Watson is released and goes back to the US is quite another thing.

 

[K_girl]

Perhaps we can deal with some facts:

1. He lied over and over, telling this tall tail about what happened underwater and how he raced to surface to get help. Fact is his computer showed he never was as deep as he said, and he surfaced slowly doing a safety stop. WRONG!!! His dive computer shows that in the 6th minute he descended though 50ft down to a maximum depth of 54ft then up to 41ft, in the 7th minute he ascended though 31ft and 19ft and in the 8th minute he ascended through 10ft and 3ft

This is what I find interesting about Under-Exposed's post - he has inside information and he is teasing us with it. This information has never been published before and as many of us have been following UE for a while on this thread - I believe his source is correct. The Dateline Story said that the computer revealed that there was no sharp decent to go after Tina as Watson had claimed. So the turn-around minute, in minute number six, he starts from 50 feet and goes to 54 feet is not much of a sharp descent, which kind of tells me one of 2 things - Either Tina was not sinking as fast as he claimed and he was really still close to her when he turned around, or he did not make the effort he claimed at all. From 54 feet to 41 feet in the 6th minute - that was the fastest part of his ascent, the moment he left her, expecially considering part of that minute was spent descending rather than ascending. Then he slowed down dramatically for the the last 2 minutes.

So the entire incident happened in just 8 minutes. Some would argue that is an extremely fast time to execute a killing. However, my sister and I were on a dive to 80 feet, fighting a current and aborted after reaching the bottom. When we arrived to the surface, we thought much more time had passed than 8 minutes, especially after what we had just been through. But it was exactly that - 8 minutes. Probably the longest 8 minutes of our lives.

Extremely revealing - and thanks for the tidbit EU.

 

[livinoz]

This is what I find interesting about Under-Exposed's post - he has inside information and he is teasing us with it. This information has never been published before and as many of us have been following UE for a while on this thread - I believe his source is correct. The Dateline Story said that the computer revealed that there was no sharp decent to go after Tina as Watson had claimed. So the turn-around minute, in minute number six, he starts from 50 feet and goes to 54 feet is not much of a sharp descent, which kind of tells me one of 2 things - Either Tina was not sinking as fast as he claimed and he was really still close to her when he turned around, or he did not make the effort he claimed at all. From 54 feet to 41 feet in the 6th minute - that was the fastest part of his ascent, the moment he left her, expecially considering part of that minute was spent descending rather than ascending. Then he slowed down dramatically for the the last 2 minutes.

So the entire incident happened in just 8 minutes. Some would argue that is an extremely fast time to execute a killing. However, my sister and I were on a dive to 80 feet, fighting a current and aborted after reaching the bottom. When we arrived to the surface, we thought much more time had passed than 8 minutes, especially after what we had just been through. But it was exactly that - 8 minutes. Probably the longest 8 minutes of our lives.

Extremely revealing - and thanks for the tidbit EU.

Even so, that evidence and any other"tidbits" that we are not privy to, was not enough to convict him of murder, no matter what you or I or anyone else may think.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I am more interested in facts than speculation and conjecture. Knowing UnderExposed, he will not post something in the public domain and call it a FACT unless it is exactly that. Facts are what we get from unbiased reputable sources. What we get from the media may have started out with a kernel of truth but IMHO the media are more interested in sensationalizing and ratings than honesty and accuracy.

IMO not enough FACTS have been presented to provide "proof that he killed her intentionally". UE only commented on facts that have a legal bearing in the case. I appreciate that because all the emotional issues have been debated by many of us over the last couple years in another thread. As Livinoz pointed out this thread is about waiting to hear about the appeal process and working out how it will effect the dive industry/legal system.

I do see the value of speculation and conjecture when appropriate to work out possible cause and effect for the purpose of becoming a safer diver. IMHO that is not the case here. WE are all interested and concerned for the people involved and the potential impact this may have on the dive industry. I am no fan of Mr Watson but ad nauseum discussion about his guilt, innocence, stupidity or personality flaws are of no value here. Just my .02 worth.

 

[alohagal]

I am more interested in facts than speculation and conjecture. Knowing UnderExposed, he will not post something in the public domain and call it a FACT unless it is exactly that. Facts are what we get from unbiased reputable sources. What we get from the media may have started out with a kernel of truth but IMHO the media are more interested in sensationalizing and ratings than honesty and accuracy.

IMO not enough FACTS have been presented to provide "proof that he killed her intentionally". UE only commented on facts that have a legal bearing in the case. I appreciate that because all the emotional issues have been debated by many of us over the last couple years in another thread. As Livinoz pointed out this thread is about waiting to hear about the appeal process and working out how it will effect the dive industry/legal system.

I do see the value of speculation and conjecture when appropriate to work out possible cause and effect for the purpose of becoming a safer diver. IMHO that is not the case here. WE are all interested and concerned for the people involved and the potential impact this may have on the dive industry. I am no fan of Mr Watson but ad nauseum discussion about his guilt, innocence, stupidity or personality flaws are of no value here. Just my .02 worth.

And yet, since it was brought up again, it was the impetus to NEW information from UE. I find it fascinating!

 

[livinoz]

And yet, since it was brought up again, it was the impetus to NEW information from UE. I find it fascinating!

Which just goes to prove we were judging him here without all the facts!

 

[Dave Earl]

the beeping dive computer story was bogus. I have been diving with a dive computer for almost 10 years, I know that there is no dive computer on the market that every beeps at you when the battery is in backwards.

In his statement he stated that he had put the battery backwards in his "transmitter," not his computer. I imagine he is talking about a wireless air-integrated computer. If it was set to wet activation and he had not checked his pressure before entering the water, than the computer would start beping as dive mode was activated because it would have been unable to link to the transmitter.