Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[alohagal]

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.

And, once again, another interesting tidbit I have never heard before. If true it certainly changes the assumption that Gabe was so guilty and stupid he lied about the battery being in backwards in his computer and it still beeped at him.

May I ask where you found this information? I would like to know if this truly is his statement. Just as conjecture can be made to his guilt...conjecture can also be made to exonerate here on these types of forums.

Thanks in advance,
Mary

 

[K_girl]

Dave Earl - Yes, I read the transcript and it did sound like Watson was describing a transmitter problem. The only thing to go on is that the Australian investigator told Dateline that after testing the computer with the batteries in backwards as Watson had described, it still would not "beep." In addition, the investigator also said that the dive computer actually did record the first, aborted dive and that the dive computer was in working condition. (These were words spoken directly by the investigator on the Dateline show and not a re-interpetation by the media.) There was no reason for the dive computer to beep on the second dive. If Watson then turned the battery around after the first dive, it would not have worked on the second dive, which it did.

Tina's closest friend also described the night they were packing to go on on their honeymoon - that Watson could not get his computer to work and had gone back to the dive store to get it fixed and found out he had put the battery in backwards. So the computer was working the night they left. Tina's friend said Tina was teasing him about it. So I guess the big question would be - why would he take it out again only to put the battery in backwards a second time, most especially since the dive computer was working on the first dive? It's very strange.

It's all just a little too much to explain, so the short explanation is - the computer will not work with the battery in backwards. But in the end - if you go through all this - it actually looks worse.

 

[K_girl]

Alohagal - There are two parts to a wireless dive computer. The transmitter, which sits on the first stage and the second part which is on your wrist. Watson's claim would be that the transmitter is the piece that had the battery in backwards and the wrist piece is the device that was beeping at him. However, the investigator stated two things: 1) tests showed that computer would still not beep; and 2) that the first, aborted dive was recorded, so the dive computer was working and should not have been beeping at him at all (for the "gas alarm" that he claimed). And indeed, if he did turn the battery around, it would have stopped working on the second dive, which it didn't.

So Watson doesn't seem as stupid as he originally sounds, if he did plan it, he just did not think it entirely through. Apparently he didn't realize that it would record a five-foot dive. But actually, I think it shows a lot more potential for planning than people realize. It's just that it is a lot more complex than people really want to get into.

 

[ItsBruce]

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.

Are you absolutely sure they don't beep if the battery is upside down or backward? How many dive computers have you tested?

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.

The key word is "guessed." That is because there is no actual evidence he turned her air off. Would you convict someone of murder on a guess?

Assuming all else that you have said, would it be murder if he had not turned her air off? Or would it be something lesser?

And, as far as turning her air off and holding her until he was sure she was dead, how long do you believe that would take? (No fair to re-read the thread where we had input from a brain surgeon who dives.)

And, as far as the inconsistencies in his statements, I agree they cause me a great deal of concern and if I were the police, I'd investigate the heck out of the incident as a result of his statements. However, given the different ways people react to stresses, emergencies and questioning by the police and media, the inconsistencies do not impress me very much. Nor does his conduct with her family. In fact, his conduct toward her family is more consistent with an innocent man being railroaded by an improperly vindictive family than of a guilty man.

 

[ItsBruce]

A further thought on dive computers and backward batteries:

I have never used a wireless system. However, it seems to me that the transmitter transmits only tank pressure. I would expect that things like time, depth, max depth, water temperature, accent rate, etc. are all handled on the wrist mounted console and are independent of the functioning of the transmitter on the first stage. Therefore, I would expect that battery, wireless connection, or whatever, the wrist console would record everything about a dive except tank pressure. If I am right, then it would be no surprise that data was recorded even if the battery in the transmitter was in wrong.

As far as what the investigator found relative to the system beeping if the battery was in wrong, the validity of his findings is dependent on what tests he performed. Did he actually install a battery in the transmitter backward, put the transmitter on a first stage and then submerge both the transmitter and console?

 

[Under-Exposed]

And, as far as the inconsistencies in his statements, I agree they cause me a great deal of concern and if I were the police, I'd investigate the heck out of the incident as a result of his statements. However, given the different ways people react to stresses, emergencies and questioning by the police and media, the inconsistencies do not impress me very much. Nor does his conduct with her family. In fact, his conduct toward her family is more consistent with an innocent man being railroaded by an improperly vindictive family than of a guilty man.

Bruce, with respect, I wholeheartedly agree!

Just so you all know, I have subscribed to the Qld Court Listing service so will find otu the night before judgment is to be delivered in the appeal, and I will of course let you all know.

 

[alohagal]

Okay...still waiting....foot tapping, fingers drumming, arms folded. It is awfully quiet here on the GABE WATSON front.

Just wondering? Is Gabe having to eat Kangaroo burgers and Vegie Mite sandwiches in gaol?

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Okay...still waiting....foot tapping, fingers drumming, arms folded. It is awfully quiet here on the GABE WATSON front.

Just wondering? Is Gabe having to eat Kangaroo burgers and Vegie Mite sandwiches in gaol?

Now that would be cruel and unusual punishment indeed

 

[Under-Exposed]

THE DAY YOU'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR HAS ARRIVED!!!!!

Judgment in the appeal in R v David Gabriel Watson will be delivered at 9.30am Friday, 18 September (Brisbane Time, which is GMT +10, so it will be 7.30pm on the US East Coast and 4.30pm on the West Coast on 17 September (I think)).

 

[K_girl]

A further thought on dive computers and backward batteries:

I have never used a wireless system. However, it seems to me that the transmitter transmits only tank pressure. I would expect that things like time, depth, max depth, water temperature, accent rate, etc. are all handled on the wrist mounted console and are independent of the functioning of the transmitter on the first stage. Therefore, I would expect that battery, wireless connection, or whatever, the wrist console would record everything about a dive except tank pressure. If I am right, then it would be no surprise that data was recorded even if the battery in the transmitter was in wrong.

As far as what the investigator found relative to the system beeping if the battery was in wrong, the validity of his findings is dependent on what tests he performed. Did he actually install a battery in the transmitter backward, put the transmitter on a first stage and then submerge both the transmitter and console?

Excellent point! I would have to say that if there was a transmitter involved, police should have verified with Watson if it was the transmitter or the computer that he was talking about. Here is the relevant portion of Watson's statement:

"WATSON: started to go down just a couple of feet under the water, my computer beeped at me um you know ‘gas alarm’ which is basically it’s not, means it’s not registering with the cylinder, either you know out of air, or it’s not working or whatever so you know motioned to her, we went back up um you know I told her my computer weren’t working, and I said well hang on a second and I went down you know a few more feet or a couple feet again just to see, cause normally with mine if it doesn’t register before you’re in the water, once your under a couple feet the pressure makes it kick in.. and it never did so, you know I went back up told her and we went back over to the boat.."

When he said "..not registering with the cylinder.." that made me think he might be using a wireless, even though he never actually said that. Upon closer examination of this statement, I think he is talking about an air-integrated computer. What makes me think that is this part of his statement: "..cause normally with mine if it doesn't register before you're in the water, once you're under a couple of feet the pressure makes it kick in.." In that case, there would be only one device, which is the computer itself. And no device can beep without power and I know of no dive computers that have two batteries as a source of power.

As I read the interview, I realized that the investigators were actually quite knowledgeable about diving. For instance, as Watson described himself dragging Tina by her BC on her left side, the investigator asked Watson why he did not inflate her BC at that time. In other words, the investigator knew the inflator hose is on the left side and that Watson had immediate access to it. It seemed to throw Watson off-guard and he really stumbled trying to answer that question. If Watson had a wireless dive computer, they would have known it when they questioned him because they examined him 4 days after the incident and they had his equipment in custody. I don't think they would have missed the obvious follow-up question with Watson. Certainly, if I were the defense attorney, I would pursue this as I would want to find any potential holes in the case because you never know what incorrect assumptions could have been made.