- Messages
- 53,684
- Reaction score
- 7,862
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Watson Murder Case - Discussion
- Thread starter almitywife
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Messages
- 53,684
- Reaction score
- 7,862
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
I may have imagined it? I searched Google images extensively yesterday for all pics associated with the story, which even showed some avatars of members posting in this thread as it often comes up in the top 10 of searches, but maybe my mind played a trick on me - possibly confusing the police reenactment pic with another diving pic?
ItsBruce
Contributor
On the "terrified look" issue: Dead people don't breath. I believe that a person who is alive, with an open airway and air, will breath. So, if Tina was alive, even if just barely, during the bear hug, and her air was on, then I believe she would have resumed breathing because her mask prevented her from inhaling through her nose and the reg was in her mouth. And, since the air was on when she was recovered, it had to have been on when she was released to sink. So, if she was alive, then she would, I believe, have breathed and not died from lack of air. And, the observations are consistent with her being alive.
Re "hearsay": The rules are pretty uniform, even though not identical. I'm pretty good with the father's testimony not coming in, or at least it supporting a reversal. If someone can testify that Watson came to Tina's work and asked to change the policy, that could come in and would be evidence, though probably weak evidence, that he was interested in her life insurance and in being a beneficiary. That he tried to collect is, IMHO, irrelevant. It is equally consistent with her having told him that she changed the policy as with him having asked her to do it.
Question: If your new spouse died in a diving accident on your honeymoon and you were the beneficiary of his or her life insurance policy, would you ask for the money or would you let the insurance company keep it?
Re "hearsay": The rules are pretty uniform, even though not identical. I'm pretty good with the father's testimony not coming in, or at least it supporting a reversal. If someone can testify that Watson came to Tina's work and asked to change the policy, that could come in and would be evidence, though probably weak evidence, that he was interested in her life insurance and in being a beneficiary. That he tried to collect is, IMHO, irrelevant. It is equally consistent with her having told him that she changed the policy as with him having asked her to do it.
Question: If your new spouse died in a diving accident on your honeymoon and you were the beneficiary of his or her life insurance policy, would you ask for the money or would you let the insurance company keep it?
my hubby asked me tonight if I got confirmation that my annual insurance premium had been received by my insurance company... do you think it is safe to dive with him this weekend? 
K_girl
Contributor
First, there was nothing in Dr. Stutz's statement that said she was breathing, so we can't assume that as fact. The medical examiner said Tina experienced a laryngospasm. Indeed, I would not argue the point that she may have still been alive at the time her and Watson parted, but would argue that she had been incapacitated by the laryngospasm - because afterall - she did die with a full tank of air and the reg in her mouth. My argument is that an eye witness saw that Watson had a hold of her and then let her go to sink to the bottom. He was not fighting to reach her as he claimed. That behavior is difficult to explain. The question really is - what will the Defense do with Dr. Stutz' testimony to discredit it? Because afterall, isn't that what they have to do?
Dr. Stutz is an emergency room physician who is trained to observe people and react quickly, so his credibility as an eye witness is going to be greater than the average person. He also claims that he will never forget it and that it haunts him.
You also have a picture of Tina laying on the bottom with the dive master going after her after she had been left. That is a very powerful picture. She looked like she had been left to die as you can clearly see her on the bottom. You don't get the feeling of poor visibility, raging currents or being too frighteningly deep as Watson described. A picture is worth a thousand words, and that picture is worth plenty. Most especially to a non-diving jury. You combine that picture with Dr. Stutz' eye witness testimony, the computer data and Watson's statements and you have a case, notwithstanding insurance.
As I've said before, the insurance is motive, not proof of guilt. In this case, insurance is being used as the reason for jurisdiction as well.
K_girl
Contributor
"..Gabe Watson is expected to leave Australia tomorrow for the Unites States,.."
Deportation imminent for honeymoon killer
‘‘I expect Mr Watson will be on a plane tomorrow,’’ Mr Braithwaite said.
‘‘The [Australian] government has, as of yesterday afternoon, reversed their decision to refuse to provide the documentation which contains the assurances from America.
‘‘That has given me some further comfort as to the possibility that the death penalty will not be carried out.’’
However, Mr Braithwaite said he had received advice from a prominent US attorney who warned the diplomatic assurance was not a guarantee.
‘‘As to whether we will contest the deportation, we will decide that within 24 hours,’’ he said.
Deportation imminent for honeymoon killer
‘‘I expect Mr Watson will be on a plane tomorrow,’’ Mr Braithwaite said.
‘‘The [Australian] government has, as of yesterday afternoon, reversed their decision to refuse to provide the documentation which contains the assurances from America.
‘‘That has given me some further comfort as to the possibility that the death penalty will not be carried out.’’
However, Mr Braithwaite said he had received advice from a prominent US attorney who warned the diplomatic assurance was not a guarantee.
‘‘As to whether we will contest the deportation, we will decide that within 24 hours,’’ he said.
Man I hope they get him on that plane quickly. I for one will be happy to see him out of the country and no longer draining the Australian tax pool.
Dare I say that I look forward to the next stage of this Saga when people start second guessing the US Legal System, it's motives and ....
Dare I say that I look forward to the next stage of this Saga when people start second guessing the US Legal System, it's motives and ....
ItsBruce
Contributor
At the risk of repeating myself, I question whether the defense will try to discredit Doctor Stutz' anticipated testimony or whether it will use that testimony to cast doubt on the prosecution's theory that Watson turned off Tina's air, waited until she died, and then turned it back on before letting her sink to the bottom.
As I've said before, the whole thing seems very "fishy" to me. However, as I've also said before, given what information I've seen, which is mostly on the forums, I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Watson committed murder, i.e. intentionally killed Tina.
I recognize that Watson provided an implausible explanation and gave conflicting statements. These cause me grave concerns. However, much of the implausible explanation and conflicting statements can all be explained as a combination of stress, poor perception, poor recollection and the natural urge to fill in missing pieces with speculation. It is sort of like traumatic amnesia. Watson's later conduct can be explained as these factors plus anger over how Tina's family was treating him.
From what I understand, largely from Scubaboard, to have killed Tina by depriving her of air, Watson would have had to hold her with her air turned off for an extended period of time, perhaps as much as 6 to 8 minutes. And, from what I understand, again largely from SB, laryngospasms result from things like water intrusion, not being deprived of air.
There is a certain appeal, perhaps a superficial one, but an appeal, nonetheless, to the theory that Watson turned Tina's air off, waited until she died, and then turned it back on before letting her sink to the bottom. However, there appear to be some holes in it, including what may have caused the laryngospasm and Doctor Stutz' observations, which seemed to include Tina being alive and which did not include Watson doing anything with Tina's tank valve. I simply am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution is right.
I do, however, look forward to hearing additional evidence as the case progresses.
As I've said before, the whole thing seems very "fishy" to me. However, as I've also said before, given what information I've seen, which is mostly on the forums, I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Watson committed murder, i.e. intentionally killed Tina.
I recognize that Watson provided an implausible explanation and gave conflicting statements. These cause me grave concerns. However, much of the implausible explanation and conflicting statements can all be explained as a combination of stress, poor perception, poor recollection and the natural urge to fill in missing pieces with speculation. It is sort of like traumatic amnesia. Watson's later conduct can be explained as these factors plus anger over how Tina's family was treating him.
From what I understand, largely from Scubaboard, to have killed Tina by depriving her of air, Watson would have had to hold her with her air turned off for an extended period of time, perhaps as much as 6 to 8 minutes. And, from what I understand, again largely from SB, laryngospasms result from things like water intrusion, not being deprived of air.
There is a certain appeal, perhaps a superficial one, but an appeal, nonetheless, to the theory that Watson turned Tina's air off, waited until she died, and then turned it back on before letting her sink to the bottom. However, there appear to be some holes in it, including what may have caused the laryngospasm and Doctor Stutz' observations, which seemed to include Tina being alive and which did not include Watson doing anything with Tina's tank valve. I simply am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution is right.
I do, however, look forward to hearing additional evidence as the case progresses.
I have stated repeatedly over the years we have followed this case... I agree with ItsBruce.... I just could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that Gabe planned and intentionally murdered Tina. What "evidence" I have seen on press releases, video/printed transcripts of interviews make Watson look like a jerk but not necessarily the cold blooded killer the media portrays.
I personally don't think justice will ever be served in this case. IMHO the "evidence" is too tainted by the publicity and personal bias of those involved to achieve justice. No matter what comes of this.. Tina's life was too short, her family/loved ones will never regain what they lost and unpopular as this statement will be.. Gabe, his family/loved ones have also been through hell for years. Innocent or guilty he will never escape the "taint" and suspicion. There will be no winner here just more tragedy piled on tragedy.
I personally don't think justice will ever be served in this case. IMHO the "evidence" is too tainted by the publicity and personal bias of those involved to achieve justice. No matter what comes of this.. Tina's life was too short, her family/loved ones will never regain what they lost and unpopular as this statement will be.. Gabe, his family/loved ones have also been through hell for years. Innocent or guilty he will never escape the "taint" and suspicion. There will be no winner here just more tragedy piled on tragedy.
Similar threads
