Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[bowlofpetunias]

Kgirl I am certain I read somewhere that he had less than 100 dives up. Maybe he Dad can tell us for sure if he chooses and we trust his information ACES50 would you mind telling us about Gabe's dive history and how many dives he had done before this one. I must say I am also curious if he has dived since then?

I really haven't got the time or resources to go back through everything to find it. As you are aware I have been following this with you and Bruce and a few others since pretty much the beginning. I remember reading that and thinking... "How would I have reacted when I had that few dives.. I actually went to my dive logs and read a few of my dive log entries for that range of my diving."

Some people consider anyone who holds an ADVANCED Open Water or Rescue diver Certificate to be an ADVANCED or highly skilled diver. Some think that the number of dives also indicate skill. Wander around any scuba forum and you will see that people in the know... well know better than that!

My contribution to the discussion of possible explanations. Gabe was trying to help Tina... he mentioned getting hold of her BCD at one point. He also mentions a problem with his mask and regulator. Could he have let her go to deal with the problems, she sank, he didn't have good bouyancy and started ascending. I know a lot of divers who really have a problem with coping with mask floods, mask removal and reg removal after a couple hundred dives!

Now IMHO based on his statement of racing to the surface and fearing getting BENT... it seems his natural survival instinct was controlling him. Doesn't make him a very admirable self controlled macho type guy but doesn't make him a killer either.

Early in diving carreers divers often think of a "SAFETY STOP" in the same terms as a DECO STOP! :blush: I remember in the earlier days of my diving I sure did! Soooooo if Gabe did his ascent without a SAFETY STOP in his mind he may well have considered his ascent to be a "race to the surface" putting himself at risk of being bent as he stated in his police interview. From what I remember he did a very slow and controlled ascent but there was no mention of a safety stop.. just a very slow ascent according to what everyone is taught in their certification.


Coulda/woulda/shoulda may make him look a bit self obsessed and weak but IMHO the evidence we have which we all recognize is tainted, incomplete and perhaps biased would not allow me to say beyond a shadow of doubt he murdered her.

IMHO the judicial system is meant to protect society. I don't see Gabe or anyone else using Murder by scuba as a tool to start knocking people off.

To rehabilitate the offender... I suspect Gabe is not going to learn anything he hasn't already learned the the Hellish years since Tina's death. More jail time isn't going to give him more strength of character or capacity to put others welfare ahead of his own.

IMHO The Judicial system should not be used for REVENGE . What some people see as unconscionable acts, cruelty, meanness, even bullying and defamation are beyond the understanding/belief of other "reasonable" people. Following that process ... what would satisfy some as "Justice" (read here appropriate REVENGE) could go beyond what others may see as fair.

Some places in the world consider Execution to be INHUMANE other places consider Life in Prison to be MORE INHUMANE than execution! I have personal problems with Capital Punishment.. I don't think I should ask someone to do something I could not do... ie pull the switch to kill another person. There have been too many people proven innocent after their execution or long term imprisonment for my liking! That said I do believe there are some people who have done such horrific things (serial killers for instance) where there can be no doubt based on multiple events with massive evidence I do support Capital punishment for them. Society should not have to incur the cost of keeping them alive for years or the risk of their escape endangering society. Criticize me for putting money as a factor if you want but in my world I would rather see the tax dollars go to education, health care or really anything that helps the less fortunate in our societies rather than to support someone who is a menace to society!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

K_girl, very good analysis. However, I disagree with your thought that shaking Dr. Stutz is the defense' only chance. Given what information is publicly available, I think the better approach is to use him to challenge the theory that Watson turned Tina's air off, held her until she was incapacitated, turned it back on, and then let her sink. Did Stutz see Watson turn the air off or on? How long did he see Watson holding Tina? Did he see Watson's mask or regulator had not been dislodged? Did he didn't he mention these things during the original investigation? If not, why not?

Given the various theories (which I will not rehash) as to why Watson might have released Tina for legitimate reasons, depending on how Dr. Stutz answers the above questions, the supposed prosecution theory could be seriously undermined (again all depending on other unknown evidence such as the autopsy and statements of the divers who recovered Tina.)

BTW: Wasn't there some mention of an embolism from Tina having been brought to the surface and of her being alive at least at that point? While that would not negate murder if Watson had incapacitated her beforehand, if Tina was alive while on the bottom, given the time lapse between Watson having released her and her recovery, might that not tend to show he had not incapacitated her during he bear hug?

With my experience in the Ambulance Service I would ask some questions about the experience of the good Doctor prior to the event? I question the statement about seeing terror on Tina's face... just how close was he? Next time you do a dive.. try looking at the "expression" on your buddy's face:shocked2: With a mask you would have to be at the right angle and fairly close to see the eyes... with a reg in.. it gets harder.

I have come up from dives where my husband thought I was stressed during the dive and I hadn't been. He had been unnecessarily concerned about me the whole dive! I have done dives where my husband had been stressed and I hadn't picked it up. I am pretty observant and tune into my buddies pretty conscientiously!

If people who know each other well and have done literally hundreds of dives together have trouble with this.. how reliable is a glimpse of a new aquaintence's face no matter who got that glimpse!

 

[K_girl]

K_girl, very good analysis. However, I disagree with your thought that shaking Dr. Stutz is the defense' only chance. Given what information is publicly available, I think the better approach is to use him to challenge the theory that Watson turned Tina's air off, held her until she was incapacitated, turned it back on, and then let her sink. Did Stutz see Watson turn the air off or on? How long did he see Watson holding Tina? Did he see Watson's mask or regulator had not been dislodged? Did he didn't he mention these things during the original investigation? If not, why not?

Given the various theories (which I will not rehash) as to why Watson might have released Tina for legitimate reasons, depending on how Dr. Stutz answers the above questions, the supposed prosecution theory could be seriously undermined (again all depending on other unknown evidence such as the autopsy and statements of the divers who recovered Tina.)

BTW: Wasn't there some mention of an embolism from Tina having been brought to the surface and of her being alive at least at that point? While that would not negate murder if Watson had incapacitated her beforehand, if Tina was alive while on the bottom, given the time lapse between Watson having released her and her recovery, might that not tend to show he had not incapacitated her during he bear hug?

Great discussion. Well, perhaps the defense might shift their theory to yours regarding what Dr. Stutz did or did not see. Certainly he did not see Watson's hand on the knob turning it on or off. At the moment, however, if what Watson's family is saying is any indication of what the defense theory is, that would be that what Dr. Stutz saw was the rescue diver in the bearhug with Tina. Here is the clip from the news report where Gabe's family is speaking out:

"Stutz said he saw another diver go straight down to her. It was anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute later.

It was that diver, later identified as Wade Singleton, that Stutz described being in a "bear hug" with Tina."

Source: More: Family of Gabe Watson speaks 7 years after his wife died while scuba diving in Australia | al.com

I think your theory would be a better one than this one because I believe that Wade Singleton will testify that he never separated from Tina as quoted here in the same story:

"Something happened, Stutz said, and they separated.

"I didn't know what it was at the time, but just watching what I had in front of us, that maybe, I don't know, maybe she'd pulled (the) regulator out of his mouth, or kneed him in the groin. They split apart. He went to the surface. I assumed to find help."

However, there was another excellent attorney (I don't know, maybe it was you?) who posted numerous times on the older thread who gave another great analogy. Let's say you have a box with a piece of cheese in it. You see a mouse go into the box, you see the mouse leave the box. You open the box and the cheese is gone. You conclude that the mouse ate the cheese because you can't explain the sequence of events any other way. That is a circumstantial case. He said that most cases are circumstantial cases. This is what this case is. There is some physical evidence, however, Gabe's dive computer and the photograph and these things will be examined in the context of the statements.

Embolsim - your theory would be that an embolism can only happen if someone is alive. I'm not sure that is true. I think you could compare what you are saying to a scenario like this: if you shot someone, but it wasn't immediately fatal and you left them to bleed to death, someone else found them and tried to get them to the hospital, but didn't make it in time to save their life - is it murder? I think it probably would be because they perished from the injury that you caused.

 

[RedCash02]

I'd also think the defense will call into question the doctor's state of mind while diving. The mind-altering effects of narcosis are fairly well documented and the impact varies between individuals. There's no way to verify that the doctor's judgment at the time wasn't impaired. He may claim he was clear-headed, but I can't count the number of times a drunk person has told me, "I'm perfectly fine." It shouldn't be too hard for a good lawyer to destroy his credibility.

 

[K_girl]

With my experience in the Ambulance Service I would ask some questions about the experience of the good Doctor prior to the event? I question the statement about seeing terror on Tina's face... just how close was he? Next time you do a dive.. try looking at the "expression" on your buddy's face:shocked2: With a mask you would have to be at the right angle and fairly close to see the eyes... with a reg in.. it gets harder.

I have come up from dives where my husband thought I was stressed during the dive and I hadn't been. He had been unnecessarily concerned about me the whole dive! I have done dives where my husband had been stressed and I hadn't picked it up. I am pretty observant and tune into my buddies pretty conscientiously!

If people who know each other well and have done literally hundreds of dives together have trouble with this.. how reliable is a glimpse of a new aquaintence's face no matter who got that glimpse!

These are good questions that the defense attorney should ask Dr. Stutz to see if he can shake-up his memory of events. From his description though, it sounded like a lot more than just a glimpse. From what he saw he concluded she was in trouble, tried to raise the alarm, watched as she sank, watched the rescue diver bring her up, watched the vomit coming from her mouth as she was brought to the surface and tried to resuscitate her on the surface. Whatever happened, you can't say he missed it like you did with your husband. His interpretation of her being in serious trouble by seeing fear in her face did come to fruition, so its hard to say he got it wrong.

 

[K_girl]

So here is what may be a better defense from the same story above:

"Something happened, Stutz said, and they separated.

"I didn't know what it was at the time, but just watching what I had in front of us, that maybe, I don't know, maybe she'd pulled (the) regulator out of his mouth, or kneed him in the groin. They split apart. He went to the surface. I assumed to find help."

I'm not sure if this is an exact quote from Dr. Stutz, or just from the story. I'll try and confirm that this is a real statement, but if it is what Dr. Stutz will testify to - what if what happened was, Tina did knock Gabe's regulator and/or mask and instead of getting a hold of himself and then trying to rescue Tina as he claimed - he made that part up to make himself not look so bad and he actually headed straight to the surface in his own panic. He's just being plain stupid trying to make it more dramatic with the story of her arms raised towards him, her eyes pleading and begging for him to save her and he's kicking and kicking down - to try and convince the police he is the hero type. Then he has to make stupid statements about visibility, location, currents, decisions, etc. to make that one work and he is digging a deeper and deeper hole. He's not smart enough to figure out that lying to the police is going to make things worse. Instead of coming clean a couple of days later, he goes back to the police to make a second stupid statement to try and shore-up the first stupid statement.

If this is the defense - I think Watson will have to take the stand and tell the jury that. He will have to tell him he lied because he's stupid. He can't stand by his original statements to police and not be convicted.

That is a defense that I think could jive with Dr. Stutz' statement and Gabe's dive computer, as well as all the other evidence. Just one problem with the battery in backwards though - that one still needs to be explained somehow.

Everything else - he's just a frickin' jerk. For instance, the insurance - how many of us think that we might die scuba diving. It's a risky sport. He doesn't necessarily want his wife to die, but he wants to make sure he's got her work insurance and has coverage on the travel insurance - just in case.

He made Tina believe in his skills as a rescue diver because he is a jerk.
He pushed her into diving when she didn't want to because he's a jerk.
He threw pizza in her face because he's a jerk
He wouldn't let her look at her engagement ring for months because he's a jerk.
He removed flowers from her grave because he's a jerk.

So how does the defense convince the jury he's just a jerk, well, I think they would need to hear some stories about all of the stupidity and lying he's committed in the past in order to estabish the pattern.

(Sorry ACES50 - no disrespect intended, but I personally think that may be his best defense).

One other potential problem with this defense theory though. I have a hard time believing that if this is what happened - why didn't he just say so, he would probably have not spent 18 months in jail. Too proud to say he was stupid? He would rather stand by all his statements, and go to jail for 18 months? Will the fact that he stood by his statements and took the plea deal based on those statements hurt him in a trial in Alabama? That is something I can't answer. Maybe some of the attorneys out there can.

 

[ACES50]

Good evening Petunia
Gabe's log books are in possession of either the Australian authorities or the Alabama Attorney General. I haven't the faintest idea how many dives he has done.
No, he hasn't dived since.

 

[Ayisha]

...We have heard the story line that his computer indicated he did a 3 minute safety stop which would be damning if it were true but again the hard fact on that is that its reserved for the court room and not johny public...

I don't believe there was any evidence that Watson did a 3 minute safety stop. He took about 2 minutes, 45 seconds to ascend from 45 feet and his ascent was described as having no dips down, but only straight or up.

BTW: Wasn't there some mention of an embolism from Tina having been brought to the surface and of her being alive at least at that point? While that would not negate murder if Watson had incapacitated her beforehand, if Tina was alive while on the bottom, given the time lapse between Watson having released her and her recovery, might that not tend to show he had not incapacitated her during he bear hug?

Unconscious people and dead bodies can also embolize during the ascent because of the gas buildup and no open airway. So we have no indication that Tina was alive at the time of rescue.

I'd also think the defense will call into question the doctor's state of mind while diving. The mind-altering effects of narcosis are fairly well documented and the impact varies between individuals. There's no way to verify that the doctor's judgment at the time wasn't impaired. He may claim he was clear-headed, but I can't count the number of times a drunk person has told me, "I'm perfectly fine." It shouldn't be too hard for a good lawyer to destroy his credibility.

Dr Stutz had just entered the water and begun his dive, so narcosis is not a factor. He had only gotten to about 15 or 20 feet when he witnessed the "bear hug".

 

[Ayisha]

For those that are talking about the bear hug, recall that in some of Watson's earlier accounts of events, he said he kept trying to get down to her but she was falling fast and that she was too heavy. After the detectives told him that the computer showed no dips down, he said that he couldn't equalize. After he was told of a witness to his bear hug, he said he did have a hold of her but she knocked his mask off and he let go of her to fix it and lost her in the low visibility (that we can disprove from the picture taken at about 20 feet which shows Tina's body at about 100 feet). That is perhaps an oversimplified version of events, but I believe that is the general order of his changing explanations to the evidence presented to him and forms part of the 16 different versions of his recollection of the events.

 

[K_girl]

I've done more thinking about the panic-lying-jerk defense I suggested. I suggested that Watson may have recovered his mask/regulator, but in his panic, headed to the surface instead of attempting to rescue Tina as he claimed and that he lied about it. Here is the first problem that the defense would still have to resolve:

Police claim that Watson's dive computer showed that he did a leisurely ascent to the surface. An interview quoted Constable Murdoch gave an exact time of his acsent:

CONSTABLE MURDOCH: "Mr Watson's dive profile shows he took two minutes and 30 seconds to reach the surface, which is a very conservative rate of ascent, considering his rescue diver training and the level of emergency," he said. "His time based on a safe civilian rate of ascent should have been 9m a minute, which means he should have taken just one minute and 18 seconds to reach the surface to seek help. (His dive profile showed) there had been no rush to get to the surface."

Source: The hug of death | Townsville Bulletin News

So, how does the defense deal with this, assuming the prosecution has the data to back up their claim?

a) perhaps shave off 15 seconds for the computer sampling rate;

b) challenge the prosecution's interpretation of the data with their own expert.

c) Watson claimed he headed for the rope and tried to get the attention of someone who looked to be of Asian descent. This could have been part of the calculated ascent time:

"WATSON: the well yeah, I the guy that I tapped was a Asian male I mean cause he he looked, we looked directly at each other.. wasn’t like a you know hey check this out I mean it was cause I was, I was frantic at that time.. um you know grabbed and shook him, they turned around I was screaming her name.."

The Coroner stated the following:

"Gabe states that in his ascent completing the fatal dive; he addressed a diver underwater of Asian appearance and signalled to that person the difficulties Tina was in. All other divers in the water that day with the exception of Mr Kim and Miss Jeon were called and excluded themselves as the diver referred to by Gabe.

In neither of the statements by Miss Joen and Mr Kim, admitted as Exhibits in these proceedings, was Gabe’s claim of contact referred to but each deponent has responded by email to the effect such an occurrence stated by Gabe did not occur with them.

Mr Zillman submits that this email contact, though admissible at the Inquest, would not be admissible in a criminal proceeding and that being so, I could not take such denials in to consideration in determining if a prima facie case of murder was established against Gabe. He submits as a consequence I cannot dismiss Gabe’s claim that he did contact a diver during his ascent.

Faced with the denials on the one hand and Gabe’s contrary assertion on the other I would be less than humane not to concede this has caused me concern as Coroner. I do accept Mr Zillman’s submission that I cannot take the email denials into account in my determination. I therefore treat this issue as if I have no comment from these two divers in that issue."

Source: http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Watson20080620.pdf

If the prosecution does not follow-up with the two divers in question, the defense could isolate the part of the coroner's statement that he could not dismiss Gabe's claim that he did contact a diver. There is also a possibility that with a trial in U.S. jurisdiction, the defense attorneys might win a motion to force the prosecution to contact all the divers once again and make it more difficult and require signed witness statements. If they can't get everyone, the prosecution might lose this point. In addition, the defense should look at the timeframe between the day of Tina's death and the statements the Australian authorities received from the divers in the area. Does every single diver remember emphatically that no one made the contact Watson described given the elapsed time between the date of the incident and the date of police contact?

The prosecution may argue that all divers were in the water that day were aware that someone had just died and the experience and memory of the divers who were in the water at the time Tina died would have been pronounced. I, for example have been in the area where two divers died and even though I did not witness the events directly, the details of my experience in and out of the water on those days are more memorable. If someone had come up and shook me and pointing and seemed to be in distress - I would have remembered that on a day someone died. Of course, this is a conclusion that each juror would have to reach for themselves based on their own personal experience.

Should the prosecution get the necessary proof to the court that no one was contacted by Watson, this last option would be very tricky for the defense as it could be potentially interpreted as another lie. But this particular lie would not be for the purpose of explaining why Watson lied about his panic and leaving his wife, but would be interpreted as a lie to cover-up his deliberately slow ascent rate. This kind of lie takes away from the "stupidity" defense and puts it more in the realm of deliberate and thoughtful concealment of a problem that Gabe did think about - how to explain his slow ascent rate.

Here is what I think the defense could do. Take an average dark-haired male who is not of Asian origin and put him in a mask - perhaps a mask could make him look Asian? Maybe. That would expand the possible number of divers Watson could have contacted and therefore expand the doubt that with more possible divers, the more the possibility that one of them could have forgotten the contact. Expand it one more time to include the possibility of female divers because it is not always easy to tell male from female divers, especially if you are in a panic. (Watson said the diver was an Asian male). I have to be honest, I originally thought the diver in the foreground in "the photograph" was male - turns out it is the wife of the guy who took the picture.

Here is what I think the prosecution could do. Mark-off 45 feet in the courtroom and have someone walk the distance in the amount of time it took Gabe to get to the surface. Even if you cut the 2 minutes and 30 seconds in-half, it will appear agonizingly slow, especially since it took the rescue diver half the time to go three times the distance to recover Tina (Watson was already at 45 feet).

Any other ideas? For prosecution, defense, on this issue, it doesn't matter.

Hi Ayisha.