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
K_girl
Contributor
OK, I was not able to confirm this statement from Dr. Stutz other than from the story of Watson's family speaking out, however, I will go ahead an assume that it is a direct quote from Dr. Stutz' transcript with police. (If the prosecution can leak quotes from the transcript, the defense can too.)
As ItsBruce has strongly argued, the defense will probably make the argument that Dr. Stutz never saw Watson turn off her air. The prosecution will probably argue that Dr. Stutz does not state that he saw Tina pull Gabe's regulator out of his mouth. It does sound like he saw some kind of struggle where something like that could have happened, but he can't go far enough to say that he saw it happen because Gabe's position blocked that view of events. Here is another quote from Dr. Stutz about that moment in time:
"His arms were around her, like an embrace ... his arms were under her armpits and I thought he was trying to bring her to the surface.
Then they split apart, I don't know why – it was hard to see because he was between me and her. Then he headed to the surface and she was sinking looking straight up at me – it was terrible."
Source: Haunted memory | Townsville Bulletin News
The defense should pursue Dr. Stutz' recollection of what it was he thought he saw that made him think that "maybe" Tina had knocked Watson's regulator out his mouth or kneed him in the groin (accidentally?)
Noteworthy for the prosecution on this issue is there is no statement from Dr. Stutz that he saw Watson lose and then replace his mask as Watson stated. If you read the quotes from Dr. Stutz in the above story, his statement reads like he never took his eyes off the incident as it was happening with the exception of getting to the dive instructor, raising the alarm after Tina and Watson split.
So the defense will need to push Dr. Stutz into testifying that there could have been a moment in this timeframe where Watson could have lost and replaced his mask that he did not see. Watson's statement was that as soon as he adjusted his mask back on, Tina was sinking.
"WATSON: ..her hand hit my mask um it knocked my mask sideways so ah I had to, had to let go ah let go and kind of turn back so that I would have some you know that I would have some space cause at that point I didn’t have a mask"
"WATSON: my mask cleared turned back around and at this point she was going down um, I don’t know if ah if she was still kicking or not ah but she was looking up had both her arms out you know reached, stretched up almost like looking at me reaching her arms up to grab.. "
RedCash02
Contributor
It still calls into question his judgment. He was breathing compressed air above atmospheric pressure and was thus potentially suffering from narcosis. There's no one to verify that he was clear-headed. If someone had just popped two Xanax or sleeping pills and was the primary witness, then you can bet it would be called into question. Do I think he was suffering from narcosis? No, but that along with the distance between them and other things can really decrease the credibility of his account.
I know there's plenty more evidence we aren't privy to, but from what I've read so far I think the prosecution is going to have a tough time if they don't reduce the charges. It's definitely going to be interesting to watch this unfold.
ItsBruce
Contributor
1. I am really impressed with the quality of the analysis being done here.
2. I think k_girl's analysis and theory of defense is pretty good, subject to the fact it is based on the limited factual matrix that is available to us. Can we henceforth call it the "Jerk Defense" for short?
3. K_girl may be right about the necessity of putting Watson on the stand. I hate the thought of putting a criminal defendant on the stand, but, depending on what other evidence there is, it may be necessary. There is no question that Watson will get kicked around pretty badly over what seem to be inconsistent and contradictory statements. However, if his own attorney asks about those first (which he gets to do), it might be done in a way that minimizes the harm, i.e. lets him admit to being a jerk who was trying to look good. That way, when the prosecutor uses those to attack on Watson, the jury may be less interested.
4. Bowlofpetunias: I agree with your analysis about diver skills and "AOW." I would expect a good instructor could educate the jury about skills and the fact that just because someone once had a rescue certification, it does not mean they are up to the task of doing a rescue. (I know who I would rely on for this.) Consider this: Q. Do you have an opinion as to how a typical diver would react if his regulator were dislodged while under water? A. Although basic training includes recovering a regulator or getting the backup regulator, based on my knowledge, experience and training, it is my opinion that most divers are not prepared to do so. When they are taking their training, divers are mentally prepared to demonstrate the skill and they do it in their own time. It is different when a regulator is unexpectedly dislodged. Moreover, most divers do not practice recovering their regulatorl after they get certified and therefore forget the skill. Q. If Gabe was holding onto Tina and if she had dislodged his regulator, would you expect him to have been able to recover it without losing his grip on her. A. Given his limited experience and lack of recent dives, I would have expected him to been startled or even panicked and to have forgotten about anything else. In fact, I would not have been surprised if he bolted for the surface.
5. Bowlofpetunias: I'm afraid I must disagree with you relative to rehabilitation versus revenge. I personally do not believe anyone can be rehabilitated by prison. If they can be rehabilitated at all, they probably don't need to be in prison for it. OTOH, prison may be able to retrain a person, much as a shock collar on a dog will train it to keep off the grass. And, even then, I'm not so sure. Punishment serves the purpose of appeasing the rest of society. My only objection to the death penalty is that it puts an end to a convict's punishment. Anyone who deserves the death penalty deserves the discomfort of being in prison for the rest of their life.
6. As far as what the defense attorney may say for the media, I have rarely found such statements to be accurate or worthwhile. How would the attorney have knowledge that would enable him to say that it was the rescuer who Dr. Stutz saw? IMHO, it is just posturing and is just designed to distract or annoy the prosecutor.
7. Aces50 should not answer any questions except to provide references to public information. No good can come of it,but it could cause harm.
8. The defense cannot make a motion or otherwise require the prosecutor to bring in or call any witnesses. The prosecution can put on its case as it wants to. If it wants to call a witness, it may. If it decides not to call someone, it does not need to call him or her. Of course the prosecutor's failure to call a potential witness could open the door to reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution does not need to call every diver who was in the water to ask if he or she was the one Watson went to. However, if the prosecutor doesn't, there is a potential vulnerability.
9. Dr.Stutz' alleged statement about Watson's regulator maybe being dislodged is very helpful to Watson. Having suggested it as a possibility gives Watson a viable argument along the lines discussed above. To refute that argument, the prosecution would need to get Dr. Stutz to say he say that he saw that it did not happen. Given what we've been told, it is unlikely he will do so.
2. I think k_girl's analysis and theory of defense is pretty good, subject to the fact it is based on the limited factual matrix that is available to us. Can we henceforth call it the "Jerk Defense" for short?
3. K_girl may be right about the necessity of putting Watson on the stand. I hate the thought of putting a criminal defendant on the stand, but, depending on what other evidence there is, it may be necessary. There is no question that Watson will get kicked around pretty badly over what seem to be inconsistent and contradictory statements. However, if his own attorney asks about those first (which he gets to do), it might be done in a way that minimizes the harm, i.e. lets him admit to being a jerk who was trying to look good. That way, when the prosecutor uses those to attack on Watson, the jury may be less interested.
4. Bowlofpetunias: I agree with your analysis about diver skills and "AOW." I would expect a good instructor could educate the jury about skills and the fact that just because someone once had a rescue certification, it does not mean they are up to the task of doing a rescue. (I know who I would rely on for this.) Consider this: Q. Do you have an opinion as to how a typical diver would react if his regulator were dislodged while under water? A. Although basic training includes recovering a regulator or getting the backup regulator, based on my knowledge, experience and training, it is my opinion that most divers are not prepared to do so. When they are taking their training, divers are mentally prepared to demonstrate the skill and they do it in their own time. It is different when a regulator is unexpectedly dislodged. Moreover, most divers do not practice recovering their regulatorl after they get certified and therefore forget the skill. Q. If Gabe was holding onto Tina and if she had dislodged his regulator, would you expect him to have been able to recover it without losing his grip on her. A. Given his limited experience and lack of recent dives, I would have expected him to been startled or even panicked and to have forgotten about anything else. In fact, I would not have been surprised if he bolted for the surface.
5. Bowlofpetunias: I'm afraid I must disagree with you relative to rehabilitation versus revenge. I personally do not believe anyone can be rehabilitated by prison. If they can be rehabilitated at all, they probably don't need to be in prison for it. OTOH, prison may be able to retrain a person, much as a shock collar on a dog will train it to keep off the grass. And, even then, I'm not so sure. Punishment serves the purpose of appeasing the rest of society. My only objection to the death penalty is that it puts an end to a convict's punishment. Anyone who deserves the death penalty deserves the discomfort of being in prison for the rest of their life.
6. As far as what the defense attorney may say for the media, I have rarely found such statements to be accurate or worthwhile. How would the attorney have knowledge that would enable him to say that it was the rescuer who Dr. Stutz saw? IMHO, it is just posturing and is just designed to distract or annoy the prosecutor.
7. Aces50 should not answer any questions except to provide references to public information. No good can come of it,but it could cause harm.
8. The defense cannot make a motion or otherwise require the prosecutor to bring in or call any witnesses. The prosecution can put on its case as it wants to. If it wants to call a witness, it may. If it decides not to call someone, it does not need to call him or her. Of course the prosecutor's failure to call a potential witness could open the door to reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution does not need to call every diver who was in the water to ask if he or she was the one Watson went to. However, if the prosecutor doesn't, there is a potential vulnerability.
9. Dr.Stutz' alleged statement about Watson's regulator maybe being dislodged is very helpful to Watson. Having suggested it as a possibility gives Watson a viable argument along the lines discussed above. To refute that argument, the prosecution would need to get Dr. Stutz to say he say that he saw that it did not happen. Given what we've been told, it is unlikely he will do so.
K_girl
Contributor
Dr. Stutz was clear-headed enough to perform CPR on Tina and pronounce her. I don't see the defense spending a lot of time trying to explain possible narcosis, differences in depth and people when there is no evidence or signs of narcosis in Dr. Stutz.
RedCash02
Contributor
I can't imagine narcosis being raised as a possible impairment. No expert witness will ever say that narcosis at 15-20 feet has any real effect whatsoever on someone's ability to see and remember anything as basic as this. Even if they do produce someone to say that, the prosecution could produce any number of real experts who would shoot that down.
SoccerJeni
Scuba Baby
Please forgive me if I am posting this in the wrong thread. I know there are at least 2 of these threads, but I wasn't completely sure which thread was the appropriate one to post this interview.
Here is a link to the interview I saw this morning on Good Morning America with Robin Roberts and Tina's Father.
Australia Honeymoon Death: Father of Allegedly Murdered Bride Seeks Justice - ABC News
Let me know if I need to put this somewhere else or if I didn't link it correctly.
Here is a link to the interview I saw this morning on Good Morning America with Robin Roberts and Tina's Father.
Australia Honeymoon Death: Father of Allegedly Murdered Bride Seeks Justice - ABC News
Let me know if I need to put this somewhere else or if I didn't link it correctly.
K_girl
Contributor
ItsBruce - I think the "jerk defense" is a good name for it. Do you think there is a chance that the defense may be able to prevent the case from going to trial on the jurisidiction issue? Let's say that the prosecution does have evidence that Watson went to Tina's place of work to change her insurance behind her back. I made a potential defense argument about this earlier that falls into the "jerk defense," i.e. Watson knows that scuba diving is very risky, especially for new divers and even though he did not want his wife to die, he wanted to be covered, just in case.
However, it seems to me that the prosecution must stretch Watson's planning into Australia, with a potential argument something like this: Watson's plan to kill Tina continued in Australia, when he and Tina refused the orientation dive to take her on her first ocean dive to 90 feet, well below her open water certification, on a site that he and Tina were both warned, had the potential for strong currents. The planning contiued when he and Tina got out of the water on their first dive attept because he said his computer was beeping and found the battery was in backwards, however, his computer will not beep with the battery in backwards. This was part of his plan to separate himself and Tina from the rest of the group.
So potentially the prosecution could rephrase Watson's defense like this: Watson knows that scuba diving is very risky, especially for new divers on their first deep ocean dive with no dive masters around in potentially strong currents, and even though he did not want his wife to die, he wanted to be covered, just in case. Did Watson know just how dangerous this dive could be in advance?
"WATSON: ..I think he [dive master on the Spoilsport] said and you know that it’s not, not what I would consider a dive that a beginner which is what Tina was, just was not a dive that they I don’t even know if they should be allowed to do it with somebody.."
In addition, Watson was in the water with Tina on their first aborted dive, most divers know that if conditions are rough, they are roughest on the surface and the currents are strongest on the surface. He understood the conditions at that point and yet, they got into the water a second time.
Doesn't the prosecution have to get the whole "planning process" in, in order to prove their point? Is it possible for them to do that?
I assume that it will be a judge or a panel of judges (on appeal) who will adjudicate this issue in pre-trial motions, is that correct?
However, it seems to me that the prosecution must stretch Watson's planning into Australia, with a potential argument something like this: Watson's plan to kill Tina continued in Australia, when he and Tina refused the orientation dive to take her on her first ocean dive to 90 feet, well below her open water certification, on a site that he and Tina were both warned, had the potential for strong currents. The planning contiued when he and Tina got out of the water on their first dive attept because he said his computer was beeping and found the battery was in backwards, however, his computer will not beep with the battery in backwards. This was part of his plan to separate himself and Tina from the rest of the group.
So potentially the prosecution could rephrase Watson's defense like this: Watson knows that scuba diving is very risky, especially for new divers on their first deep ocean dive with no dive masters around in potentially strong currents, and even though he did not want his wife to die, he wanted to be covered, just in case. Did Watson know just how dangerous this dive could be in advance?
"WATSON: ..I think he [dive master on the Spoilsport] said and you know that it’s not, not what I would consider a dive that a beginner which is what Tina was, just was not a dive that they I don’t even know if they should be allowed to do it with somebody.."
In addition, Watson was in the water with Tina on their first aborted dive, most divers know that if conditions are rough, they are roughest on the surface and the currents are strongest on the surface. He understood the conditions at that point and yet, they got into the water a second time.
Doesn't the prosecution have to get the whole "planning process" in, in order to prove their point? Is it possible for them to do that?
I assume that it will be a judge or a panel of judges (on appeal) who will adjudicate this issue in pre-trial motions, is that correct?
K_girl
Contributor
Thank you for the link. There was some new information in this interview. Mr. Thomas talks about a meeting in Watson's attorney's office where he was asked to turn-over all property belonging to Tina. He also was able to ask Gabe a question at that meeting about different versions of the signal that Tina gave Watson. Mr. Thomas says Watson told him she gave the thumbs-up signal to go to the surface, Mr. Thomas said Watson used his thumb to point backwards behind his head and said, no Tina pointed to the anchor line.
I put the full-text in the issues thread in this post: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5608163-post87.html
Similar threads
