Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[k ellis]

I know it's probably hard ACES50, but I would not respond to any requests for information on these public forums. I respectfully ask posters on this forum not to ask him for information. Hopefully you understand, its for obvious reasons.

I personaly dont find it respectful myself for asking questions on here but hes not limited to attorney client privledges. With that in mind hes not restricted to speak of the circumstances however I would also encourage aces50 to give consideration to his responses before he post.

He wants what every parent wants and thats to defend his child just the same as any other parent would. As for how many logged dives he actually had at the time of the incident thats pivotal information and would not be released to the general public.

The state of Alabama is very particular on how it does cases of this sort and I can assure you from experience that they way they handle these cases is in itself torture to go through. ACES50 I dont know any more then the rest of Joe Public but I can say I admire your courage and devotion to your child to go to bat for him in such a heated forum.

What ever the outcome is I pray that your family will find peace.

 

[ItsBruce]

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.

Thanks for posting this. We hope that you follow and participate in this rather interesting topic and discussion.

 

[ItsBruce]

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.

The jurisdictional issue is way beyond my knowledge. My best guess, based on other jurisdictional type issues, is that if the prosecution has evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Watson, while in Alabama, planned to kill Tina, then Alabama would have jurisdiction. And, my best guess would be that even if the jury finds that Watson, while in Alabama, did not plan to kill Tina, that would not end the court's jurisdiction over Watson and it could still find him guilty based just on conduct in Australia.

I do like your thoughts about a legitimate reason Watson might have wanted to change the insurance. However, it could also be framed in terms of the change being just basic prudence in anticipation of their upcoming wedding. Having proper insurance is prudent, not evidence of an intent to cause a loss. I have fire insurance on my house, but I don't plan on burning it down.

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.

I'm a bit lost here. I don't see a need to stretch planning in order to establish jurisdiction. The alleged acts took place in Australia. Regardless, I think you have hit most of the main points as far as evidence that Watson was responsible for Tina's death. Of course, there will need to be evidence of how Watson actually did whatever it was that caused Tina's death. And, the prosecution will certainly focus on the inconsistencies (at least as reported) in Watson's reports.

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?

This is possible, but not likely. The problem is that this may not rise to the level of murder. Lots of people go on dives that are way beyond their skill and training, without even being hurt. Thus, there was no certainty of the outcome and that would negate murder.

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.

You may be giving him too much credit. Good dives with ocean experience would know this. That does not mean Watson did.

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?

The whole process ties things together neatly and thus provides collateral support if the prosecution can show Watson did something to cause Tina's death, i.e. turned the air off.

If the prosecution changes theories, the investigating officers will be cut to ribbons on cross-examination as they all concluded that that is what must have happened (according to the media). That is one reason one should not commit to a position sooner than essential.

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?

Unless Alabama is completely at odds with current rules of procedure, the trial judge will rule on the pre-trial motions. Only if Watson loses and there is an appeal will an appellate panel have to look at whether the trial judge was wrong in denying pre-trial motions.

 

[Ayisha]

...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.

Remember that in Watson's original police interview, he stated something to the effect that there wasn't much current. It wasn't until Gabe decided to go to the police station of his own accord a day or two later armed with the reports of the actual currents, etc. from that fateful day and new information regarding currents and how they may have carried her body away from where he claimed they were diving. He said they were on the wreck but her body was found well off the wreck which could not be replicated by later police testing in nearly identical conditions. One of the investigating officers essentially said that Watson's unsolicited visit, evidence of new research on the conditions, and Watson's need to change the story to fit was when a red flag went up for the investigating officers.

Hi K_girl. It's great to see that you are still working hard on this case. ItsBruce, too.

I do like your thoughts about a legitimate reason Watson might have wanted to change the insurance. However, it could also be framed in terms of the change being just basic prudence in anticipation of their upcoming wedding. Having proper insurance is prudent, not evidence of an intent to cause a loss. I have fire insurance on my house, but I don't plan on burning it down.

bold added

Tina had "proper insurance", so it was not an urgent need before the wedding. What was at issue was the amount of insurance and the beneficiary.

Something that has always struck me is that (if Mr Thomas' claim that she discussed Gabe's request with him is true) Tina felt the need to discuss the request with her father, which could signal concern and apprehension. Not abiding by that request speaks volumes as well. If she did not do it but told him she did, as was claimed, this lie does not bode well for the impending marriage either. Coupled with the verbal, mental and physical abuse (the engagement ring saga, the throwing pizza in her face, belittling her) cited by Tina's sister and the report of Gabe's anger over an alleged affair she had, she was not walking into what would be expected to be a happy and pleasant marriage. If everything was going beautifully, Tina may not have thought twice about making Gabe the sole beneficiary - and probably wouldn't needed to have been asked.

 

[K_girl]

I personaly dont find it respectful myself for asking questions on here but hes not limited to attorney client privledges. With that in mind hes not restricted to speak of the circumstances however I would also encourage aces50 to give consideration to his responses before he post.

He wants what every parent wants and thats to defend his child just the same as any other parent would. As for how many logged dives he actually had at the time of the incident thats pivotal information and would not be released to the general public.

The state of Alabama is very particular on how it does cases of this sort and I can assure you from experience that they way they handle these cases is in itself torture to go through. ACES50 I dont know any more then the rest of Joe Public but I can say I admire your courage and devotion to your child to go to bat for him in such a heated forum.

What ever the outcome is I pray that your family will find peace.

Sorry if it sounded like I was advising ACES50 not to post, that was not my intention. His posts have been thoughtful (even before he revealed himself) and he raised excellent questions and simply asked people to think about it more. He's handled himself with great grace in the face of all the publicity. My only advice was for him not to post any information that is not already in the public realm (which he probably already knows). But he seems like the kind of person who wants to provide some kind of answer when someone asks. I did think that what he posted about the funeral was fine and actually made a lot of sense.

 

[K_girl]

I do like your thoughts about a legitimate reason Watson might have wanted to change the insurance. However, it could also be framed in terms of the change being just basic prudence in anticipation of their upcoming wedding. Having proper insurance is prudent, not evidence of an intent to cause a loss. I have fire insurance on my house, but I don't plan on burning it down.

I have no doubt the defense will frame it that way. Here is how I think the prosecution will frame it: the marriage is not legal until the bride and groom exchange their vows and the person performing the marriage mails off the marriage certificate. So, you have to wonder why Watson gave this such a high priority to beat the legal "I do's" and especially in light of all the hussle and bussle before a wedding ceremony like this with all the trimmings - and to make sure he would receive Tina's insurance when actually, he should not be on the insurance until the marriage is legal. Afterall, some people do change their minds at the last minute - right?

The jury will want a reason he did this. So what is the reason? Well, they are going to Australia and will be scuba diving, a very risky sport. He doesn't want his new wife to die, but just in case, he wants himself on that policy. My point was, it gets riskier and riskier when you take a brand-new diver, who had panic problems (her instructor tried to talk her out of diving), make her feel it's OK to do a dive to 90 feet on her very first ocean dive (she's not certified for), in potentially strong currents, without an experienced dive master. The risk has now been substantially increased. There is no doubt, Watson had not just a hand in the substantial increase of risk, he basically controlled it. It will be up to a jury to determine if it was a plan or not. But he deliberately went against every rule in the book when it comes to scuba diving when it comes to your buddy. Not just one rule, but every single one. He put her life in danger like putting her on the edge of a cliff in a strong wind, all you can say is maybe he did or didn't push her off.

Testimony of Tina's Dive Instructor:

"YOU don't understand ... I don't have any choice. My boyfriend will kill me if I don't get certified.'' American dive instructor Douglas Cleckler was shocked to hear these words from student Tina Watson after she panicked during her first underwater diving lesson.

Mr Cleckler, also an attorney and police officer, was one of five witnesses to give evidence yesterday in the inquest before local coroner David Glasgow into Tina's unexplained diving death.

"I told her she should only be doing this for herself, not for anybody else. Peer pressure has no place in scuba diving. "

"I had the sense that she was being put under total pressure to be out there."

Source: Scuba dive panic | Townsville Bulletin News

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I know it's probably hard ACES50, but I would not respond to any requests for information on these public forums. I respectfully ask posters on this forum not to ask him for information. Hopefully you understand, its for obvious reasons.

I think the link that was posted to give Gabe some support in the public domain is and indication of the position Watson's friends have taken.

I though very carefully before asking that question and ACES50 is an adult who can make his own judgment about what questions to answer or not to answer.

I understand the discomfort of some people at having family members active in threads like these. I don't necessarily agree that they should not participate. If people are uncomfortable having their posts responded to I can understand that as well. IMHO I assume family/loved ones will at some point read what is typed here and try to be sensitive but honest in expressing my opinion.

If the effected people find what is discussed in the public forums too uncomfortable and point it out that is fair enough but ultimately we are all adults who make our own choices. We all must accept responsibility for our actions and responses. If people are too thin skinned they need to make the decision to withdraw for their own sake and not expect everyone to second guess everything they type. On the other end of the spectrum .... read the Quote of Grover48 in my sig line Please... ask yourself are you enjoying being brutal more than being honest.

I have lamented for a very long time the total lack of information about this story from Gabe's perspective. I am delighted to start hearing "The Rest of the Story" and most appreciative that ACES50 has come forward. I will not pull my punches nor do I think anyone should but I will try as always to ensure I do not hit "Below the belt", engage in name calling, flaming or mean spirited exchanges!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Remember that in Watson's original police interview, he stated something to the effect that there wasn't much current. It wasn't until Gabe decided to go to the police station of his own accord a day or two later armed with the reports of the actual currents, etc. from that fateful day and new information regarding currents and how they may have carried her body away from where he claimed they were diving. He said they were on the wreck but her body was found well off the wreck which could not be replicated by later police testing in nearly identical conditions. One of the investigating officers essentially said that Watson's unsolicited visit, evidence of new research on the conditions, and Watson's need to change the story to fit was when a red flag went up for the investigating officers.

Hi K_girl. It's great to see that you are still working hard on this case. ItsBruce, too.

bold added

Tina had "proper insurance", so it was not an urgent need before the wedding. What was at issue was the amount of insurance and the beneficiary.

Something that has always struck me is that (if Mr Thomas' claim that she discussed Gabe's request with him is true) Tina felt the need to discuss the request with her father, which could signal concern and apprehension. Not abiding by that request speaks volumes as well. If she did not do it but told him she did, as was claimed, this lie does not bode well for the impending marriage either. Coupled with the verbal, mental and physical abuse (the engagement ring saga, the throwing pizza in her face, belittling her) cited by Tina's sister and the report of Gabe's anger over an alleged affair she had, she was not walking into what would be expected to be a happy and pleasant marriage. If everything was going beautifully, Tina may not have thought twice about making Gabe the sole beneficiary - and probably wouldn't needed to have been asked.

Well Ayisha nice to see you here again. You have contributed some interesting insights in the past.

Interesting information finally coming to light here. IMHO lies and points of view are fascinating. People often process information in a way to justify their point of view without any real intent to blatent lies. Little adjustments of their stores to support or justify their opinions can become their truth and that stretches further as time goes by. Think of the Chinese Whispers party game!

IMHO both the Thomas and Watson camps (for want of a better word) are telling their truth to the best of their ability. I don't think it is fair to assume one truth is the correct one because it is the most publicized or the first we heard or the last we heard.

Now for the insurance ANGLE. A long time ago I worked in the insurance industry. It was standard procedures to work out "deals" worked with organizations to get "HOT LISTS". WELCOME WAGON, Banks, Real Estate Agents and other organizations/businesses provided lists of their clients for a price. We were assigned these lists to "cold call". We paid for these lists because they were highly effective.

Events that were considered to make someone a good prospect were.... marriage, buying a home, birth of a child, major purchases, graduation etc. Some agents made a good living by phoning anyone who put an engagement announcement, marriage announcement or birth announcement in the paper. Based on my experience in the field I would be surprised if they were not contacted regarding insurance. Part of the "process" is to identify all existing coverages and suggest they be updated to include or provide for the new situation.

Wills are automatically made null and void in some areas by a marriage but Insurance beneficiaries must be changed. Unfortunately I have dealt with a couple situations where insurance was left in the name of an X... the person forgot that.. didn't change it resulting in the wife and kids getting nothing and the X getting the insurance money. I Contesting it did nothing! That is why any agent worth their salt would suggest the beneficiary change and upgrade.
n my experience it is fairly common for people to address these insurance issues before a marriage or to have girlfriend/boyfriend listed as beneficiary so if Gabe did check into this before the wedding I honestly don't see anything ominous in it! The question I would ask.. IF Gabe did go to her work site over the insurance.. how can anyone know if Tina was aware or it or not?

If Tina had told Gabe she changed the insurance one would have to assume he would try to collect it. I certainly would if I saw the writing on the wall regarding potential legal fees and so on.. wouldn't you?

One thing I think we can take as a given based on what Tina's family and Gabes's family have said.... there was animosity and problems before the marriage. From that information which both have made pretty clear... it is not surprising the way things went after the death!

Bruce I actually agree with you with regards to "rehabilitation" I guess it is definition. I don't care if you call adverse reaction therapy (I didn't like prison and I won't do that again so I don't go back) or a change of outlook rehabilitation.. IMHO that is one of the reasons we put people in prison!

My statement was that some people consider death penalty to be inhuman and others consider life in prison less humain. I do support the death penalty in some situations but with great hesitation. I you may have more confidence in the system that I. My greatest concern is that people have been proven innocent posthumously! A live inmate can be released if they are proven innocent... a dead on can not!

I agree ACES50 needs to be careful with what information he gives but I didn't think the number of dives ... which is a fact that can not be changed or refuted if the dive logs are in custody and is information that has been released in the past would cause a problem.

 

[burna]

I have to confess I have been influenced by the reports in the media thus far on Gabe's actions and motives, something that in my line of work I really should know better than to believe even a quarter of media information as 'fact'.

I have recently for the first time read some articles offering an explanation for some of Watson's reportedly 'strange behaviour' and I have to say they sounded perfectly reasonable to me, although perhaps I may not have behaved in the same way, removal of flowers etc, but I don't know the real story behind that either.

I am glad that our (Australian) Government sort appropriate assurances regarding the removal of the death penalty before sending him home and to ACES50, I really do hope he can receive a fair trail and not some sort of lynch mob justice.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

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.

good point. The good doctor mentions pointing the problem out to his INSTRUCTOR and that the instructor indicated he should stay with the group. Another issue that may be raised is... How experienced was the Doctor as a diver at the time of the incident. If he was in a course was he too task loaded in an unfamiliar environment to evaluate things at the level he would perform in the familiar environment of the hospital?

The question of him being in suitable condition to do CPR.. well of course... at his level of training one would expect him to slip into that mind set. Those skills do become pretty much second nature with training and experience!