Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

It is not standard procedure to test evidence in front of a defendant. It is standard procedure for police to tell the defendant about the results of their testing and they can lie about the results if they choose. However, Gabe Watson left Australia shortly after his statements to police and refused their requests to return until he had the plea deal pretty much assured some six years later.

There were two clues in Watson's statements to police that indicated there was more than one piece involved, both in his original released statements and the recent news article. Here is the clue from Watson's original 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.."

From the recent news article, a portion of Watson's statement that is new:

Gehringer: "Have you put a battery in wrong before?"

Watson: "Yeah . . . and I changed both the batteries before I left [the US] and I basically just stuck them in."

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ce-on-dive-death/story-e6frg6zo-1225968580848

So you would have to say that the Australian police completely missed this twice in Watson's statements, or did they? Here is another section from the same news story, which indicates that they did, indeed test both pieces. The Australian detective refers to the batteries as "them" as they tested:

Gehringer: "We initially started with his dive computer and his version in relation to it giving out an audible alarm when he first descended with Tina. We carried out tests on the dive computer in the hyperbaric chamber both with the batteries in correctly and with them in incorrectly and what we found is that with the battery in back to front, the computer merely doesn't work. It's unable to put out an audible alarm."

*****
The news article also paraphrases defense attorneys:

"The transmitter was not tested because the police did not have it, and may not have even been aware of it.."

Or did they no longer need it and returned it to Watson along with some of his other gear? Were they really that inept and missed the transmitter portion? From the same article:

"Detective Gehringer and I sat down and broke down the record of interview and statement of Gabe. Literally at times down to individual lines and phrases and to clearly establish what he alleges occurred under water."

Defense claims:

"There are two components of the dive computer but they did not test both components of the dive computer in the hyperbaric chamber connected to a compressed air supply. As a result, their interpretation of their testing of the dive computer was fundamentally flawed."

So the defense says they did not do what the detective Gehringer says they did do. The only thing missing in Gehringer's statement was connection to a compressed air supply, but I can't imagine they would go through the trouble of testing (both pieces) in a hyperbaric chamber and not use a compressed air supply.

I think there may be more to Gabe's statement about the dive computer that we have not heard yet and he may have been more specific about it. We just don't know at this point. But I have to hand it to the defense, they certainly did a good job of casting doubt in the public forum. They may have very effectively cast doubt on this particular issue because it may be too confusing for a jury to follow.

 

[boulderjohn]

So the defense says they did not do what the detective Gehringer says they did do.

In my one jury experience, all potential jurors sat in the court room and listened to each potential juror being questioned. Every one of them heard the defense attorney say that they would be presenting evidence of a critical failure of police procedure, a failure so grievous that we would have to discard the most important evidence against the client. Would we be willing to accept that evidence when it was presented? We all therefore heard it an untold number of times before the jury was finally set.

Then the trial progressed, and the we reached the part of the prosecution's case where the procedure was described. It looked like a pretty routine, hard-to-screw-up procedure. The defense attorney asked if they had screwed it up, and they said no, they didn't--such a mistake was unthinkable.

The defense didn't present a shred of evidence on its own that the procedure had been screwed up or that it was really even possible that it was screwed up.

In his 90 minute closing statement, the defense attorney said over and over again that we had heard repeatedly that the procedure had been screwed up.

Yes, we had--but only from him.

You have to look at the actual evidence--what attorneys say about the evidence is not worth much, IMO.

 

[DandyDon]

Here are more references to biased evidence claims: Death on the reef: evidence slanted | The Australian mentions a few points...

QUEENSLAND police who spent five years investigating the scuba-diving death of an Alabama woman on her honeymoon misstated key evidence.

The evidence was presented to the media in ways that made it appear more likely her husband murdered her.

The key evidence was misstated as recently as four months ago in a two-part special by the ABC's Australian Story, in which Gabe Watson was depicted as a cold-blooded and sociopathic murderer of his wife of 11 days, Tina, an examination by The Australian shows.

The program, strongly slanted against Watson, omitted facts and findings which would have shown his actions in a different light. It has added momentum to a powerful public push for Watson to be tried for murder in Alabama where he will this morning face a bail hearing.

Watson has strenuously protested his innocence of murder. Having pleaded guilty to being criminally negligent for failing to rescue Tina, 26, when she got into difficulty on the October 2003 dive on the Great Barrier Reef, he was convicted of manslaughter last year.

The Queensland Court of Appeal said he was wrongly accused of murder, and that he had been grief-stricken over the death of his wife whom he had abandoned when he made a reprehensible decision to go to the surface to seek help.

The Weekend Australian reported how police probing the case had made an error in the testing of Watson's dive computer, which led the detectives to come to an early and strongly adverse view that he was lying to them about a beeping alarm minutes before Tina's fatal dive.

The adverse view had a profound impact on the police probe, propelling it in a direction sought by Tina's parents who have relentlessly lobbied Queensland and Alabama authorities to pursue Watson for murder.

In misstating key evidence, police have claimed that Watson, who they suspect turned off Tina's air tanks and then turned the air back on when she was dead, deliberately did not rush to the surface to raise the alarm.

Detective Senior Constable Kevin Gehringer told Australian Story in August: "He said he rocketed to the surface to seek help."

Detective Sergeant Gary Campbell, the lead officer on the case, added: "It took him between two and three minutes. That was classed by some as literally pedestrian."

Widespread reporting of the case has almost universally adopted a slow ascent as fact, contrary to sworn evidence at the 2008 inquest in which a police expert said the dive computer data showed the ascent could have been as quick as one minute 10 seconds. This is a relatively fast ascent, on a par with the rapid ascent of Tina's rescuer.

The claim that Watson went slowly is also contrary to the first statement of witness Stanley Stutz, who described Watson going to the surface "really quickly" when Dr Stutz gave a statement to police on the day Tina died.

Criminal lawyers said Queensland police would be fiercely examined by Watson's legal team in Alabama over their probe and comments made to the media.

The then coroner in the Queensland inquest, David Glasgow, praised the efforts of the detectives in 2008 for having "produced to my inquiry as detailed and complete a picture as I have seen in my role as a coroner".

Mr Glasgow charged Watson with murder in 2008 but the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions, Tony Moynihan SC, abandoned the circumstantial case as too weak to run.

Mr Glasgow, a judicial officer, also appeared on Australian Story in August and has since been reported stating that he would be prepared to go to Alabama to give evidence if asked.

 

[K_girl]

DandyDon - this is key in the defense's favor if true. Please post to the issues thread as well.

"Widespread reporting of the case has almost universally adopted a slow ascent as fact, contrary to sworn evidence at the 2008 inquest in which a police expert said the dive computer data showed the ascent could have been as quick as one minute 10 seconds. This is a relatively fast ascent, on a par with the rapid ascent of Tina's rescuer.

The claim that Watson went slowly is also contrary to the first statement of witness Stanley Stutz, who described Watson going to the surface "really quickly" when Dr Stutz gave a statement to police on the day Tina died."

******
I did not see anything in Dr. Stutz' interviews that he observed a rapid ascent to the surface. His testimony was more about observing Tina after the bear-hug diver left. The accusation would be not only of how information was released to the media, but how the Coroner's Inquiry considered the evidence. From the Coroner's Report:

"Counsel also relies upon what he submits to be inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses and, in particular the evidence of Dr Stutz, as well as conclusions and assumptions drawn by witnesses and police from their misinterpretation of the evidence including;

1. Evidence of dive computer readings
2. The estimates of Gabe’s ascent rate following his separation from Tina
3. Gabe’s previous and recent dive experience
4. Gabe’s actions as a trained rescue diver
5. The evidence of the rate of flow of the current on the day" to establish that there are clear discernable explanations which are consistent with the innocence of his client Gabe Watson.
I am satisfied there is evidence of sufficient reliability on each of these identified matters which, when viewed in the context of all of the evidence, satisfy me, that a properly instructed jury, could make a finding of guilt against David Gabriel Watson on a charge of Murder."

I expect we may hear some public rebuttal on this as well. I believe that the expert lower time estimate would have been based on the idea that Watson had gone up to an asian male on the anchor line and tried to get their attention by shaking them, thus lessening the "ascent time". The Coroner's Report interviewed all divers on the boat in the area that day and everyone denied that happened. This is really not new, just a new interpretation of what is already out there.

What will be important about the computer data will be Watson's claim that he "shot to the surface." His computer would have given an ascent alarm and if it's not there, it's just not there. I have a graphic of my Oceanic computer that can use the same software as Gabe Watson's. Will post soon.

 

[DandyDon]

Yep, when you download dive date from an Oceanic dive computer, rapid ascents are quite noticeable. It's either there or not. Amazing that disagreements on this still exist. Depending on how one sets sampling of the computer, the info is still evident.

 

[K_girl]

From the article:

"Widespread reporting of the case has almost universally adopted a slow ascent as fact, contrary to sworn evidence at the 2008 inquest in which a police expert said the dive computer data showed the ascent could have been as quick as one minute 10 seconds. This is a relatively fast ascent, on a par with the rapid ascent of Tina's rescuer."
*****
Except that the Australian detectives said it took the rescuer between one and two minutes to get all the way to the bottom, retrieve Tina and bring her to the surface. Watson said he left Tina between 45 and 54 feet.
****
From the article:

"The claim that Watson went slowly is also contrary to the first statement of witness Stanley Stutz, who described Watson going to the surface "really quickly" when Dr Stutz gave a statement to police on the day Tina died."
****
This makes it it sound like Watson did a fast ascent from the point of leaving Tina. Here is the portion of Dr. Stutz' statement that I could find:

"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

Here is what Watson says in his statement:

"WATSON: controlled ascent, no

LAWRENCE: or emergency ascent?

WATSON: oh it was, well no, when I got to the line from there I turned and just went up...

WATSON: I didn’t I didn’t turn and keep looking back or anything I just picked a spot and went and so I saw the people, went up to them..

WATSON: you know the only thing I did in going up there you know kicking back was I made sure that you know as I was going back to the rope that I wasn’t going up quicker than the bubbles were.."
*****
Confusing, either Dr. Stutz did see Watson head for the surface (but didn't find where he said "quickly") or Watson headed for the line where people were and didn't go up faster than his bubbles as he stated. I'm not sure how the defense can say he did both.

On another note regarding the ascent alarm:

"SGT LAWRENCE: ..the `rapid ascent alarm' in his scuba equipment had not activated"

Source: The hug of death | Townsville Bulletin News

 

[K_girl]

Watson was granted bail:

Honeymoon killer Gabe Watson granted bail | The Australian

Reasons were that it was circumstantial case and that Watson had gone to Australia to face charges. I personally don't have a problem with this. This is a very detailed case and I think Watson's attorneys are doing a great job both in terms of getting him bail and re-spinning the media for their client. I think they will press for a quick trial, making it difficult for the prosecution to get the evidence and witnesses together (I think there were 65 of them). I've heard that they are top-notch lawyers.

 

[DandyDon]

With the beeping computer fiasco, and now evidence that he did indeed ascend quickly - albeit muddled, I'm not clear on what the Aussies thot they did have on him, so much that he folded on the plea deal?

If he honestly gave in on the plea as an admission of being a poor dive buddy, I can name several personally who need prosecuting. Just sounds lame. I'd feel awful if I let a buddy/wife down in the water, who then died, and I'd be willing to do almost anything other than admit guilt to a crime.

 

[K_girl]

Watsons' dive computer is an Oceanic DataTrans which has PC upload capability. See: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5411863-post57.html

"WATSON: So, from that point, I just pretty much turned and pretty much just rocketed to the top. You know, I’m amazed that I didn’t end up with the bends or something.."

If Watson had rocketed to the top, his dive computer would have recorded an ascent alarm.

"SGT LAWRENCE: ..the `rapid ascent alarm' in his scuba equipment had not activated"

Source: Final words | Townsville Bulletin News

I also have an Oceanic dive computer and all Oceanics use a software program called Oceanlog. Below, I have captured a profile from a recent dive shown below. The dive was very "surgy" in spots and I experienced three very short dive ascent alarms. None of them lasted longer than the sampled 15 second interval. If watson had rocketed all the way to the top, the ascent alarm would have lasted through the entire rapid ascent. Here is a sample of a dive profile that prosecutors should be able to download from Watson's computer and create from the Oceanlog software:

The orange lines over the blue profile show the three ascent alarms on my dive. The software actually blinks the "slow" and the ascent bar just as it does on the dive computer. In addition, it will be very powerful if the ascent shows any dips down, meaning, he would have stopped and kicked down during the ascent. As you can see, I had several during my safety stop. There are two points in this dive that you could potentially determine that I was starting an ascent. This will be a matter of interpretation and may be difficult to pinpoint, depending on what the profile looks like. However, the most important data will be the ascent alarm or the lack thereof and any dips down during the ascent.

 

[DandyDon]

Watsons' dive computer is an Oceanic DataTrans which has PC upload capability. See: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5411863-post57.html

Yeah, I have had 3 different models of Oceanic computers over the decade, altho I did not get into the log downloading until a few years ago - but I have downloaded several, noticed mistakes I'd made in the water that I hadn't realized before and made some changes in my diving. I presume his log would be similar to how yours and mine look, except with his info.

"WATSON: So, from that point, I just pretty much turned and pretty much just rocketed to the top. You know, I’m amazed that I didn’t end up with the bends or something.."

I don't think he was down long enough to be a bends risk, more of an embolism possibility ascending rapidly and in a possible panic - but then my general view of his diving is that he only thought he knew how.

If Watson had rocketed to the top, his dive computer would have recorded an ascent alarm.

"SGT LAWRENCE: ..the `rapid ascent alarm' in his scuba equipment had not activated"

Source: Final words | Townsville Bulletin News

Well, yes - it should record the ascent alarm as well as an approximation of his ascent rate, depending on if he had the sampling rate at 15 seconds like you & I do, or less, or on feet. Whichever, it would show exactly what he did as far as time and depth - even tho not whether he went straight up or at an angle.

But by the Sgt's statement, I take it that he had the Alarm in the Off selection, so he wouldn't have heard anything even if tho it would flash SLOW, which he would not have looked at under the described circumstances, yet would record the dive as illustrated in your graph - showing a rapid climb, no dipping, and orange Alerts.

I have never dived mine with Alarm Off. I suppose one might if he didn't want to hear beeping or have other divers know that he was violating, but still planned to watch it closely. I follow a camera much too much to dive with Alarm Off. My home bud dives the same brand mostly so I can read his altho his getting better after his first time in Deco but not knowing. I asked "Did you not hear your computer beeping?!" "Yeah, what was that about?"

I also have an Oceanic dive computer and all Oceanics use a software program called Oceanlog. Below, I have captured a profile from a recent dive shown below. The dive was very "surgy" in spots and I experienced three very short dive ascent alarms. None of them lasted longer than the sampled 15 second interval. If watson had rocketed all the way to the top, the ascent alarm would have lasted through the entire rapid ascent. Here is a sample of a dive profile that prosecutors should be able to download from Watson's computer and create from the Oceanlog software:

I'll not show your graph in the quote again as redundant pics can slow page loading but anyway - I know well the Oceanic ascent beep. Heard it many, many times. Looking at your pic, looks like you had one early in the dive, then on ascent, and maybe there was another close to it that I can't tell from the pic. I am really looking forward to see his dive graph if it is ever made available, as based on the above - he would not hear anything but the rate and the recorded alarms would still be there.

The orange lines over the blue profile show the three ascent alarms on my dive. The software actually blinks the "slow" and the ascent bar just as it does on the dive computer. In addition, it will be very powerful if the ascent shows any dips down, meaning, he would have stopped and kicked down during the ascent. As you can see, I had several during my safety stop. There are two points in this dive that you could potentially determine that I was starting an ascent. This will be a matter of interpretation and may be difficult to pinpoint, depending on what the profile looks like. However, the most important data will be the ascent alarm or the lack thereof and any dips down during the ascent.

I wish we could see that dive graph in high resolution but any view would be helpful. I assume that both the Defense and the Prosecution are following this thread. It would be nice if one of them would furnish it to us in some way.