Watson Murder Case - Discussion

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Edit: PS Here's a report from todays press Watson's lawyer still fears death penalty

I have to say, I agree with Watson's lawyer on a couple of things. First, even though the U.S. document is a diplomatic document - it should be about and only about Watson, therefore he should have the right to see it. Second, Troy King saying that Australia's requirement that there be no death penalty amounting to exortion is completely stupid. Yes, it's what they like to hear in the conservative south, but he needs Australia's cooperation for a trial. He agreed to not apply the death penalty to Watson - he should accept that and shut the h*ll up.
 
That's kind of weird because Dr. Stutz said that the person who gave Tina the "bearhug" let go of her and she drifted to the bottom. That doesn't sound like a rescue to me.
Yeah, there must have been two bear hugs - the one to kill, and the one to retrieve - based on that info?

I imagine that Troy King is elected to office so for him to continue in that position or run for another office, he feels he has to go for the death publicly as much as possible. My last Marine Corps Reserve CO was an attorney who went on to become elected DA, then state senator, then university chancellor for the big bucks.

article-1191035-05399616000005DC-381_468x341.jpg

By an extraordinary chance, her body, lying face up on the ocean bottom, was inadvertently photographed by another diver who was taking an underwater picture of a friend. A third diver, swimming to Tina's help - in vain - was also caught on the camera.

Read more: Husband admits manslaughter of bride Tina Watson who drowned during honeymoon scuba dive | Mail Online

I had found a pic of one of the hugs, but cannot find it now.

I got to wonder about the overall negative effect this and that stupid left at sea movie is having on the sport, especially for Australia dive trips.
 
K_Girl: I disagree with your hearsay analysis. If (1) the witness "gamed" the testimony the way you say he might, (2) Watson was convicted, and (3) I was an appellate justice, there would have to be some extraordinary evidence against him or I would be very strongly inclined to reverse for prejudicial error. Hearsay is hearsay and the law does not condone playing games with it in an effort to get it before a jury. The only ones who can testify as to what Watson purportedly said is someone who heard it.

The hearsay issue is NOT what Tina said to her father, but what Tina told her father what Watson said to her.

This is, just about exactly the definition of "hearsay."

Tina's father already testified at the grand jury hearing, leading me to believe that what Tina's father had to say did not fall under the hearsay rule.

The rules of evidence do not apply before the Grand Jury because there is no defense counsel to object.

There is a part of the conversation between Tina and her father that is not hearsay which is the advice that Tina's father gave Tina with regard to what to do about what Gabe asked Tina to do.

What Tina's father told Tina is admissible. No problem. I don't think a good judge will let him give a reason for it unless it was that Tina was thinking about changing the insurance. However, as soon as he tries to "shoehorn in" that it was because Watson had wanted her to change the insurance, it is hearsay, even if it is disguised. And, to the extent Tina's father may try to get it in by suggesting he thought Watson wanted Tina to increase the insurance, it is inadmissible as speculative.

Tina's father's statement could go something like this and would not be hearsay: "I advised my daughter not to up her insurance and change the beneficiary as her fiance wanted until she returned from her honeymoon."

As soon as he gets to "as her fiance wanted," it is either hearsay or speculative.


...As he is allowed to say what his daughter believed Watson wanted her to do.

The speculation objection is sustained and the testimony is stricken.

In addition, if the prosecution produces the witness or documentation proving that Watson came by Tina's place of work in order to change her life insurance policy (as I quoted in an earlier post), that will give credibility and corroboration to Tina's father's statement.

A witness who heard Watson can testify to that. No problem. But, it won't be corroborating anything. There is nothing admissible to corroborate.

BTW: If Tina's father does say something about advising Tina to wait until they got home to change the insurance and that this was because Watson had wanted her to do it before they left, and if defense counsel asks him how he knows this, it does not "open the door" for hearsay or speculation. A good judge will likely keep out what Tina may have told her father about Watson's alleged desires. In that case, Tina's father will be impeached over his initial statement.

And, as if that is not enough, the defense will be able to argue that her father is biased and not worthy of belief about anything. After all, so the argument will go, Tina's father so disliked Watson that even before the wedding, he told Tina not to put Watson, the man she was about to marry, on her life insurance policy. Why suggest that unless you really dislike the guy?

This is all notwithstanding that the reasonable thing to do is to put your fiance on your life insurance policy when you get married. As soon as the two say "I do," Watson has become responsible for Tina and any obligations she incurs. So, why shouldn't he be named beneficiary? Its not like the insurance company gives a grace period after the wedding.
 
I really like getting to analyze this case on the forums. I keep finding interesting twists. Here is another:

There is a reference to Dr. Stutz saying he saw someone who had Tina in a bear hug, that there was terror in her face, and that the someone let her sink. The pieces just don't seem to fit the hypothesis that Watson killed her by turning off her air.

For there to have been terror in Tina's face, she would have had to be alive with her air turned off. If she was already dead, then there would not have been a look of terror. It would have been a look of death. If her air was on, then what caused her death? You can't say the doctor saw the hug as Watson was turning the air back on or immediately after that because if he turned it on while Tina was still alive, then she would not have died from lack of air. And, of course, it is undisputed that her air was on when she was recovered. So when could Watson have turned the air off long enough for Tina to have died from it?
 
I got to wonder about the overall negative effect this and that stupid left at sea movie is having on the sport, especially for Australia dive trips.

Not very much I would have thought, certainly no more than Aussie tourists would be deterred from visiting the US by seeing things like No Country For Old Men and the usual thrice nightly diet of gun murders we see on our courtesy of the Hollywood TV industry.

Personally, the thing that deters me from diving in northern Queensland is that the diving isn't anywhere near as good as SE Asian destinations like Bali, (not close in on dayboats anyway); customer service isn't as good and costs twice the price for food, accommodation etc and it only takes a couple of hours longer to fly to Indonesia from my part of Australia (The Deep South) than it does to get to Cairns. Also SE Asia doesn't inflict the Qld H & S regs on it's diving customers and they don't seem to produce quite the same number of overbearing dive-masters either.

I doubt I''ll visit Far North Qld again and that's got nothing to do with fear of bubble wrap salesmen drowning me (or not) for the life insurance.
 
They mentioned this on the Australian Story program that I linked to (maybe in the other thread?)

What they didn't say, nor has anyone else that I'm aware, is didn't Dr Stutz not think this was unusual behaviour?

Why didn't he rush to her aid?

Didn't he think it was worth mentioning to someone afterwards?

If I remember correctly, in the program I mentioned above they said that Dr Stutz didn't mention any of this to anyone until he was interviewed, as a matter of course, by Police several months later!!!

Looks like the "Australian Story" is no longer available. However, I did type out the transcript of Dr. Stutz' video police interview from that story in this post.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5412515-post60.html

Here is a report of Dr. Stutz' testimony at the Coroner's Inquest:

Haunted memory | Townsville Bulletin News

Hopefully these should answer your questions. In short, Dr. Stutz only an open water certified diver and was training for his advanced certification and he tried to raise the alarm, but the instructor motioned to him to remain with the group. Very shortly thereafter, he saw the dive master who brought Tina up, go after her. He thought the diver who had Tina in a bear hug was trying to help her, but then lets her go and swims away, letting her float helplessly downward. I can understand a feeling of confusion trying to process what he just witnessed at the time he was witnessing it.
 
I really like getting to analyze this case on the forums. I keep finding interesting twists. Here is another:

There is a reference to Dr. Stutz saying he saw someone who had Tina in a bear hug, that there was terror in her face, and that the someone let her sink. The pieces just don't seem to fit the hypothesis that Watson killed her by turning off her air.

For there to have been terror in Tina's face, she would have had to be alive with her air turned off. If she was already dead, then there would not have been a look of terror. It would have been a look of death. If her air was on, then what caused her death? You can't say the doctor saw the hug as Watson was turning the air back on or immediately after that because if he turned it on while Tina was still alive, then she would not have died from lack of air. And, of course, it is undisputed that her air was on when she was recovered. So when could Watson have turned the air off long enough for Tina to have died from it?

Hi ItsBruce - well, certainly I have no experience with the looks on the faces of dead people, but she may have been incapacitated and in the process of dying or perhaps it is possible for people to have died with fear on their face. Are you absolutely sure that people die completely expressionless? This is interesting because this is something I think might come up in the jury room, but perhaps not brought up as a point in the trial. As a juror, unless I had an expert that told me people never die with an expression of fear on their face, I might not necessarily be convinced that is an issue for consideration one way or the other. So maybe the defense should be out there looking for an expert to make this point. Then they would still have to get past the point that she could have been incapacitated but not necessarily dead at the moment Dr. Stutz saw her face. By the way, Dr. Stutz also witnessed the recovery of Tina, he said her eyes were open and vomit coming out of her mouth. He said at that point, he knew she was dead or dying.

On the hearsay issue though - do you really think that they will keep Mr. Thomas' testimony out? We are talking about the conservative south here. Is hearsay equally applied in all states? I have to believe that the prosecution believes that they will get it in since Mr. Thomas' testimony is a part of the reason that they believe they have jurisdiction. If they can't get his testimony in and they don't produce the witness or documentation at Tina's workplace, I don't think they can prove that he plotted to kill Tina in the U.S. As many people here have pointed out, just the act of purchasing or collecting insurance is not proof of intent.

On the other hand, there was another report that he went to Tina's workplace to collect on her life insurance. This would mean that he expected that he was on the insurance policy before their wedding and honeymoon. If he went to Tina's workplace behind her back to get the policy changed, but was told no, and then he came back to collect after her death, then you could assume that he talked to Tina to get it changed before they left (since he was unable to). Then all you need from Mr. Thomas is the advice he gave to Tina which was to tell Watson that she had changed the policy before they left, but to actually do it when she got back.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. What I also wonder about.. did this person come forward to mention Mr Watson checked about insurance before or after all the publicity about the "Honeymoon killer":hm:
 
Dandydon
The picture you saw depicting the bearhug was a reinactment done by Queensland police, done to strengthen their theory.
 

Back
Top Bottom