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!

Well, the defense will more than likely try to say that Watson could not have turned off her air long enough for her to suffocate - you claimed it takes 6 to 8 minutes to suffocate someone and if her air had been turned back on, she would start breathing again.

From Wikipedia on suffocation:

"people act normally but with no warning they simply feel dizzy and then black out in a matter of seconds as the remaining oxygen in the blood stream is consumed.."

Source: Asphyxia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is unrealistic to think that if Tina did black out within seconds of being deprived of air that her lips would have been water tight around her reg and she would not take water into her lungs, suffer a larygnospasm and then drown.

You said that a person who was dead would be expressionless, as Dr. Stutz described Tina as having a fearful expression on their face. He also said her arms were waving about as she sunk down, waved less and less on her way down. Actually I think what Dr. Stutz saw was Tina had been incapacitated and was drowning. Here is what Wikipedia says about the symptoms of a drowning victim:

Eyes open, with fear evident on the face
Uncontrollable movement of arms and legs, rarely out of the water.

Source: Drowning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What Dr. Stutz saw was the evidence of Tina drowning, already rendered incapacitated from lack of oxygen. With the laryngospasm and probably already taken water into her lungs, it was too late for her to recover with her air turned back on. You say the prosecution has to make the jury believe Tina was already dead when Watson swam away - I say, no that is not necessary. The jury only needs to believe that she was rendered helpless and left to die.

Dr. Stutz says he saw that Watson had a hold of her and then let her go to sink to the bottom. That is not consistent with Watson's statement that Tina was sinking too fast for him to reach her and that was the reason he went for help. It wasn't just a simple statement, it was an elaborate statement that he made to police, describing how she was reaching up to him, begging him with her eyes for him to save her. A moment, as he said, he will never forget. Will a jury be willing to listen to that and believe that because of traumatic amnesia - he made that up to fill-in the gaps? Personally, it would not fly for me. He made that statement to police, not Tina's family. It will be one of the biggest problems Watson will face at trial, together with all of his other inconsistent and elaborate statements.

FFS, why don't you just leave this alone and get yourself a life; you are plumbing the depths of pointless speculation here. He's in jail, he'll be in Alabama very soon and then there'll be a trial and no doubt we'll get it ad nauseum across the media.

I suggest that this thread should be closed down as and when he's charged, perhaps before - there is such a thing as prejudicing a trial and in that light, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the level of detail of the commentary on here.
 
...there is such a thing as prejudicing a trial and in that light, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the level of detail of the commentary on here.
I wouldn't worry about it... there's not a snowball's prayer in hades of anybody who's following this thread being in that jury.
Rick
 
I wouldn't worry about it... there's not a snowball's prayer in hades of anybody who's following this thread being in that jury.
Rick

Not at the moment sure, but it's only a Google click away and I'd be very surprised if jurors didn't do this from time to time.
 
Man charged in Alabama with death of bride in Australia - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Fresh off serving an 18-month prison term in Australia related to the scuba-diving death of his newlywed wife, a U.S. man was arrested Thursday after a grand jury in Alabama indicted him in her death.

Australian media dubbed David Gabriel "Gabe" Watson "The Honeymoon Killer" after his 26-year-old wife, Tina, died in October 22, 2003, while the two were diving at a historic shipwreck off the Great Barrier Reef. The incident occurred about 9,000 miles (14,500 km) from Birmingham, Alabama, where the couple had married 11 days earlier.

Watson, 33, returned to the United States after his wife's death and, five years afterward, remarried. That same year, 2008, he plead guilty in Australia to criminally negligent manslaughter. He finished his sentence there two weeks ago, and was subsequently being held in immigration detention.

On October 28, an Alabama grand jury indicted Watson on two counts -- murder for pecuniary gain and kidnapping where a felony occurred -- according to Donald Valeska, an assistant attorney general for Alabama. Those charges are based on the premise that Watson hatched the plot to kill his wife while in Alabama.

That indictment was made public Thursday, after Watson arrived in Los Angeles, California, and was arrested there, said Valeska.

It was not clear under exactly what circumstances Watson traveled from Australia to the United States. He was being held Thursday night by the Los Angeles police department.

A hearing to extradite him to Alabama is expected to be held early next week in Los Angeles, Valeska said.

His return to the United States had been held up by authorities in Australia, which has a policy of not extraditing suspects to possibly face the death penalty.

Last week, the Australian government agreed to deport Watson after getting assurances from U.S. authorities that "the death penalty would not be sought, imposed or carried out," said Sandi Logan, a spokesman for the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

"We have informed Mr. Watson and his legal representatives of this assurance," Logan said. "We are now satisfied that our international obligations have been met."

In a statement released earlier this month, the Birmingham-based law firm representing Watson -- Bloomston and Basgier -- said that Alabama authorities "manipulated a grand jury." The lawyers claimed state authorities based the indictment on testimony from Tina Watson's immediate family and a sole Helena, Alabama, investigator, saying of the witnesses "none could offer more than emotional testimony and heresay."

Australian authorities investigated Tina Watson's death for six years, and according to inquest findings in June 2008, Townsville, Queensland, Coroner David Glascow pressed for charges after determining that the drowning couldn't be deemed accidental.

According to the inquest, Watson told Glascow that his new bride appeared to panic while 45 feet underwater in the reef, 42 miles off the coast of Townsville. But Glascow cited inconsistencies in Watson's statements, saying that investigators found that "some of Gabe's explanations lacked credibility."

Glascow noted that Tina Watson's father, in a sworn statement, said Watson asked her to maximize her life insurance and make him a beneficiary shortly before their wedding. The insurance company confirmed Watson asked about his wife's insurance policy after her death, according to the coroner.

Watson's attorneys said that their client pleaded guilty in Australia only "for failing to rescue his wife (because) he merely did not do enough to save her."

Even before Thursday's arrest, the case had gained attention internationally and online, including dueling Facebook pages -- "Justice for Tina Watson" and "Support Gabe Watson."

Last month, Watson's lawyer, Brett Bloomston, told reporters that prosecutors' latest legal maneuverings in Alabama were "a desperate attempt at attention."

"While we strongly disagree with the motive, tactics and spirit of the prosecution, Gabe Watson and his family look forward to his being, once-again, vindicated for 'unjust' charges that he did anything intentional to cause the death of his wife, Tina," the law firm said in its statement this month.

"The state of Alabama will know, what the Australians already know: that Gabe Watson is not guilty of causing the death of his wife."
 
FFS, why don't you just leave this alone and get yourself a life; you are plumbing the depths of pointless speculation here. He's in jail, he'll be in Alabama very soon and then there'll be a trial and no doubt we'll get it ad nauseum across the media.

I suggest that this thread should be closed down as and when he's charged, perhaps before - there is such a thing as prejudicing a trial and in that light, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the level of detail of the commentary on here.

I suggest that you stop reading this thread if you have any problems with reading it. This has been mostly a very scholarly analysis that could help the attorneys who are actually involved refine their theories and cases and thereby help find the truth of what transpired.

With the exception of my criticism of myself, there has been no name calling or flaming ... and my self-criticism does not amount to that either.
 
From Wikipedia on suffocation:

"people act normally but with no warning they simply feel dizzy and then black out in a matter of seconds as the remaining oxygen in the blood stream is consumed.."

Source: Asphyxia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In normal circumstances, I would agree. However, assuming Watson had turned her air off while underwater, she would have tried to inhale and would have been unable to do so. She would certainly feel dizzy and black out, but I do not think it would be with no warning. I would expect her to be quite aware of what was happening.

It is unrealistic to think that if Tina did black out within seconds of being deprived of air that her lips would have been water tight around her reg and she would not take water into her lungs, suffer a larygnospasm and then drown.

That makes a great deal of sense. Since the autopsy has not been released to the public, at least as I recall, we do not know if there evidence of that happening.
 
Not at the moment sure, but it's only a Google click away and I'd be very surprised if jurors didn't do this from time to time.
I don't think they are allowed to do that, nor serve without telling the court that they had in the past.

While most will hope not to get selected for a jury, some will want on this one for the subsequent financial possibilities of publishing - which probably needs to be outlawed.
 
Not at the moment sure, but it's only a Google click away and I'd be very surprised if jurors didn't do this from time to time.

When jury is being selected, the candidates are questioned to ensure they have no knowledge of the case or special expertise or knowledge that might cause them to substitute their own knowledge for the actual evidence. Anyone who admits to having read anything like this thread will undoubtedly be excused.

Then, when the jury is empaneled, it will be instructed not to read any accounts or to do any independent research on the matter.

I agree that I would be surprised if jurors didn't violate the rules from time to time. However, that is no reason to stifle a frank and open discussion of issues that are of public importance.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom