Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[bowlofpetunias]

Here people often take the first aid and CPR component as a separate course with an agency specializing in those.. ie ST John Ambulance, RED Cross etc. The Rescue Course may be taken as a separate course. I have had a lot of people come through my classes for this reason.

It sounds to me like the lawyer may have been talking about only the Open Water part of the course and excluding the theory and Pool sessions. I have no problem with that. It is the lawyer's job to use information to make the point in a way that helps their client after all!

 

[Trickie Dickie 99]

Trickie - as I told ACES50 - I intend to keep talking about the case. If you don't like it - too bad. He may or may not find that what is being said here will help prepare for his son's defense. His defense team will be looking to counter every prosecution argument. If a point that I have made helps the defense successfully prepare an argument against it - I actually have no problem with that. I was surprised because I did not think this discussion would matter to anyone. If he is looking to put a stop to negative public opinion, that is a very large order that can never be stopped.

You're surprised???? What utter rubbish. Search Gabe/Tina Watson on google and SB will be amongst the hits you get.

Thought? Well as my grandmother used to say, "You know what thought did? Thought followed the sh_tcart and thought it was a wedding". I'd have thought it was patently obvious that people with somewhat more of an interest than titillation and public soap opera would get to read this.

However, if there is to be no trial or if Watson is found not guilty, the case is over, justice has been served and the Thomas' will have to move on with their lives.

Well I'm sure everyone in the legal community will be relieved about that.

I have kept my observations respectful. I have not disrespected either Gabe or Tina's family.

Not disrespectful? Well I'm sure his Dad will be very relieved to read that - personally, I get the impression from reading this that it's been a basis of your crusade that Gabe Watson is an irredeemable psychopath, you come across as a a veritable tricoteuse. You've been bagging the cr@p out of the Australian authorities for their apparent collusion in some sort of conspiracy (and who knows why?) to treat him more leniently than he deserves. To put it mildly, I don't see that he's been given much benefit of the doubt.

Let me just say that in my job, it is my job to inform attorneys fully of any weaknesses I find. If you don't know what the other side is going to argue, how can you possibly defend against it?

Well good for you; I'm sure if they need you, the defence and/or prosecution lawyers will be in contact very soon and be very grateful for the wonderul unpaid work you've done in ensuring that justice is done. In the meantime, I find your apparent fascination for all this, sorting through the entrails of every media report, the endless speculation in anything which results in the bloke being metaphorically strung up, to be distasteful and verging on the unnatural. Life, in particular other peoples' lives is evidently one big soap opera as far as people like you are concerned. You really do need to take a god look at yourself, from where I'm sat, you come across as both ghoulish and naive.

I'll be honest, after watching a single TV programme on this event, I was convinced that the bloke was a miscreant but after a couple of days, I calmed down a bit, realised that neither me or the media would be in possession of all the facts and tried to be a bit more objective about it and that's it.

Did he murder her? I've no idea, he's certainly guilty of manslaughter, because that's a matter of proven fact but as for all the other speculation, I think that's best left to the courts, officially constituted courts that is, not kangaroo courts of weirdos on the internet.

Should he be tried for murder? Again, I'm no expert in Aus or Alabaman law but if the people who are experts and who are appointed to make that decision think there's a case to be heard, then fine, that's their prerogative to make that decision but in the meantime in a case as complicated as this, it's the job of the courts assisted by the respective lawyers to make the final decision rather than weirdos on the internet.

 

[K_girl]

Trickie - I've tried to respond to you and explain myself to you in a respectful way, but you have resorted to name-calling. I don't care for people like that. Therefore, I have already put you on my "ignore" list, so don't bother to respond. If you put me on your "ignore" list, we will both be happy.

 

[K_girl]

It sounds to me like the lawyer may have been talking about only the Open Water part of the course and excluding the theory and Pool sessions. I have no problem with that. It is the lawyer's job to use information to make the point in a way that helps their client after all!

True - both sides will do it and then the other side has to try to make sure the jury has all the information to consider. I imagine the defense will call PADI rescue certification into question. But this is not intended as a invitation to start slamming PADI certifications. Personally, I think it is up to each diver to take away from the education they receive, practice it and keep it current.

I'm not into the argument that Gabe Watson was a certified rescue diver and had the ability and duty to rescue Tina, which is basically what he pled guilty to not "living up to" in Australia. My problem is a witness observed that Gabe had a hold of Tina, he let her go, he didn't kick down after her as he claimed, she sank and he swam away from her. I would have a problem with that whether or not he was rescue certified.

 

[k ellis]

Should he be tried for murder? Again, I'm no expert in Aus or Alabaman law but if the people who are experts and who are appointed to make that decision think there's a case to be heard, then fine, that's their prerogative to make that decision but in the meantime in a case as complicated as this, it's the job of the courts assisted by the respective lawyers to make the final decision rather than weirdos on the internet.

Alabama Law is no diffrent then any other state in the union with respects to its laws. I have only got to read a small portion of this thread due to time constraints but the way the case will be handled is really a simple process that everyone should agree in the least as being fair though.

The simple facts that are straight forward are that a young lady is deceased and her husbands story has for what ever reason cast doubt due to statements found inaccurate by investigators and prosicution (Cant spell tonight) and this in turn has cast a degree of suspicion on him. These are simple facts that cant be disputed.

Now for the questions that we dont have the answers too is first we are only hearing what the media has released and to a small degree its apparent we have members of at least one of the couples families here.

Did he commit murder or was it a simple act of oh crap. We all sit here behind our computers and review the facts with all sorts of time to say things like he should have done this or he should have done that but the truth is no one in the forum can imagine whats going through a loved ones mind when in crisis. Can anyone trully say they would react a certain way facing a potential loved ones death and the only one able to stop it would be us?

Sure we have heard an eye witness state he saw the husband grab the wife. That is a fact released to the media. But the question is was what he thought he was seeing trully what he really saw? We dont know because its evidence in a potential murder trial and by releasing those facts could comprimise one or both of the sides. We have heard that he saw her just drift away from him but do we know what was going through his mind at that time? Evidence we have been made aware of suggest that this would not be the normal reaction of a loved one to just watch his spouse die. But do we know if there was more details in this then we have been told?

What if she was loosing conciousness at depth (Not exactly impossible) and he was trying to help her to the surface and in an act of desperation dropped his weights as he was taught to do in an emergency? We dont know if this was the case or not as again hard facts are reserved for the court room.

We have heard the story line that his computer indicated he did a 3 minute safety stop which would be damning if it were true but again the hard fact on that is that its reserved for the court room and not johny public.

The irony of this whole situation is that we see a small fraction of the problem and we say no normal person would do the things that he did. Yet it has been proven time and time again even among life saving professionals that just because every day you go out and save faceless victims who you dont even know doesnt mean that when you have to save your own family you wont over react due to the over whelming impact you are faced with and that this is not Jane Doe but instead your loving wife. When you put it into that prospective the rules all but change and even the most seasoned and well trained person will begin to make mistakes simply because of desperation.

Hell have his turn in court and we will all soon enough be made aware of the outcome. What most of us dont see or understand is the tearing at the families we and the rest of the world are doing to everyone involved by blasting one side or the other before they have a chance to prove their case or get proven wrong. If he is guilty then think of what blasting him in front of his family is doing not only to him but to his family and his loved ones and friends. They need their strength for when he stands before the judge and or jury.

We are all entitled to our opinions and theres no better way to express that then to debate things like this but keep in mind also that as any member on this board whos been around can tell you just be careful because statements can ignite some nasty lawsuits too.

 

[DandyDon]

Pretty good post up to here....

What most of us dont see or understand is the tearing at the families we and the rest of the world are doing to everyone involved by blasting one side or the other before they have a chance to prove their case or get proven wrong. If he is guilty then think of what blasting him in front of his family is doing not only to him but to his family and his loved ones and friends. They need their strength for when he stands before the judge and or jury.

Then they shouldn't be reading discussions like this. Or if they want to read in hopes of learning something, ok cool.

If I understand correctly, doesn't the prosecution have to supply all evidence to the defense prior to trial - no surprises...?

 

[k ellis]

Pretty good post up to here....

Then they shouldn't be reading discussions like this. Or if they want to read in hopes of learning something, ok cool.

If I understand correctly, doesn't the prosecution have to supply all evidence to the defense prior to trial - no surprises...?

My point exactly they supply it within the confines of the judicial system but not in the public. If they release it to the public it could sway public opinion and comprimise their clients right to a fair trial.

As for the not need to read discussions like this I would think I would be reading them if it were me to see what public opinion is and to see what kind of monster my family has been painted out to be. I never said people should not speak as its everyones right as americans to speak their opinion I was just stating that people should keep in mind that families will read things on what public opinion is

They may not be reading to hear only good news though they may be reading to see if by some miracle of God a witness who was there may be talking about what happend and get the evidence they need to prove their side as well as give the closure they seek.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Alabama Law is no diffrent then any other state in the union with respects to its laws. I have only got to read a small portion of this thread due to time constraints but the way the case will be handled is really a simple process that everyone should agree in the least as being fair though.

Welcome aboard the roller coaster k ellis! Maybe some of us will agree on the process being fair but I sure wouldn't hold my breath waiting for everyone to do so. A lot of people seem to be pretty invested in the positions they have assumed on this.

The simple facts that are straight forward are that a young lady is deceased and her husbands story has for what ever reason cast doubt due to statements found inaccurate by investigators and prosicution (Cant spell tonight) and this in turn has cast a degree of suspicion on him. These are simple facts that cant be disputed.

Now for the questions that we dont have the answers too is first we are only hearing what the media has released and to a small degree its apparent we have members of at least one of the couples families here.

I think the second paragraph is a pretty factual too

Did he commit murder or was it a simple act of oh crap. We all sit here behind our computers and review the facts with all sorts of time to say things like he should have done this or he should have done that but the truth is no one in the forum can imagine whats going through a loved ones mind when in crisis. Can anyone trully say they would react a certain way facing a potential loved ones death and the only one able to stop it would be us?

Sure we have heard an eye witness state he saw the husband grab the wife. That is a fact released to the media. But the question is was what he thought he was seeing trully what he really saw? .......... But do we know if there was more details in this then we have been told?

My point a few posts back.. nobody can tell for sure how they would react even thought they would like to think so...

reference to the part of your comment I bolded. What if the "bear Hug" and allowing her to drift away was a result of Watson's mask being knocked off or flooded or his reg being knocked so he had to cope with a personal safety issue that spooked him? It seems to me he is far from an EXPERIENCED DIVER as painted by the media. Less than 100 dives does not make an EXPERIENCED DIVER!

We have heard the story line that his computer indicated he did a 3 minute safety stop which would be damning if it were true but again the hard fact on that is that its reserved for the court room and not johny public.

His ascent to the surface did take a long time but I haven't seen anywhere that claimed he did a safety stop

The irony of this whole situation is that we see a small fraction of the problem and we say no normal person would do the things that he did. Yet it has been proven time and time again even among life saving professionals that just because every day you go out and save faceless victims who you dont even know doesnt mean that when you have to save your own family you wont over react due to the over whelming impact you are faced with and that this is not Jane Doe but instead your loving wife. When you put it into that prospective the rules all but change and even the most seasoned and well trained person will begin to make mistakes simply because of desperation.

BINGO!

Hell have his turn in court and we will all soon enough be made aware of the outcome. What most of us dont see or understand is the tearing at the families .............. They need their strength for when he stands before the judge and or jury.

They have all stood before a judge already. I find it ironic that not taking him to trial in Australia means justice wasn't done here.

I have maintained all along that Tina was not the only Victim here and there can be no winners in this situation!

We are all entitled to our opinions and theres no better way to express that then to debate things like this but keep in mind also that as any member on this board whos been around can tell you just be careful because statements can ignite some nasty lawsuits too.

Which is why name calling, flaming jumping to conclusions without being sure of having the facts from appropriate sources are foolish. We need to be careful what we say most certainly but we should not allow ourselves to be muzzled, stop speaking out and doing the right thing out of fear.

I personally maintain that I do not have enough of the facts of this case to come to any conclusion beyond that Tina's life was too short and two sets of loved ones have been going though a never ending HELL!

 

[K_girl]

Look - I do agree that we don't have all the facts. What caught my interest in this case was the release of Watson's statements to police, as well as the transcript of the eye witness, Dr. Stutz' statement to police. Rarely do we ever get a chance to ponder over an incident with a portion of the actual evidence. Yes, I agree, just a portion of it. I'm not screaming from the treetops that Watson is guilty, only pointing out what I think the issues will be with his statements. I think that it is good that people are coming up with other possible explanations. It would have been better for all concerned if those transcripts were never released. So if anyone gets sued, it should not be anyone on this board who happens to read the statements and wants to discuss the issues in a reasonable way.

The other night, I tried to come up with the theory that Watson may have been kicking sideways, instead of kicking down as he said. The problem being the prosecution's assertion that his computer did not register his attempt the kick down as he claimed and that Dr. Stutz saw them sideways, with Watson on top. He said he was kicking against the current towards the rope but Tina is reaching up for him, facing him, and instead of sinking as Watson described, she is being carried away by the current. Problem is that scenario would have brought Tina straight to him, not sinking sideways, so I had to throw that theory out. So she is facing the wrong direction for that theory work and the fact is, she did sink to the bottom and within view from the safety stop area (according to the photograph).

In addition, Dr. Stutz was pretty adamant about what he saw according to the Coroner's Inquest report and the Coroner found him to be a very credible witness. He is an emergency room physician, trained to observe people and react quickly. So let me say that potentially, he may be a difficult witness for the defense to impeach in the eyes of a jury. The Watson family stated that they believe what Dr. Stutz saw with the diver in the bearhug was the rescue diver, so it sounds like this is what the defense theory is going to be. However, the problem with that will be that Dr. Stutz said he saw the diver who had Tina in a bearhug release her and go to the surface. He then tried to raise the alarm as he saw Tina sinking, then he saw the rescue diver go after her and he saw him bring her up. I would imagine that the rescue diver, Wade Singleton, will probably testify that at no time did he release Tina and swim away from her to the surface. I personally think the defense's only hope with Dr. Stutz is to get him to say that he does not recall as adamantly as he says he recalls. If they can shake him, they have a chance. The defense can request that Dr. Stutz interview with them before trial, but he can refuse. That will be the point where they decide how to handle his testimony.

Please understand that I am not trying to convict Watson here, I am just discussing the issues that I think he will face at trial. So if we can come up with a scenario that can work in Watson's favor, well, let's see if we can do that and have it fit into the statements.

Nowhere have I been able to find where Watson had only 100 dives. If someone has that information, please post a link to it. However, I was able to find that Watson (via statement to police) quit school to work on becoming a commercial diver but decided it was too dangerous.

 

[ItsBruce]

K_girl, very good analysis. However, I disagree with your thought that shaking Dr. Stutz is the defense' only chance. Given what information is publicly available, I think the better approach is to use him to challenge the theory that Watson turned Tina's air off, held her until she was incapacitated, turned it back on, and then let her sink. Did Stutz see Watson turn the air off or on? How long did he see Watson holding Tina? Did he see Watson's mask or regulator had not been dislodged? Did he didn't he mention these things during the original investigation? If not, why not?

Given the various theories (which I will not rehash) as to why Watson might have released Tina for legitimate reasons, depending on how Dr. Stutz answers the above questions, the supposed prosecution theory could be seriously undermined (again all depending on other unknown evidence such as the autopsy and statements of the divers who recovered Tina.)

BTW: Wasn't there some mention of an embolism from Tina having been brought to the surface and of her being alive at least at that point? While that would not negate murder if Watson had incapacitated her beforehand, if Tina was alive while on the bottom, given the time lapse between Watson having released her and her recovery, might that not tend to show he had not incapacitated her during he bear hug?