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!

The story says Dr. Stutz is a witness for the prosecution. The little snippet you see is consistent with his statements in the past that he saw Tina with someone's arms under her, the diver went to the surface while she sank. The actions of the prosecutor are not unusual in the courtroom, as well as for defenders. They are constantly three steps ahead of themselves as they prepare for what they are going to do next. It should not be interpreted as disinterested. I am someone who works for criminal defense attorneys and I see this in the courtroom all the time. Shuffling through papers as they question a witness, preparing for the next question. The judge will hound them mercilessly if they don't keep it moving along.

Interesting that Stutz was surprised he was testifying in a murder trial because all along he thought Watson was someone who was trying to save his wife. It means that he has never attempted to interpret the events he saw nor has he kept up with all the opinions out there having to do with his testimony. He just wants to tell what he saw and that's it. Good for him. That is the way it should be.
 
We will never know what really happened.
The only fact that seems credible is that the guy was not much of a diver, and by some unknown combination of ignorance and negligence, took his wife on an ill fated trip. The insurance aspect, which lends financial motivation does not put him in a favorable light. And what can we say about his maniacle flower head snipping? He does himself no favors.
 
Yes, the more I read, I become positive that it was not a murder.
I conduct air depletion exercises with my students everyday. It takes at least 5 seconds to turn the valve all of the way off, and on average, a female diver will take another 30 seconds to breath all of the air out of the hoses before indicating that she is out of air. This in itself does not work with the timeline given in Stutz' testimony.
Add in Tina holding her breath, and the additional time beyond that for her to pass out, and we are way beyond the Stutz timeline.

I don't believe the prosecution is going to claim that Dr. Stutz witnessed the entire event of Tina's air being turned off and then on again. I think it would be hard to say that it is necessary to wait for someone to become unconscious as incapacitation from water inhalation could happen very quickly under those circumstances. I don't necessarily think it would have been necessary to turn Tina's air off and on again in order to incapacitate her. All we know is that she appeared incapacitated when Watson left her. Both Stutz and Watson described an incapacitated, sinking diver when Watson left Tina. It is a certainty that Tina was incapacitated when Watson was with her, of that we have do doubt. Did he deliberately cause her incapacitation is the only question. It is a very disturbing image - arms around a diver, let go, swim to the surface, leaving the incapacitated diver to sink. This is the image that Dr. Stutz painted on the stand today.
 
More information about Dr. Stutz' testimony in this article:

Accused 'Honeymoon Killer' Version Is 'Not Plausible' Witness Says - ABC News

In another post someone asked the question why Dr. Stutz did not aid in trying to revive Tina. Their impression is wrong:

"Stutz said he assisted in performing CPR on Tina Watson, but never got a heart beat. He also told the court that Gabe Watson did not come to his wife's side as they tried to save her life."

Someone also said that McFadyen will claim that Dr. Stutz was in the water 30 minutes after Tina and Gabe were in the water. I don't think Dr. Stutz would have been performing CPR on Tina if that was the case. Another reason I don't trust McFadyen's analysis.

Another snippet of Stutz's testimony:

"Then they split apart. After, he went to the surface. She sank," Stutz said. The woman was clearly alive before the encounter, but she was dying afterward, he said.

.."Prosecutors contend Stutz saw Watson during the final scene a murderous act. They claim Watson turned off his wife's oxygen and let her lose consciousness or become distressed before approaching her again, turning on her air supply to cover up murder, and letting her sink."

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/PAWIC/APUSnew...oon Death/id-fbbd18824c3f40939346816c90794ac4
 
The story says Dr. Stutz is a witness for the prosecution. The little snippet you see is consistent with his statements in the past that he saw Tina with someone's arms under her, the diver went to the surface while she sank. The actions of the prosecutor are not unusual in the courtroom, as well as for defenders. They are constantly three steps ahead of themselves as they prepare for what they are going to do next. It should not be interpreted as disinterested. I am someone who works for criminal defense attorneys and I see this in the courtroom all the time. Shuffling through papers as they question a witness, preparing for the next question. The judge will hound them mercilessly if they don't keep it moving along.

Interesting that Stutz was surprised he was testifying in a murder trial because all along he thought Watson was someone who was trying to save his wife. It means that he has never attempted to interpret the events he saw nor has he kept up with all the opinions out there having to do with his testimony. He just wants to tell what he saw and that's it. Good for him. That is the way it should be.

I am well aware that he was a witness for the prosecution. He came across as a witness for the defense. Just saying he wasn't the big key witness that he was touted to be all these years.
 
More information about Dr. Stutz' testimony in this article:

Accused 'Honeymoon Killer' Version Is 'Not Plausible' Witness Says - ABC News

In another post someone asked the question why Dr. Stutz did not aid in trying to revive Tina. Their impression is wrong:

"Stutz said he assisted in performing CPR on Tina Watson, but never got a heart beat. He also told the court that Gabe Watson did not come to his wife's side as they tried to save her life."

Someone also said that McFadyen will claim that Dr. Stutz was in the water 30 minutes after Tina and Gabe were in the water. I don't think Dr. Stutz would have been performing CPR on Tina if that was the case. Another reason I don't trust McFadyen's analysis.

Another snippet of Stutz's testimony:

"Then they split apart. After, he went to the surface. She sank," Stutz said. The woman was clearly alive before the encounter, but she was dying afterward, he said.

.."Prosecutors contend Stutz saw Watson during the final scene a murderous act. They claim Watson turned off his wife's oxygen and let her lose consciousness or become distressed before approaching her again, turning on her air supply to cover up murder, and letting her sink."

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/PAWIC/APUSnews/Article_2012-02-16-Honeymoon Death/id-fbbd18824c3f40939346816c90794ac4

Dr. Stutz assissted with CPR after he returned to the boat which was already being performed by others. They gave CPR for nearly 45 minutes. It is an exhausting exercise to give CPR for that long. Ideally you have 3 people doing CPR. One for chest compressions, one for breathing either by mouth to mouth or a breathing device and one to check pulses and apply AED (Automated External Defibrillator) if available. So, yes...it is conceivable that Dr. Stutz surfaced 30 minutes later and helped to relieve others who had already been working on her. I understand there was another doctor on the boat...but he was not a witness...just helped with CPR.
 
I'm inclined to agree at least to some extent and I think the same should apply to any person involved in a rescue. Even people like Gabe.
I agree somewhat as well. But, this is his new bride, not a total stranger. He certainly was not an experienced diver and could likely be the world's biggest coward next to the Captain of the Costa Concordia.
 
Last edited:
Finally a news report that gives more of the testimony. Dr. Stutz says he was "dying to go help her." And that he did not surface for another 38 minutes.

Diver testifies to doubts about Gabe Watson's story of wife's drowning, another backs parts of account | al.com

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- Gabe Watson stood on the back of a dive boat off the Australian coast, describing to another passenger how his new bride sank to the sea floor after what Watson called a panic attack underwater, according to testimony today in Watson's Alabama capital murder trial.

"That's bull...," Ken Snyder, an experienced diver who had met the honeymooning couple the night before, recounted telling the defendant. "That didn't happen."
Prosecutors with the Alabama Attorney General's Office contend the defendant, 34, intentionally killed Tina Thomas Watson to profit from her insurance. They also are trying to prove the 26-year-old Hoover woman's death inside the Great Barrier Reef was not an accident or result from bad circumstances, as the defense claims.
Snyder was one of two divers who were in the water to testify about Oct. 22, 2003, when Tina died. The 60-year-old former Marine has 800 dives which helped qualify him as an expert witness.
The other witness, Dr. Stanley Stutz, gave testimony that refuted some aspects of the account of the fatal dive that Watson gave police.
But he also backed the defense when he said he saw the couple underwater and thought Watson tried to save his wife.
Stutz said he saw Tina flailing, then saw Gabe swim over to her, briefly grab under her arms, then separate and head to the surface, which is similar to Watson's account to police.
But the defendant did not ascend rapidly or try to enlist the help of other divers, as Watson told police, Stutz testified.
Both Stutz and Snyder testified the current was too strong to easily swim against, bolstering the defendant's claim to police that his wife wore out while swimming against the current trying to get back to a dive rope they had used to descend to about 45 feet.
"She didn't have a lot of energy," Stutz testified, describing Tina's descent. "She didn't have the strength to swim."
Later he saw another diver bring her up from the sea floor, about 100 feet down.
Stutz, an emergency-room physician, testified that he wanted to go back to the surface but was told by his dive master not to leave his dive buddy.
"I was dying to help," said Stutz. But after completing his 38-minute dive, Stutz assisted in efforts to resuscitate Tina on board another dive boat in the area, the Jazz II, he said.
During the 40-minute effort to save Tina, Gabe remained on the other boat, the Spoilsport, testimony showed.
Back on the Spoilsport, Snyder said he could see the efforts to revive Tina. The Jazz II was 100 feet away, an easy swim. But swimming was not necessary because boats were constantly going back and forth, he said.
Snyder testified that Tina was glowing with honeymoon happiness when Snyder and his wife met the Watsons before initially boarding the Spoilsport. All divers were attentive during a pre-dive briefing, when they were told they could just drift from the descent line straight to an ascent line down-current, Snyder said.
Snyder told jurors both he and a friend also along for the dive trip did not believe Watson's story of how his wife started to sink, knocked off his mask and regulator, then sank too fast for him to catch up.
Divers are taught from the beginning to not leave their dive buddy except in rare circumstances, and to use an apparatus on their own scuba equipment to provide air simultaneously to a dive buddy who can't get air on their own, he said.
"That person is your source to survive," Snyder told jurors.
Snyder said he was so put off by Watson's story, he called his friend, Doug Downing, over to hear it. Downing, more prone to see the best in people than Snyder, also told Watson his story was "bull....," Snyder testified.
"It wasn't a plausible story," Snyder said. "It didn't make sense."
Snyder said he was getting angry, and backed off while Watson told his story to Downing. When Downing started to get irritated, Snyder grabbed him and pulled him away, he said.
"I said 'Back off.' This is not the time," Snyder said.
The defense was to cross-examine Snyder starting at 1:30 p.m.
 


I should have that post up soon. Dr. Stutz and Ken Snyder testified this morning. Then Paula Snyder. Doug Miulsap was on the stand when the day ended and will return in the morning. I expect more of the divers tomorrow.


black.gif
Eric T. Velasco
Metro Reporter
Birmingham News Multimedia Company
o: 205-325-3131

I am tweeting and emailing with this reporter in the courtroom. The email response above is me asking him who the witnesses for the prosecution were this afternoon and who we can expect tomorrow.
 
So we learned that Dr. Stutz did not return for some 30 minutes after he saw Tina. He was instructed to stay with his buddy. There were several boats in the area and he may not have known where she was being taken. The jury will have to decide whether or not that the fact that Dr. Stutz' did not immediately move to help Tina himself hurts his credibility as to what he saw. As to the impact of Dr. Stutz' testimony, we only have snippets at this point as to what the media thinks is important. We've probably heard about 3-4 minutes of his testimony. It would be interesting to find out how long he was on the stand. His testimony that he saw a large diver embrace Tina, who was alive but weak, then the diver lets her go to swim away from Tina while she sinks, who is then in the dying process, may quite impactful for a jury. He seemed to be quite sure that the diver he was looking at was Tina. As an emergency room doctor, the jury may believe that he understands the different stages of the dying process. It is possible the jury may completely discount this testimony, we will see.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom