Watson Murder Case - Issues, Statements & Sources

[K_girl]

ISSUE 33: Police claim that Watson's dive computer does not show a sudden dip to rescue Tina. A poster sent me a private message pointing out that dive computers can be set at intervals where you might not see a sudden dip. The exact dive profile in Watson's dive computer is not available to the public.

If you read Watson's two statements below, you'll see he says the problem starts somewhere around 40+ feet. He notes that his dive computer shows his deepest depth at 54 feet. Then he says he's kicking and kicking in a valiant effort to save her. It takes an average of 20 kicks to go 100 feet (well, my average during the Advanced Class), which is five feet per kick. Meaning, he only gave 2-to-3 kicks of effort to save her. So if he is really doing as much kicking as he says he is - he would have to travel more than just 10-14 feet. That's really what will sink his story, his computer will not show the dramatic dip he is talking about - and that is what the police is focusing on. No matter what the dive computer interval is set at, it will always record your deepest depth, so they have that information. 10-14 feet is not a dramatic dip - it's only 2-3 kicks. To me, that is not the dramatic kicking-down effort that Watson described.

From his testimony:

WATSON: ..cause if we were at forty something feet and I think my computer said fifty-four you know that was just a matter of ten foot or less going down..
---
WATSON: I couldn't grab her hand because she was, you know, maybe five feet below me or something like that. I don't really know. I went down, started kicking down, and I was kicking down. But as fast as I was kicking down to go get her, she was going down just as fast..

**********

The only other argument Watson might try to make is that there was an upwelling current that he was fighting and that is why he was kicking so much, getting nowhere. But he never claimed that and if that was true - you can't explain why Tina was sinking instead of rising. Again - the dive instructor went down very quickly to retrieve Tina and brought her to the surface - so an extremely rare bottom-up current being the cause of his getting nowhere with all the kicking, just won't hold-up.

**************************
Please DO NOT POST COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION OF THESE ISSUES HERE, but continue to post your opinions to the original thread of this case at Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

If you wish to post to this thread, please keep to the spirit and format of this thread which is to state the issue succinctly, statements, information that has been reported with the source in order to KEEP A CLEAN AND FAST READ ON THIS CASE.

 

[K_girl]

(QUOTE): ISSUE 18: Watson hopes there is evidence to show that Tina was grabbing at him in panic, hit him with enough force to separate the mouthpiece from the regulator. The police had tested his dive computer for the battery problem and looked at his dive profiles. Surely, they would have noticed a missing regulator, but we don't have that information.
---
WATSON: I know I didn't say this at the time but when I went back my mouth piece was not connected to my regulator and I had a fitted mouth piece, you know they zip tie on there but I had to UI bowl of water and put it in your mouth and it moulds to your mouth

LAWRENCE: mmm

WATSON: um cause when I was getting back um you know a day or two later I think it was after you got here wasn't it

Mrs WATSON: yeah it was UI

WATSON: and I pulled my stuff out of my bag yet, cause my stuff was in my bag wet so I pulled out rinse them out and I noticed my mouth piece was not actually on my regulator..

LAWRENCE: ok

WATSON: which again it's me speculating, it leads me to believe that she hit you know when she hit it with some force it wasn't her hitting my mask and me going aah (END QUOTE)

**************************

Reading recent posts lately about a missing mouthpiece, I realized it would have been impossible for Watson to use his regulator with a missing mouthpiece. He would have had to switch to his secondary air source - he never made that claim. This further proves that Watson is grasping at any kind of straws he can think of.

**************************
Please DO NOT POST COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION OF THESE ISSUES HERE, but continue to post your opinions to the original thread of this case at http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/accidents-incidents/234548-diver-indicted-2003-gbr-mishap-108.htm

If you wish to post to this thread, please keep to the spirit and format of this thread which is to state the issue succinctly, statements, information that has been reported with the source in order to KEEP A CLEAN AND FAST READ ON THIS CASE.

 

[K_girl]

ISSUE 18: Missing Mouthpiece. A poster made the comment that you can breathe through a regulator without a mouthpiece and my statement that Watson is grasping at straws was biased and this is supposed to be an unbiased thread.

Yes, you could breathe through a regulator without a mouthpiece, but it would be extremely difficult to keep it in place with just your teeth. He would have to have held the regulator in place with his hands or switch to his secondary. At the very least, you would have to say a missing mouthpiece could not have gone unnoticed during and after the "struggle" and Watson would have to deal with in some way to get through the remainder of the dive. He did not describe any of these difficulties as he described the events during the dive. And he was asked to describe what happened during the dive more than once.

In addition, if police examination of his equipment does not show a missing mouthpiece, the question would be, how would a jury interpret this piece of "information" from his statement? I would submit that it could be potentially interpreted as an act of desperation in an attempt to introduce non-existent evidence in his favor.

 

[K_girl]

NBC UPDATE: MyProps.org - Video: Groom to stand trial for scuba murder - MSNBC Most Viewed Videos

Identifies the photographer of the infamous still shot as another honeymooner by the name of Gary Stempler.
****
ISSUE 34:

The linked video shows a few brief frames of the police renactment of Tina's air being turned off. Issue would be, is this physically possible? And - wouldn't Tina be able to easily fight Watson off?

Question of Physically Possible. During my open water course, I experienced my air being turned off by my scuba instructor in the pool, he reached over my shoulder to turn the air off until I gave the out-of-air signal and he turned it back on. The purpose of the exercise was to let the diver experience what running out of air feels like. The instructor looked me in the eye and gave the OK, where I was to respond with an OK for him to turn my air off, so we were face-to-face. It took several breaths before it became difficult to breathe and I gave the out-of-air signal. It did not appear to me that it was phsycially difficult for the instructor to reach the knob and turn it either direction.

Question of Tina Fighting Watson to Prevent Him from Turning Off Her Air. She may not have been unaware of what he was allegedly doing. She may have thought he was helping her.

**************************
Please DO NOT POST COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION OF THESE ISSUES HERE, but continue to post your opinions to the original thread of this case at http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/acc...mishap-108.htm

If you wish to post to this thread, please keep to the spirit and format of this thread which is to state the issue succinctly, statements, information that has been reported with the source in order to KEEP A CLEAN AND FAST READ ON THIS CASE.

 

[lindsayjsimpson]

Hi K-girl,
Read your site with interest. I am writing a book on this case with another co-author. If anyone is able to help put us in contact with anyone who knows Gabe Watson, it would be greatly appreciated. I doubt if Tina was known in the scuba diving fraternity as she was so new to it, but any details would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Dave Earl]

A new article in the Aussie press containing some facts I wasn't aware of:

(Edit: ) Urgh, can't post a link because I have less than 5 posts. However, if you google: "sydney morning herald death on reef mystery" you'll find it.

 

[funrecdiver]

Just wanted to add my observations and thoughts on this case (since the thead/link is closed that K_girl points everyone to):

The posts, documentation and "evidence" in this case (sorry K_girl, I have read many of your posts as well), does not point to "murder" unless one has a very active imagination and is looking to blame a partner. It seems the "emotional court of public opinion" simply hopes (wants/wishes) to prosecute (blame) someone for failing to rescue a distressed diver (who happens to be a partner or loved one).

Honestly, this "zeal to place blame" seems to be the core nuclear fuel that generates the interest in non-stop wild speculation and repetitive hearsay and "speculation as non-factual circumstantial evidence". Another word for this is "gossip" in my opinion.

I don't want to get into a debate with anyone on this topic, so I'll more-than-like not post my views on this subject again. Many times I has witnessed (second hand) prosecutorial misconduct, where people (normally emotional, irrational family members) and their partner-prosecutors (who have a passion to prosecute) build momentum to harm someone who has a constitutional right for the presumption of innocence (in the US, not sure elsewhere).

In addition, in the US at least, when speaking in criminal terms, the core tenant is "reasonable doubt". When I read the posts, quotes and wild speculation in this case, my reaction as a completely neutral third party is that there is so much "doubt to guilt" in this case, that "reasonable doubt" is transformed to "absolution, certain doubt".

Speculation about dive computers, spoken words in distress or later, timing, are all just wild speculation in a panic situation. Rescuing oneself, or going to the surface for assistance to rescue, and then a failed rescue and a (unfortunate) victim is not murder, it is also not negligence, it is also not manslaughter.

The human tendency to place blame on others to satisfy an emotional need during times of tragedy and loss should be tempered with the rights of all people, and making a "murderer" out out of someone, partly based on a constant barrage of arm-chair speculative analysis, with more speculation on top of speculation, is destructive behavior and is not beneficial to the diving community as a whole, in my humble (and perhaps worthless) view.

Just my 0.01 cents worth after reading countless of these "accident analysis" posts on SB, where speculation and "analysis" outside of a true fact-finding process is both harmful to the person who lost a friend or partner, and not good for the community as a whole. With these trends to ruin divers in the forum of public opinion, anyone who dives with a partner, associate, wife or husband and the living partner fails to rescue them will be "tried in blogs and forums" and ruined by speculation and hearsay.

If it was up to me, I would change the TOS of SB to limit this type of posting of hearsay and speculation (to protect people from being ruined and/or hurt by public speculation). Of course, that will not happen; but if it did, the dive community would be better off. Since there is no legal obligation for a buddy to rescue a distressed diver (family member or not); and in fact, the general rule-of-thumb is not to create two victims instead of one (the rescuer-victim and the victim) folks should "back off" on the aggressive hearsay, gossip and speculation in this matters.

 

[sydney-diver]

A new article in the Aussie press containing some facts I wasn't aware of:

(Edit: ) Urgh, can't post a link because I have less than 5 posts. However, if you google: "sydney morning herald death on reef mystery" you'll find it.

Death on reef mystery

 

[knowone]

Your observations and thoughts are not on this case. They are on "your" case.
If you had any decorum, respect would dictate you push your rusty wheelbarrow full of propaganda in an area independent of an actual incident resulting in death.
dumkopf goosfraba.

 

[K_girl]

I just would like to see this case actually go to trial and let the "wheels of justice" do their thing. The Australian judge openly admitted that the expense of a trial had influence in the plea agreement and that it is the government's right to make that decision. The prosecution stated that the evidence wasn't strong enough, but got Watson took the plea agreement in spite of that. Generally, prosecutors will drop cases where the evidence is not strong enough. I have no doubt they got him to agree to the plea agreement by telling him they had some pretty strong evidence against him and he would not want to face trial, otherwise, why would he plea? It's all very contradictory to me, but that has always been the case with plea agreements. Plea agreements are really the instrument of expediency for the prosecution. It's never about the "conviction" fitting the actual crime. For instance, someone severely beats-up another person, but it gets pled down to disturbing the peace or something stupid like that.

In terms of public opinion influencing a trial - it would appear that public opinion is 50/50, so I don't think that is an issue. I did not agree with the Alabama prosecution seeking the death penalty. I'm glad they dropped it.

Watson's 18 month sentence in Australia should be up sometime December 2010 and this case will either go away because Alabama may not be able to bring the case to trial, or it will heat-up again with a trial. We'll see. In the meantime, I think all the "opinions" are in. Everything has been said that can be said. I have nothing more to say about it.