Watson Murder Case - Issues, Statements & Sources

[Jax]

So you . . .

Just wanted to add my observations and thoughts on this case

and then call the discusion

the "emotional court of public opinion"

and

"zeal to place blame"

And proceed to label all of the above

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.

Then to sum it up, you decide

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).

and proclaim

the dive community would be better off.

So, how about you share with us what makes your proclamations, opinion, denigrating judgments, and "gossip" any more or less valid than any of ours?

I salute K-Girl's research efforts and clear format in which it is presented. It is well sourced and easily validated.

 

[burna]

'Australian Story' has just done a 2 part documentary about this 'incident'. There was a lot of information in the program about the case that I was not aware of. I knew there must've been a good reason why Gabe Watson voluntarily got on a plane to Brisbane.

It's called 'Unfathomable' Part1 & Part 2
Australian Story

Not sure if you can view it outside of Oz. Worth a watch if it is.

 

[knowone]

Speculation.

No proof was provided that arrangement had been made prior to psycho boy boarding transportation for the hillbilly state.

He may however have outdone himself.

 

[burna]

Hillbilly???...Well....One could possibly argue that the Queensland DPP doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to big cases though.


Muhamed Haneef

Jayant Patel

Cameron Doomadgee

 

[funrecdiver]

I stand by my post.

These threads are simply gossip and speculation at the expense of another human begin.

He said, she said blah, blah, blah that serves no useful purpose to the scuba community other than to give people something to gossip about.

Sorry, I can't "commend" hearsay and speculation about other people and stand by my opinion, which I am entitled too, even if you disagree, that these threads should be out of bounds of the SB TOS.

 

[vladimir]

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.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. The argument over the value of speculation in the aftermath of accidents has been rehashed dozens of times here. You have added nothing new.

In an effort to sound erudite you have butchered the English language a bit. Here are a few observations:

A tenet is a principle; a tenant is a renter.

Scare quotes--those quotation marks scattered randomly through your post--have a legitimate use in signaling non-standard usage, irony, or some other special sense to the word or phrase they enclose. The more you use them, the less useful they become. I can't discern any method to your usage.

Select the words that convey your meaning; there is no need to provide alternates in parentheses.

Just say what you mean as directly as possible, like this: There is no explicit Constitutional right to a presumption of innocence in the United States. It is a tenet of our legal tradition, but outside a courtroom we are free to conclude that somebody is guilty, using any standard of evidence we choose.

 

[K_girl]

ISSUE: The dive computer. Watson claimed that his computer beeped at him with the battery in backwards. We all know that cannot happen because nothing will beep with the battery in backwards. There was some speculation as to whether or not his dive computer was wireless and perhaps it was the transmitter that had the battery in backwards. However, the police said they tested what Watson stated happened and they said the computer still would not beep under those circumstances.

See this post for Watson's quoted statements: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3676580-post7.html

Thanks to Burna's posted link to the Australian Story, for just a second, they showed Watson's dive computer. I have captured a picture of it and posted it here:

The dive computer is an Oceanic DataTrans and indeed, it is a wireless computer. I found the manual for that computer here:

http://www.oceanicworldwide.com/pdf/12-1872-r03.pdf

Here are the relevant portions of the manual:

Page 12 - "During diagnostic mode (power-up) the DataTrans measures the battery volage level of both the display module and the transmitter to determine whether there is sufficient voltage to complete a full day of diving. Warning - If either or both of the Low Battery icons remain on display following activation, Oceanic strongly recommends that you DO NOT dive until you have obtained battery replacement. If there is not enough battery voltage in the display module to complete a day of diving, the DataTrans will either deactivate itself or not activate at all.
If there is not sufficient voltage in the transmitter to complete a full day of diving, the link icon and tank pressure of "00" PSI will flash on display, indicating that the display module is not receiving a signal."

[NOTE: if the battery was in the transmitter backwards, the dive computer would have behaved as indicated in bold above].

Page 10 - "Computer will operate without the transmitter as a "stand-alone", non air-integrated computer and will retain full use of all functions except those that are air related."

[NOTE: If the dive computer cannot find the transmitter, which would be the case if the battery were in backwards in the transmitter, the computer will still function as a non-air integrated computer, therefore, you would not want the dive computer to be beeping at you during the entire dive. This why there is no audible alarm in this situation.]

Page 31 - Linking procedure. "It is possible that you may inadvertently move the display module out of the signal pattern resulting in temporary link interruption. Also, an audible alarm will sound once per second until the link is restored. The link will be restored within 4 seconds after the display module is moved back into its correct position."

[NOTE: If the battery in the transmitter was in backwards, there would have been no link to have been interrupted causing an alarm].

******

The "NOTES" are my comments. The police were correct, the computer would not have beeped at him if the battery in the transmitter was in backwards. This is probably one of the biggest mysteries of this case and if this was indeed Watson's computer, we appear to have an answer.

 

[Ayisha]

Isn't that the computer that they identified as Tina's? It looks like the computer they showed when they said they checked her gear and found it all to be working correctly...

 

[K_girl]

Isn't that the computer that they identified as Tina's? It looks like the computer they showed when they said they checked her gear and found it all to be working correctly...

No - here are the exact words in the story "Unfathomable - Part Two"
Australian Story
as they showed the picture I captured, here is the transcript of the video:

A voice with an Australian accent (later identified as Det. Snr. Const. Kevin Gehringer, Qld police) says "We initially started with his dive computer.."

Then they fade to video of Watson's statement where Watson says "My computer beeped at me. I had my battery in backwards.."

They go back to Det. Gehringer who says "what we found with the battery in back-to-front, the computer really doesn't work."

If you go further into Watson's statement, you can see he did say that at one point, but later was talking about a wireless computer and was eluding to the transmitter not registering and the computer beeping with a "gas alarm." It doesn't matter if you are talking about the battery in backwards in the computer or backwards in the transmitter - there would be no beeping in either case and Watson made it a point, more than once that the computer was beeping.

 

[K_girl]

ISSUE: Eye-witness testimony of Dr. Stutz, who was the doctor who worked on Tina to try and revive her. He also saw Tina in the water. From video above, transcript of police interview:

POLICE INTERVIEWER: "So diver #1, there is no doubt in your mind that was the deceased."

STUTZ: "Definitely."

POLICE INTERVIEWER: "OK"

[Det. Gehringer]: "Then we were able to establish that the only two divers that could have been were Tina and Gabe."

STUTZ: "She looked distressed and fearful and moving her arms and legs.. and then I saw him come into the picture and came sort of on top of her with his arms around her.."

[Picture of Stutz demonstrating to police officer how Gabe had his arms around Tina]

[Det Gehringer]: "He observed Gabe embrace Tina in the middle section of her back."

STUTZ: "I recall his hands being around her back. I think they were together for probably what seemed for maybe 30 seconds."

[Det Gehringer]: "He said that he saw the two divers separate, with the large diver, Gabe, ascending and Tina sinking to the bottom."

STUTZ: "She was still moving, but was moving less and less. Ah, as she was floating to the bottom, I couldn't mimmick it, but maybe it was something like this.." [his hands wave slowly side-to-side up next to his head.]

[Det. Gehringer]: "Stutz knew that what he saw was odd and he tried to raise the alarm, however, he was instructed to stay with the dive group."

[POLICE INTERVIEWER]: "When I went and interviewed Dr. Stutz, he was very adamant about what he saw. So that was huge for our part because never in his statements did Gabe ever state that he had her in a bear hug. He was always at arms length with her. Nothing of any of that sort, so that was a very vital piece of evidence to us.."