Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[Valwood1]

I didn't see the show, and don't know a lot about the case, but nothing I have seen shows any sort of motive for killing his wife -- and I gather that these families are well enough off that $130k in life insurance proceeds, even if it was payable, wouldn't have changed his life a lot.

I think that it is quite possible that (1) something happened to the wife on the dive -- maybe she panicked, or sank too fast, or swallowed water, or whatever out of the ordinary and dangerous; (2) husband then panicked (which a manly Southern man just does NOT do) and did not or could not help her, and (3) then tried to lie his way out of or minimize his own responsibility/blame.

It was a sad situation.

Finally, I wonder why in the world a novice diver would even be allowed to dive at the Yongala. When I dove there, the current wasn't bad, but there are many times that it is just ripping. It ain't like slow drift dives at Cozumel.

 

[almitywife]

His problem is his computer! It did not back up anything he said! Did anyone check how she was wighted? An extra 4lbs on her would send her down pretty fast! The Hug also looks very bad for him! That shows he had solid contact with her and could have brought her up or adjusted her gear! That alone eliminates reasonable doubt in my book!

a 5 asterix rating from PapaBear is bad but this guy scored 6 :11:

 

[stairman]

Its my opinion that while bearhugging her he turned off her air and sqeezed her till she blacked out .Dumped her b.c and sent her to the bottom.

 

[BKP]

I agree with MIke_S... probably not enough to convict...

However... too much circumstantial for an "accident":

- I suppose 'passive panic' is possible, however, it must be an extraordinarily small percentage based on everything I've been taught
- Location of Tina was well outside of Gabe's storyline
- Testimony of objective witness (bear hug) outside of Gabe's storyline
- Gabe was Rescue certified. 100ft. down to the sandy bottom, to grab your bride (when you're already down 45ft) is just a few seconds descent, and well within the ability of a Rescue certed diver, even when it's *not* the 'love of your life.' Even possible barotrauma would not keep a distraught groom from descending the extra few fathoms. (I'm told it stops hurting once you perforate ).
- Dive computer battery in backwards? Why lie?
- Dive computer recorded log in disagreement with Gabe's storyline. Again, why lie?
- Refusal to return (expense paid) for inquest in Austraila, into the death of your own bride
- Evidence of oxygen deprivation in autopsy prior to drowning
- Insurance request (I know a few 'well-off' families with disenfranchised children due to their behavior)

Just too much to dismiss... Where's Adrian Monk when you need him...

 

[TexasFencer]

I don't know anything about the law in Australia, but if it went to trial and all of the witness statements and police demonstrations were admitted, I think there is a good likliehood a jury would convict. Witness statements are the second most damning thing that can be introduced to a trial (the first being a confession). With the inconsistencies in the story and with the computer, as well as the post-funeral vindicative acts, his credibility with a jury would be around zero.

Whether that is right and just, or not, is something of another discussion.

 

[mike_s]

If the jury disagrees with you, they do.

It's possible, but a decent lawywer should be able to handle that.

Remember also: THIS GUY IS SUING THE LIVEABOARD for emotional distress....

I hadn't heard this yet. (or I missed it on the TV program if they mentioned it.) But sueing in a diver death is almost standard operating procedure now days. It also is an attempt to distract the case away from him, but at the same time it surely doesn't want to make the liveaboard company or crew testify for him in the criminal trial now they they have a civil liability suit against them.


I wonder if this guy is still an active diver?


EDIT:

Looks like he dropped the lawsuit
Dive husband drops case fearing self-incrimination | The Courier-Mail
and Gabe Watson drops action, fearing 'self-incrimination' | NEWS.com.au

 

[Noboundaries]

For those that saw the show, lets not forget that he's changed his story 16 times at last count in addition to being caught in several lies. One lie not mentioned above anywhere was his statement that he tried to communicate underwater with divers from his boat but they didn't understand him. Those divers said it never happened.

I predict they'll prosecute on the circumstantial evidence, the inconsistencies in his story, and the one eye witness of the bear hug. A conviction is another matter entirely.

 

[mike_s]

I don't know anything about the law in Australia, but if it went to trial and all of the witness statements and police demonstrations were admitted, I think there is a good likliehood a jury would convict. Witness statements are the second most damning thing that can be introduced to a trial (the first being a confession). With the inconsistencies in the story and with the computer, as well as the post-funeral vindicative acts, his credibility with a jury would be around zero.

Whether that is right and just, or not, is something of another discussion.

what witness statements?

No one actually witnessed her dying by cause of him.


You have people on the boat, but they didn't witness it. They only told the police what the husband told them and that they thought it was bogus. But anything else is "hearsay".

The only real witness is the one who witnessed the "Bear Hug". But apparently didn't pay attention to what happened after the bear hug was over. So they can't be sure either.

Yeah he's guilty. we all pretty much agree with that. But no one witnessed him killing her, thus showing the possibility of 'reasonable doubt'.

 

[BKP]

...
Yeah he's guilty. we all pretty much agree with that. But no one witnessed him killing her, thus showing the possibility of 'reasonable doubt'.

Perhaps not.

However, if they can present enough witnesses (those that contradict Gabe's stories -- bear-hug witness; other divers that repudiate Gabe's story of signalling distress), wouldn't that be a building block for a circumstantial case, along with all the other contradictions?

 

[mike_s]

Perhaps not.

However, if they can present enough witnesses (those that contradict Gabe's stories -- bear-hug witness; other divers that repudiate Gabe's story of signalling distress), wouldn't that be a building block for a circumstantial case, along with all the other contradictions?

the key word you said there was 'circumstantial'.


They might be able to convict him on it, but if he has a good enough of a lawyer, then the facts will confused enough to persuade the jury.

If not then, then easily on appeal.

I just don't see him serving any real time for this in the long run.