Fatal Honeymoon or just poor judgment

[bowlofpetunias]

I'm another who has no intention of rehashing this. I agree that a lot of us who were heavily involved in the first threads about it while it was happening have come to conclusions that are unlikely to be changed. Too far down the track for memories to be reliable. Too many people who are too heavily invested in their conclusions. Too easy to only accept information as "FACTS" that support our chosen conclusion at this point. I am not biting anymore onto this hook!

 

[Ken Kurtis]

. . . I agree with Judge Nail's decision to abandon the case through lack of evidence to prove murder. That is not to say whether I think Gabe did it or not.... just that I don't think it could be proven that he did beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree 100% with Simon. This was a case of bad lawyering by the Alabama prosecutors. It doesn't reflect at all on Gabe's guilt or innocence. They simply didn't present a compelling case.

Those of us who do this expert witness thing I'm all sure all have stories about cases in which we've been involved where we wanted to pitch something one way, our attorneys wanted to go another direction, we lose, and then wonder what would have happened had we been allowed to follow our instincts. Each side tells a version of the truth. Whoever spins the most compelling tale wins. It may or may not represent what actually happened.

. . . my main message is that I got off a trip to the deep reefs of the Coral Sea on Mike Ball's boat yesterday and I have to say that it was one of the most professionally run, careful, operations I have seen . . . Far from avoiding them I would give very serious consideration to using them.

Again, I agree 100%. (And the caveat is that Mike is someone I consider a good friend.) He runs a great operation, very professional, very slick (in a good way), and I'd dive with him without hesitation.

One other small point that was mentioned somewhere early on about Mike not owning the boat in 2003 when the accident occurred. I don't believe that's correct.

While it's true that Mike sold the company/operation in the late 90s (Japanese investors as I recall), he also held the paper on the deal and agreed to remain on as figurehead. As he tells it, his world (along with the rest of us) changed on 9-11 because after that, his investors canceled/reneged on the deal and basically gave him the boats back. He then proceeded to downsize, selling off Supersport and ParadiseSport (and I think WaterSport too), and shelving plans for a new boat he was going to have built.

But the point is that I believe Mike was the actual owner in 2003 when Tina died. Not really germane to anything other than to set that part of the record straight.

- Ken

 

[clownfishsydney]

KEN WROTE: My recollection is that Wade was on the Spoilsport and jumped in when Watson surfaced and said Tina was down below. I don't recall that Wade was hovering above them while all this went on. (Which also would have created a key witness.)

Ken, Wade was already underwater. He descended about 30 seconds after Gabe and Tina so should have had them in sight for at least a minute or two. He was on the bottom when he spotted Tina lying off the wreck on her back (hence probably why her reg stayed in her mouth). The false story about him coming from the surface and attempting to resvcue her comes from the only other "witness" to the event, Dr Stutz, who swears this is what happened. It did not. It also then puts a lot of doubt on his other evidence about what he saw.

As to the prosecution, I have said this before on this forum, but will repeat. The chief prosecutor on the case is, by all evidence, a very competent prosecutor with an outstanding success rate in murder trials. However, his effort on this case was quite pathetic. For example, he was given all my web site material before the trial began. A simple reading of this would have given him questions to ask prosecution witnesses before the trial began to see what their answer was. This was obviously not done, as virtually all of the dive related witnesses ended up being more positive to the defence than the prosecution. He should have never called most of these witnesses, or at least come up with some alternative questions to combat the defence's ones.

Personally I believe he was given a "sh*t sandwich" to eat by the attorney-general (King) but did not want to eat it. He had to make it look like he was eating it without getting any in his mouth. His rebuttal of the defence submission to acquit was a joke, a child could have done better. I believe he really felt Gabe should not have been prosecuted and acted that way (although I believe his "juniors" really tried hard).

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Transcript from an Aussie TV show in 2010. Includes statements from Wade Singleton (who says he was in the water - my mistake but I don't think all that relevant to the facts of the case). Again, not looking to re-try the case. But there are different ways ot seeing this: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2007/s2971395.htm.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

The false story about him coming from the surface and attempting to rescue her comes from the only other "witness" to the event, Dr Stutz, who swears this is what happened. It did not. It also then puts a lot of doubt on his other evidence about what he saw.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here (and really not trying to re-try the case - but I'm always interested in what other's reasoning is in things like this), the standard you seem to apply is that if Stutz is wrong about one thing, then he must be wrong about all things, or at least his veracity is severely questioned. If that's the case, then shouldn't that same rationale apply to statements Gabe made?

On top of that, what reason would Stutz have to misrepresent what he thinks he saw?

- Ken

 

[diving4ever]

When I read threads like this, I struggle to be objective. Everyone is invested in our protagonist Gabe, and Tina herself seems like a footnote. And it all seems devoid of cultural context and sometimes just a little too titilating to some of us lay people.

One third of all murdered women are killed by intimate partners. And that doesn't include the 33% of murders that remain unsolved, and the unknown number that were ruled accidental.

Trying to put this into some sort of comparative context: More women have been killed by husbands and boyfriends since 9/11; than all the Americans who died on 9/11 and in the Afghan and Iraqi wars that followed. The statistical reality is staggering.

I don't know if Gabe is guilty, not guilty, or even (gasp) innocent. I do know why the police suspected him. Why her family suspects him. Why I suspect him. Gabe was her husband. Gabe was with Tina when she died. Gabe seemed off to people. And we know that husbands kill their wives all the time.

I'm going to make a Manhattan now.

 

[CuzzA]

When I read threads like this, I struggle to be objective. Everyone is invested in our protagonist Gabe, and Tina herself seems like a footnore. And it all seems devoid of cultural context and sometimes just a little too titilating to some of us lay people.

One third of all murdered women are killed by intimate partners. And that doesn't include the 33% of murders that remain unsolved, and the unknown number that were ruled accidental.

Trying to put this into some sort of comparative context: More women have been killed by husbands and boyfriends since 9/11; than all the Americans who died on 9/11 and in the Afghan and Iraqi wars that followed. The statistical reality is staggering.

I don't know if Gabe is guilty, not guilty, or even (gasp) innocent. I do know why the police suspected him. Why her family suspects him. Why I suspect him. Gabe was her husband. Gabe was with Tina when she died. Gabe seemed off to people. And we know that husbands kill their wives all the time.

I'm going to make a Manhattan now.

Wow, not sure if I should entertain this... Husbands kill their wives "ALL THE TIME". With your logic we should just automatically charge every husband/boyfriend if their spouse dies no matter what the evidence suggests. Just let the chips fall where they may. If innocent men are jailed or killed, tough. That's the way of the new legal system. Thank God that's not the way it works, kinda.

So, just to let you know, the numbers you quoted are bs. Have a read here that breaks down the FBI statistics. http://fathersforlife.org/fv/fbi_spousal_murder_stats.htm

I'm just going to go ahead and say it. IMO, people these days are not capable of reading through the bs. They are pigs at the feeding trough and that trough is their tv. Whatever the person on the screen is feeding them they eat it up.

Reminds me of the video of Princess Diana walking through the "extremely dangerous minefield" where at any moment she could blow up. Mind you she's walking toward the camera, where the cameraman just walked!!! Deception is the norm in reporting these days. I question everything. Including government statistics. Everyone has an agenda these days, there is no such thing as unbiased reporting. And apparently common sense and logic is a recessive trait.

I don't know how intelligent Gabe is, but the authorities murder theory is absolutely stupid. No motive, nothing to gain, kill her on vacation, on their Honeymoon no less, in front of a bunch of people by turning her gas off, waiting until she dies and then turning her gas back on. Jesus, could anyone really believe that? Fortunately the judge had some common sense. If you're going to do it, you make sure you're the beneficiary of the life insurance, wait to increase the death benefit, go to a quarry alone and then do it. And finally, read Michael's investigation. What you were fed by the media doesn't add up.

 

[CuzzA]

I'll add, I hate race and gender baiting arguments, but here's some interesting reporting I found about Canada. Murder is murder. And if you're a male you're more likely to be murdered than a female.

http://www.canlaw.com/your-legal-rights/whokills.htm

 

[PhatD1ver]

When I read threads like this, I struggle to be objective. Everyone is invested in our protagonist Gabe, and Tina herself seems like a footnote. And it all seems devoid of cultural context and sometimes just a little too titilating to some of us lay people.

One third of all murdered women are killed by intimate partners. And that doesn't include the 33% of murders that remain unsolved, and the unknown number that were ruled accidental.

Trying to put this into some sort of comparative context: More women have been killed by husbands and boyfriends since 9/11; than all the Americans who died on 9/11 and in the Afghan and Iraqi wars that followed. The statistical reality is staggering.

I don't know if Gabe is guilty, not guilty, or even (gasp) innocent. I do know why the police suspected him. Why her family suspects him. Why I suspect him. Gabe was her husband. Gabe was with Tina when she died. Gabe seemed off to people. And we know that husbands kill their wives all the time.

I'm going to make a Manhattan now.

All that data is good, but the one part of that still makes it less applicable is that I would bet that the number of murders of a female spouse by her husband has a very small sampling in the less than 30 day window. And probably an even lower statistical probability in 11 days.

 

[scagrotto]

Yes, but it is possible that it was an accident and nothing more.

I think that's the most important point (as far as the legal issue, anyway). Is it possible that he killed her? Sure. Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on everything that I've read about it I see no chance of that if you consider it objectively.

They simply didn't present a compelling case.

Maybe that's because they didn't have a compelling case. Even if we stipulate that he did kill her Alabama had no jurisdiction over it, leaving them to try and convince a jury that he made the plans to do it in Alabama. My take is that even if he did kill her and had a plan he still took advantage of being presented with convenient circumstances. That demands that any supposed plan was more or less limited to wanting to kill her and thinking diving would present an opportunity. If he didn't conspire with others how would you prove when and where he made the plan? That killing her (if that's what happened) had spontaneous aspects could suggest that there was no plan, or that it wasn't a well orchestrated plan created well ahead of time. As I recall the only "evidence" was the supposed plan to increase her life insurance. My recollection is also that they had recently bought a house (presumably with a mortgage) and that her existing life insurance wasn't very significant. I'm sure it's also a very safe bet that if there was no indication of a plan to increase the insurance the existing insurance would have been presented as a motive. The simple fact is that those of us with financial responsibilities to others are either irresponsible or in the eyes of the prosecution we have a motive if our spouse dies under suspicious circumstances.

Once again, it's possible that he made a plan in Alabama, but I'm not seeing anything beyond a possibility.

I think it's quite common for people to get better at telling the same story over time and perhaps more details or answers are remembered when we continue to think about it ... This same phenomenon happens to witnesses as well.

I don't think there's any question at all that it happens to everybody, whether they end up being a witness or not. If you think about, discuss it, or tell somebody about it there's a chance for your mind to add or change details. Even if the basic story doesn't change, the simple act of repetition (sometimes referred to as "practice") is going to make you better at telling that story without having to pause to remember things or decide what happened. Inconsistency may suggest fabrication, but getting better at telling the story may just mean that you've told it multiple times.

Don't assume. Stick with only the facts you know. When you assume, you may be assuming in a way to direct you to the outcome you've already reached.

Those are wise words of wisdom. Unfortunately the prosecution (in general, not just this case) often relies heavily on assumptions. They make an assumption, er, develop a "theory", and then set about trying to prove it. It's a very rare case that can be built entirely on indisputable fact. Even when they use facts they often make assumptions in support of those facts. The life insurance is a great example. Having, and increasing, life insurance may be perfectly reasonable (or essential to responsible finances), but short of actual evidence of the reasoning behind having (or increasing) the insurance any idea that it's a motive is an assumption.

When I read threads like this, I struggle to be objective.
One third of all murdered women are killed by intimate partners.
And we know that husbands kill their wives all the time.

Sorry, but your problem here is a failure to think clearly, not an inability to be objective.

It's a well established fact that most people who are murdered are murdered by somebody they know, but that's entirely irrelevant. That statistic may be helpful in seeking out suspects, but you've got it completely bass ackwards in this case. If she was murdered there's no question about who did it. The question here is whether or not she was murdered. There's evidence that may suggest that, but simple statistics isn't part of that evidence. If she had been killed during an apparent robbery or mugging would you say that Gabe probably didn't do it because 2/3 of murdered women aren't killed by their intimate partners?