Tina Watson Death - The Full Story

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!

K_Girl, the Thomas's do not have any information that could not be presented to a jury. It is the role of the prosecutor to produce evidence, not the family of the deceased. All that the prosecution had that was legally admissible was presumably presented. They certainly tried to introduce stuff that was called by Judge Nail as "speculation and conjecture". When will people understand that thoughts and feelings are not evidence, things said by one person to another and not witnessed by someone else is also not evidence. The problem is that the Coroner's Inquest in Australia was not bound by such rules and so much irrelevant and prejudicial rubbish was permitted to be put up as facts that it contaminated the media and public's view of the incident.

Foxfish, I will have to find Dr Edmonds' papers about your questions and will try to update this page later tonight or tomorrow night.
 
Last edited:
Below is a link to YouTube and a video that my wife Kelly put together of Blue Water Quarry in Birmingham, Alabama, where Gabe and Tina did their training. As you can see, it is a very easy place to dive. Note that the first half of the video is just over 25 metres or almost 90 feet.

Blue Water Quary Pelham Alabama USA - YouTube

Looks like a nice cruisey dive thanks for sharing. lol those ropes connecting things would be a great wayfor me to improve my navigation skills (which are terrible). I have wanted for a while to do a Quarry dive to see what it is like. That give a pretty good idea. I haven't done many fresh water dives. When I was in Canada last time I got 5 dives in lakes.. couldn't believe how easy they were... no worry about tides , currents etc.. just turn up when you are ready and go. I enjoyed the dives and what I saw but I guess I am biased.. I enjoy the challenge and variety of ocean diving. Sorry for the hijack...
 
The fact is (admitted under oath) that the dive operator did not follow the LAWS, regulations and standards of practice imposed in the area they were diving.

The dive op did not follow their OWN policies and procedures which were above and beyond the legal requirements at the time and they were held to their own standards. Waaaay back in the first (deleted) or second or third thread, I had posted the info on the fine and the officially stated reasoning for it. Way prior to that, shortly after Tina died, I had looked at the dive op's website and it "guaranteed" the safety of their divers. Oops. After the fine was levied, the "guarantee" was removed at some point.

The strict rules that are in force in Queensland for all these years since is due mostly to Tina's death and the couple that may or may not have gone missing and the shortcomings that were showed in the previous regulations.
 
Ayisha, the laws in Queensland were in place well before the Lonergans were left behind on the reef and Tina died. The law states that you can either follow the industry code of practice (if there is one) or create your own code. The operator created their own one. As such, they had to abide by what it contained. It was their own choice to make it a higher standard (if indeed it was). As the Workplace investigator stated, what is the point of having a code and rules if you do not follow them?

The Thomas's have gone after the wrong person from day one. Their hatred has been aimed solely at Gabe, when in reality it should be directed at who let Tina dive with Gabe, and in doing so breaking at least 6 of the rules that he was responsible for ensuring were adhered to. These of course were enforceable under Queensland law.
 
It is ironic that the person who brought Tina up from the bottom is the same person whose responsibility it was to enforce those rules. I can only imagine how those decisions haunt...
 
One of the things that became apparent to me was that the State (prosecution) was grossly unprepared for the trial. This can be shown by the following. Nearly all the State witnesses, especially those related to scuba diving, ended up being turned and became in reality defence witnesses. This happened when the State questioning only brought forth innocuous matters but when cross-examined, their answers negated any positive effect that they might have had on the case for the guilt of Gabe.

Some examples are:

1 Michael Hollis was asked about Oceanic computers and BCDs but apart from claiming there was never any problem with the transmitter/computer connection, he made no positive impact for the State. Then, in cross-examination, he was forced to admit that the BCD Tina was wearing could only lift 19 lbs (compared to the 35 lbs he first claimed) and that as Tina had 20 lbs weight, it probably could not lift her.

2 Wade Singleton admitted in cross-examination that he breached numerous rules in letting Tina and Gabe dive together.

3 The funeral director, Shelton, talked about Gabe taking Tina's engagement ring before she was buried (the premise was this was one of the reasons Gabe murdered Tina so he could get the ring). However, under cross-examination he stated that it was very common for loved ones to take the rings from the deceased before burial.

4 Uzi Barnai stated that no water came from Tina's mouth when they were doing CPR on her (implying she had not drowned). Under cross-examination, he had to agree that in his statements and at the Coroner's Inquest he had said a lot of water came from her mouth.

There are a lot more examples (Mike Moore, Tom Jackson, Paula Snyder).

To me, it seemed almost as if the State had not thought to ask their witnesses beforehand questions that any competent defence team would have been likely to ask. Surely you would think, "well, the defence will ask you A, what would your answer be?". If they did this, then many of their witnesses would not have been used as the net effect of them was to increase the defence's case.

In addition, it would seem that the State had not read my web site at all, or if they did, they had no understanding of what I had written. As it was given to them under discovery rules (as I was to be a defence witness), they did know about it. Why did they not read what I had written about each witness and then question them to see what their answers would be?

My view is that Don Valeska, the lead prosecutor, had been handed a "**** sandwich" by King. He was stuck with it and could not give it back. Therefore, he had to appear to eat a bit of it and seem to enjoy it, without eating the whole lot. Thus his case was half-hearted. He knew he could not win, and only went through the motions. When the motion to acquit was put up, his response was so bad it was unbelieveable. Even I could have put a better case than he did.

Any thoughts?
 
This thread gives us an opportunity to learn more about the defence's case through Michael's first hand experience and the knowledge he has gained having been involved with the defence team. I have no problem seeing people challenge the facts that are presented by Michael or requesting clarification of the points being made. So far I believe that Michael, in general, has been able to counter the criticism and provided further explanation where needed.

Over the years I've witnessed the enormous, one sided, sensationalized media coverage this case has received in which Gabe was routinely referred to as the 'honeymoon killer' and portrayed as the bad guy who probably murdurered his beautiful, innocent young bride. No one seemed too concerned about the feelings of the Watson family at the time. I find it ironic that people like Zeroed should now demand that we desist any further discussion on the matter. In the end the case got thrown out of court in America for the same reason that it did in Australia. It had little substance and relied instead on innuendo and hearsay.

It seems highly unlikely that there will be new, substantiated evidence implicating Gabe. If you have it then let's hear it. So far all I read from your side is the same old innuendo and hearsay. This thread is not the place to continue the propaganda war against Gabe and I'd like to see it stop. I would like to see Michael and others with 'inside' information given an opportunity to present what they know without undue harassment or restraint.

No one is forcing anyone to participate in this thread or read the comments. For those who were close to Tina and who find it painful to engage in the discussion the obvious answer is don't.

If there is "propaganda" I think it is now happening on the Watson side too. S
aying "if you don't like what we say don't read it" doesn't stand up anywhere, in fact it is suggesting a type of censorship. This is a public forum and anyone can read, and anyone who joins can post civilly. Whether you agree with their position or not, it does not give you the right to stop them reading or replying. If they choose to read and are hurt by the opinions expressed it is still their choice and it is their right to reply. But I also believe everyone on here should remember that these people are directly involved and one lost a family member in terrible circumstances. Empathy is not just saying you're sorry for their loss, it is demonstrated through your actions on here. Stating others should "not engage" if they find it painful is not being empathetic, and in my opinion it is also unreasonable.

No-one is harassing Michael or "restraining" him. No-one has stopped him from presenting his information. No-one has said he cannot post. And no-one should suggest other people refrain saying what they think either just because we may not like what they have to say.

As for your "desist" comment to me, I've said that I believe the case had little substance. I've said that I believed Gabe was innocent. I've said that I felt the media reporting was one-sided and that there WAS innuendo and hearsay. But I do believe this topic has run its course and I am entitled to say that. There's been little "discussion" of the defence in the last few pages, until Michael's previous statement tonight, and all the information is freely available on his website.

Clownfishsydney, what was the defence team's opinion on what likely happened in the moments before Tina died. At what point did Tina start to lose consciousness? How long does it take for a person to become unconscious after starting to drown? How long to become clinically dead? Was there any attempt by Dr Edmonds to relate the final moments before Tina drowned as recounted by Gabe to these normal stages of drowning? I previously made comment about drowning divers experiencing convulsions called a samba. Was this discussed as a possible explanation of Tina's panic and 'flailing' witnessed by Gabe and Stutz? I made some attempt to provide an explanation of the stages of drowning in the previous thread and would be interested to hear something along those lines from someone like Dr Edmonds.

Why is this important? Firstly, if Gabe’s testimony regarding those moments is inconsistent with what you would expect when a person drowns then it undermines the integrity of the testimony. You will recall this was one of the reasons Snyder was so dismissive of Gabe's testimony from the start. Gabe had said he saw Tina panic and then serenely sink to the bottom. Snyder considered these were contradictory statements. Secondly, it was widely believed that Gabe murdered Tina by turning her air off while holding her in a bear hug, allowed her to drown, and then turned the air back on. Stutz testimony as to how long Gabe appeared to 'have his arm around Tina' varied over the years. I've seen everything from momentarily in the most recent testimony up to 30 seconds. One of the Australian appeal judges even claimed that the postmortem should have stated Tina died due to asphyxiation rather than drowning. This again begs the question, how long does it take a person to become unconscious if asphyxiated? Was it likely that Tina would not have revived after being asphyxiated for up to say 30 seconds even though she had a regulator in her mouth?

I'd be surprised if these matters were not discussed in some detail among the defense team and would be interested in hearing their conclusions. I understand that you may not feel qualified to comment or may not be at liberty to discuss some of these details.

I also take exception to this comment. I do not believe it is necessary to satisfy anyone's morbid curiosity IN PUBLIC in THIS thread and I do not understand what this adds to the discussion. I think it is frivolous, and in my opinion it is put there to cause upset to the people you stated should not take part here.

But I also have a right to express my opinion so here it is: I believe that discussion of this topic serves no further useful purpose. I believe asking about the physiology of this particular case of drowning in this thread is wrong. I believe this thread has become a showcase for a few to say what they want and that you feel the rest of us can either not read or accept your views. I choose to do neither. Your right to be heard does NOT outweigh the rights of other people.


 
Foxfish, it is probably easier to quote direct from Dr Carl Edmonds' advice to defence on this matter rather than answer all your questions. I hope that this will provide the answers:

"Cause of Death, in order of probability.

1. Drowning after salt water aspiration. Contributors include panic, fatigue, negative buoyancy, negative pressure inspiration, swimming against currents, inexperience.
2. Vomiting with aspiration and/or laryngospasm
3. Combinations of 1,2 and 3.
4. Pulmonary barotrauma of ascent with air embolism. Contributions from the use of positive pressure respiration during rescue, and aggravated by resuscitation attempts on the surface
5. Arrhythmias. Contributions include a possible predisposition, surgical (cardiac) damage increasing ectopic activity, salt water aspiration, hypoxia, all the diving stress factors for the sudden death syndrome, as described below.
6. Scuba Divers’ Pulmonary Oedema (SDPE)
7. Marine animal injury. e.g. Irukandji envenomation during initial
dive.

DROWNING

This, or pulmonary oedema of some cause (see previously), is a final event. It was the terminal event, and was verified by the lung findings (lung weights, congestion, alveolar oedema, froth in airways) at autopsy. It is not feasible that drowning could be the sole factor, as something must have led to this. The victim had an adequate air supply and adequately functioning equipment to supply it. Probable contributing factors include:

Panic

Panic contributes to 39% of deaths in our recreational divers (other studies suggest 40-60%). It is a cause of impaired judgment, dangerous decisions, fatigue, over-breathing of the regulator, water aspiration and its serious or fatal consequences.

There is evidence of this lady being excessively anxious, to the extent of panic, both during her diver training – in relatively benign water conditions and at a shallow depth – and following the initial immersion on the day of her death (see Lou Johnston’s testimony).

In this instance there was ample reason for anxiety. Mrs Watson was grossly inexperienced, according to her alleged logged dives, both for depth exposure and existing currents. She was grossly over-weighted, even on the surface, and this will have increased as she descended. She needed the supervision of an experienced and trained instructor.

The decision to return to the descent line, after floating away from it, was not a judicious one, considering her negative buoyancy and the influence of the current. Her failure to make headway, even with her husband's assistance, would have considerably increased her level of anxiety – with good reason.

The statements of Mr Watson regarding the dive, indicating that his wife appeared anxious, supports this scenario.

I understand that she expressed no real inclination for scuba diving and undertook the course to please her husband. If this is true, it is one of the most problematic reasons for such an activity.

Negative Buoyancy

This can be assumed from the excessive weights employed (9 kg, 20 lbs). The correct weights needed to be neutrally buoyant on the surface were under half this, with the equipment she was using. The evidence from both Mr Watson and Mr Singleton indicated that she did not inflate her buoyancy vest. With descent, she would have become even heavier, making both her swimming upwards and against currents more difficult.

A reasonable estimate of her further loss of buoyancy, as she reached the 50 ft and almost 100 ft depth, is 1kg and 2 kg respectively. This is to be added to the already excessive overweighting. Rescue, without addressing the buoyancy issue, would have been very difficult, especially if also swimming against a current.

Negative buoyancy results in; sinking, over-exertion, inefficient swimming, panic, fatigue, over-breathing of the regulator - and thereby increased likelihood of water aspiration around the regulator. It also makes rescue far more difficult – much more difficult than with a neutrally buoyant victim, which is what most trainee rescuers experience in their course.

Salt Water Aspiration

This is frequent in inexperienced divers, especially if they are overexerting or panicking. These situations cause excessive breathing and excessive demands on the regulator. In turn this increases the resistance to breathing and induces the inhalation of more sea water because of impaired functioning of the regulator’s diaphragm and exhaust valves. Also, with the increased negative pressure of respiration, sealing of the mouthpiece becomes more problematic and water seeps into the regulator (which is normally in a dependent position).

The collection of sea water in the regulator may produce a bubbling or “wet” sensation during inspiration, and a nebulised spray is inhaled into the lungs. This has two major consequences. Shunting of the pulmonary circulation across poorly aerated alveoli rapidly results in hypoxia. Any concomitant reduction of carbon dioxide exhalation is overcome by the body increasing the minute ventilation (a natural physiological response to carbon dioxide) – thereby aggravating the over-breathing but not appreciably correcting the hypoxia. The hypoxia induces fatigue, with unconsciousness, then hypoxic spasms and death in severe cases, The cause of death is usually attributed, at autopsy, to drowning. The lungs become fluid filled and heavy with sea water, mucus and oedema.

A somewhat more delayed effect is the accumulation of osmotic fluid in the lungs, from the blood, aggravating the pulmonary oedema, and the other clinical effects, associated with drowning.

Salt water aspiration is a prelude to 37% of the recreational diving fatalities. In some series it is incorporated, incorrectly, as "asphyxia"."

Also, how long it will take for someone to die if air cut off:

"* If by suffocation (obstruction of air supply) >2 minutes (most say 2-3). Death in 3-10 minutes
* This is not applicable to under water (depth, pressure), when it would be longer
* This ignores the ?couple of restricted breaths available after air turned off.

If by replacement of air with an inert gas 1 minute (not relevant here)

Her problem was from aspiration leading to hypoxia, leading to unconsciousness. PROB < 1 minute"

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
You are right there is propaganda from both sides zeroed I have commented on this many times. I am truly sorry for the pain that the Thomases have to endure. I regret that this thread is painful for them and I agree that censorship can be an issue. When pretty well all the information revealed was from the Thomas camp I know it was terribly painful for the Watsons. I know they read what was posted over th years yet few people had any issue with that. I was criticized at being a Watson supporter when I tried to encourage people to consider and be sensitive to the feelings of both sides. Now the information from the other side is being presented .. tainted or not by personal perception. I do not believe it is fair to stop people who want more information and to challenge those giving it from doing so as long as it is done respectfully. Michael's website does not have the coverage that this forum does. This whole process had been played out here over several years and the people who have seen it unfold, the people who have been influenced by information released here are members of this community who look within this forum for their information.

I agree this needs to wind down and I hope that happens soon but not because it upsets one side since we didn't shut it down when it upset the other side. You are right this is a place where we all have the right to express ourselves.

I remember saying something very similar to what you were saying about the trial. Some people were saying they wanted a trial to hear the whole story. I did not agree that our curiosity was justification for a trial. Like it or not tho.. a the Thomas camp fought long an hard for their day in court. They got it and it has resulted in continued interest and the desire to hear "the rest of the story" since the trial ended before the defense information was released.
 
Last edited:

If there is "propaganda" I think it is now happening on the Watson side too. S
aying "if you don't like what we say don't read it" doesn't stand up anywhere, in fact it is suggesting a type of censorship. This is a public forum and anyone can read, and anyone who joins can post civilly. Whether you agree with their position or not, it does not give you the right to stop them reading or replying. If they choose to read and are hurt by the opinions expressed it is still their choice and it is their right to reply. But I also believe everyone on here should remember that these people are directly involved and one lost a family member in terrible circumstances. Empathy is not just saying you're sorry for their loss, it is demonstrated through your actions on here. Stating others should "not engage" if they find it painful is not being empathetic, and in my opinion it is also unreasonable.

No-one is harassing Michael or "restraining" him. No-one has stopped him from presenting his information. No-one has said he cannot post. And no-one should suggest other people refrain saying what they think either just because we may not like what they have to say.

As for your "desist" comment to me, I've said that I believe the case had little substance. I've said that I believed Gabe was innocent. I've said that I felt the media reporting was one-sided and that there WAS innuendo and hearsay. But I do believe this topic has run its course and I am entitled to say that. There's been little "discussion" of the defence in the last few pages, until Michael's previous statement tonight, and all the information is freely available on his website.



I also take exception to this comment. I do not believe it is necessary to satisfy anyone's morbid curiosity IN PUBLIC in THIS thread and I do not understand what this adds to the discussion. I think it is frivolous, and in my opinion it is put there to cause upset to the people you stated should not take part here.

But I also have a right to express my opinion so here it is: I believe that discussion of this topic serves no further useful purpose. I believe asking about the physiology of this particular case of drowning in this thread is wrong. I believe this thread has become a showcase for a few to say what they want and that you feel the rest of us can either not read or accept your views. I choose to do neither. Your right to be heard does NOT outweigh the rights of other people.

1. As mentioned previously, by 'propaganda' I was referring to ongoing attempts by some on this thread to incriminate Gabe with more of the same old hearsay and innuendo. From what I've seen in the discussions to date on this forum, the people who have refused to swallow the media tripe and who have shown the greatest regard for truth and substantiated evidence as a basis for prosecution have concluded that Gabe did not have a case to answer. Apparently you feel the same way so clearly my previous comments are not directed toward yourself. If they were phrased in terms that could be construed in such a manner may I offer my humblest apologies.

2. Explain why discussing the moments before Tina drowned is not relevant. Have you read the OP. This thread was intended to discuss the experience and knowledge gained by Michael from his time in the US with the defence. I gave a number of reasons why I consider the matter to be important. I'd infer from Michael's response that he at least did not consider it to be irrelevant.

3. Tell me where I stated you should not post on this thread. I did say that if you find the topic of discussion unpalatable no one is forcing you to read it and engage in the discussion. The topic for discussion was defined in the OP. It is expected that if you engage in the discussion you should remain on topic. I don't see what this has to do with censorship.

4. The fact that a number of people are engaging in sensible and civil dialogue regarding Michael's recent experience in the US would suggest to me that this discussion has not run its course. I'm left with wondering why there are some who resent this information being shared and discussed. Any attempt to stop such discussion would smack of censorship.

5. As mentioned before, it was Tommy Thomas who unlatched the gate and let the media horse bolt, putting the whole case into the public areana. Claiming that all discussion on this forum should now desist out of respect for the family smacks of irony - and hypocrisy. Can I suggest that if Mr Thomas really did want to keep the feuding between the families as a private matter he should take a leaf out of the Watson families book. From what I've seen and read, the way they have responded in the media in spite of the gross miscarriage of injustice that Gabe and the family has endured has been impeccable.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom