Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

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!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Accused scuba killer remanded in custody

An American man accused of murdering his wife during a north Queensland diving trip has been remanded in custody by a Supreme Court Judge in Brisbane.

It is alleged 32-year-old David Gabriel 'Gabe' Watson killed 26-year-old Tina Watson while they were on their honeymoon near Townsville six years ago.

Watson returned voluntarily from the US and was arrested at the Brisbane International Airport at around 5:00am today.

The charge against him was briefly mentioned in court and there will be a further 'mention hearing' later this month.

Tina Watson's father Tom Thomas says he was surprised when he was contacted by Australian authorities early this morning.

"The news came as a total shock to us. I just learned of this in the last couple of hours and we weren't expecting it," he said.

"We had no indication that this was going to happen so it's been a total shock at this point."
 
Very interesting... surprising development. Staying tuned!
 
For some reason, Watson decided to voluntarily return, out of the blue. But I'm thinking that perhaps the extradition process must have been moving along and he decided it would be better to go to Australia on his own terms, rather than under arrest.

Husband in Australia to face trial over wife&squo;s scuba death | The Daily Telegraph

Tina's father speculated something similar:

Husband charged over death on the reef | The Australian

It also shortens the time the prosecution to prepare for the case, which would be a benefit to Watson. Police were caught completely off-guard at his arrival. Could be a smart move on his part (or lawyer's part). I would have a hard time believing that this decision was made for an emotional reason such as desiring justice should be done since Watson has managed to avoid all requests for him to return to Australia for almost six years now. I believe the move was strictly tactical.

His next court appearance is May 29.

I'm glad Tina and her family will finally have their day in court.
 
As I've said before and may finally get to find out: How does one prove someone turned off someone else's air long enough to kill them and then turn it back on? Is there nothing else that could account for Tina's death?
 
As I've said before and may finally get to find out: How does one prove someone turned off someone else's air long enough to kill them and then turn it back on? Is there nothing else that could account for Tina's death?


It's been an interesting ride so far and I think it is going to get more so now. I just hope the justice system is able to provide justice to everyone involved.
 
Here are some interesting tidbits:

"Watson's US attorney Bob Austin reportedly told US journalists that his client had done a backflip on fighting extradition because he knew it was a `no-win situation'..

Queensland police have fought a long battle to bring Watson back to Australia to face trial, with Watson's US-based lawyer, Bob Austin, proclaiming his innocence and stating they would fight extradition..

Watson has not set foot in Australia since Tina's death, and at that time, told her parents `if the Australian authorities ever want me back, they will have to drag me kicking and screaming'..

He refused to return to Townsville for the month-long coronial inquiry in 2007-08, and also refused to testify by phone or videolink on the grounds that he `risked self-incrimination'.."

Source: Gabe Watson returns to face dive murder charge | Townsville Bulletin News
 
K_girl:
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.

You certainly CAN use a regulator without a mouthpiece. You can also just slip the mouthpiece back on and it still works. I quoted your post here rather than in your other "factual" thread. I thought the other thread was supposed to be unbiased, stick to the facts and not have comments and opinions?
 
For some reason, Watson decided to voluntarily return, out of the blue. But I'm thinking that perhaps the extradition process must have been moving along and he decided it would be better to go to Australia on his own terms, rather than under arrest.

Husband in Australia to face trial over wife&squo;s scuba death | The Daily Telegraph

Tina's father speculated something similar:

Husband charged over death on the reef | The Australian

It also shortens the time the prosecution to prepare for the case, which would be a benefit to Watson. Police were caught completely off-guard at his arrival. Could be a smart move on his part (or lawyer's part). I would have a hard time believing that this decision was made for an emotional reason such as desiring justice should be done since Watson has managed to avoid all requests for him to return to Australia for almost six years now. I believe the move was strictly tactical.

His next court appearance is May 29.

I'm glad Tina and her family will finally have their day in court.

The prosecution has had years to build a case, so that isn't much of an issue I would think. Moreover, just because he is there, are the courts in Australia required to expedite a trial? Not likely. They won't likely let him leave custody, either, given the difficulty getting him back, so he may cool his heels for some time "down under".

Perhaps money had something to do with it. Fighting extradition has to be pricey, not to mention the legal bills of the trial. Maybe he can't pay to fight on.

:confused:Questions for the legal minds out there: who is going to defend him in Australia? American attorneys may consult with him, but they won't be certified in Australia courts to try the case itself. Does he have to pay for both American and Australian counsel? Moreover, is he "entitled" to free defense counsel under Australian law if he cannot pay? For that matter, is he entitled to free counsel from American attorneys if he is charged with a crime in another country and cannot pay? In the US, he would have to prove his financial necessity to get court-appointed counsel. Does that apply in Australia?

If he has to foot the bill for this, including flying a lawyer to Australia for weeks on end, paying for an Australian counsel, or both, he will go broke for sure. Not to mention the inevitable expense of paying defense experts (forensics people, dive professionals, and so on...not cheap). No wonder he wouldn't waste any more cash on a hopeless extradition battle. :shakehead:
 
:confused:One more question for the legal beagles:

The recent Somalian hijacking resulted in the lone surviving hijacker being brought to stand trial in Manhattan. The legal basis for this (trying a Somali citizen in New York for a crime committed in international waters half a world away) was, according to the talking heads on cable news, that the US has decided that it may try anyone in the US for a capital crime committed against a US citizen, regardless of a) the citizenship of the perpetrator or b) the locality of the crime. The one restraint was getting hold of that perpetrator. Thus, if a French citizen kills an American in Bolivia, and that French citizen enters the US, he may be detained and tried for that crime in the US court system.

If that is the case, why couldn't the US court system try this case? If we can try a Somalian in Manhattan for a non-lethal crime committed in the Middle East against US citizens, why can't we try an American for murdering another American in Australia?
 
SBS:

IsnÃÕ the case regarding the Somali individual one that falls under terrorism statutes, which are in effect extended to crimes under maritime law? ArenÃÕ these cases different from your run of the mill civilian cases, which would not be seen as relevant to national security or national interests? IÃÎ not sure the rights the US asserts for one can be asserted so easily for another.

And besides that, perhaps the US doesnÃÕ want to pay the bill for doing so, even if it can assert that right? It costs a pretty penny to fly over Aussie authorities, witnesses, and the like for a case that essentially falls outside the jurisdiction of the US. And where in the US do you try it? If the US is asserting federal jurisdiction, then that means Gabe would have to be tried under those laws, right? The US, I assume, still reserves the right to try citizens of other countries who commit crimes against other citizens of other countries on US soil. That being the case, the Australians would seem to be the ones to try this case, especially if somewhere down the line we want the favor returned in extraditing one of its citizens who has committed crimes on our soil.

Also, since Australia and the US enjoy extradition agreements with each other, doesn't that entail respecting the sovereignty of this same jurisdiction in order to keep the agreement intact?

IÃÎ not sure of the implications exactly, but when I was back in Australia visiting with my soon-to-be inlaws, the topic of punishment for murder came up. I am not sure of this, but I think Gabe might be better off being convicted down under compared to the US. He might actually have a chance of getting out of jail with some of his life left.

I agree with Its Bruce that the specifics are likely to become clearer now that they have him. I have a question for the lawyers as well. Since Gabe has flown to Australia to face the indictment, does that mean the interrogations are over? They will have to proceed with what they have and not fish for more of GabeÃÔ inconsistencies. Is that right?

I think Gabe does have some significant gaps in his story. At the same time, gaps, especially in a murder case, ought not be enough, at least not in my humble opinion. The prosecutors must have something more than the clichñÔ that have been batted around by us and others on various scuba discussion boards, Either that or they know that they can manipulate a jury of non-diving peers to see him doing something that has in effect not actually been seen. A long time ago some others posted that the prosecution would not allow actual divers to be on the jury because they will know that in this sport reasonable doubt can be established in a lot of ways, and that the reactions of a person under duress in water can be very strange compared to what one might do on land.

I am very curious to see if this prediction and a host of others will come to fruition. And with regard to Brain Surgeons question on counsel, hopefully Gabe will have someone aware of the pitfalls of diving representing him so that he will get as many divers as possible on the stand and in the jury box. Honestly, if Gabe has done this, I really hope that the prosecution has an ace up their sleeve, one that leaves little to no doubt about his guilt. That would be the best outcome if he is guilty. If there is going to be a conviction, I hope it isnÃÕ going to be based on a bunch of bite-sized, easy-to-digest slices of circumstantial evidence that makes it seem as though reacting to stress underwater is the same as it is on land. This would be an unfortunate precedent in my opinion.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom