I respectfully dislike reading attorneys argue...
Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap
- Thread starter shakeybrainsurgeon
- Start date
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
- Status
ScubaSteve
Wow.....what a DB
Pretty BLAND isn't it? Oh well.....the way I have been handling this thread is if the post is too long, I lose interest and leave. Same goes for the next post and the next....I do think this thread is interesting to read but I do not have the time to read the long posts so I, for the most part, just lurk.
K_girl
Contributor
OK - let's try that. Does Gabe Watson's actions meet a definition of "blunder?"
1. His dive computer says it took 2 minutes and 30 seconds to reach the surface.
Watson tries to explain the slow ascent rate by saying that he approached an Asian diver and actually "shook him", however, the Coroner's Inquest was unable to locate the diver. Watson also claims that he rocketed to the surface and was surprised that he was not injured by the dramatic ascent.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3676608-post25.html
How is this a blunder? The best you could call it is an inconsistent statement. Juries have a tendency to think of inconsistent statements as "lies."
2. Eye witness, Dr. Stutz sees that Watson has Tina in a bear-hug and watches as Watson deliberately releases her, lets her sink and leaves her. Dr. Stutz describes the look of fear and panic in Tina's eyes as Watson had her in a bear-hug and he can see that Tina is in serious trouble and she is alive sometime during the bear-hug. Dr. Stutz is in shock when he sees Watson just let her go and let her drift away. At that moment Tina drifted away, Dr. Stutz' biggest fear was that she was dead or dying because she was not moving. She made no attempt to save herself. Dr. Stutz witnessed Tina's death. She was at least incapicitated to near-death sometime during the bear-hug with Watson.
You could say, that perhaps Tina panicked and drowned while in the bear-hug with Watson, but how can you say that Watson's intentional release and allowing Tina to simply drift away is a blunder? How could you say it was panic? It was an intentional, horrible act.
The blunder theory just doesn't hold-up.
InTheDrink
Contributor
K Girl, you seem to be predicating one argument on the basis of another. If a was true then b must be true. But then you use it backwards. Because b was true, then so must a. This is fallacious. It's very like some of the arguments that brought us war in Iraq as it happens. Fodder for children and not any sensible thinking person.
There are plenty of ways in which Gabe didn't kill his wife, you just choose to believe he did - and that's fine. So do I. But by Christ I wouldn't send him to the slammer or chair on the basis of the information to hand. You know I posted another link several months ago about the NOAA diver who let his buddy descend to his death on the 5 metre bar. Why didn't he rescue his buddy? He was incredibly experienced so why was he so beyond suspicion?
Quite possibly this man is guilty but your arguments seems more emotional than clear and rational at this point.
There are plenty of ways in which Gabe didn't kill his wife, you just choose to believe he did - and that's fine. So do I. But by Christ I wouldn't send him to the slammer or chair on the basis of the information to hand. You know I posted another link several months ago about the NOAA diver who let his buddy descend to his death on the 5 metre bar. Why didn't he rescue his buddy? He was incredibly experienced so why was he so beyond suspicion?
Quite possibly this man is guilty but your arguments seems more emotional than clear and rational at this point.
K_girl
Contributor
Novitate -
I am using reported facts in this case to look at the possibility of criminal intent on the part of Gabe Watson. That is what the jury will be instructed to do. They will look at Gabe Watson's actions and statements and they will decide what they mean. They will decide if each action is panic, diver error, cover-up for guilt of either of the previous two or - intentional action that shows criminal intent. The judge will instruct the jury that they cannot consider the facts of any other case - just this case and only this case. Obviously, the facts in the other "non-case" you mentioned did not warrant further investigation. The statement of the diver involved must have fit the evidence. Watson brought attention to himself because the statements he made did not fit with what happened, therefore, further investigation was warranted, which after nearly five years, finally culminated in an arrest warrant.
So I am focusing on the facts in this case, only this case, which you have not done. That is because so far, you have not been able to provide an "innocent" explanation for the facts in this case, and only this case - that I have presented. You say that there are plenty of ways in which Gabe did not kill his wife - but in looking strictly at the two facts that I presented (computer slow ascent and Dr. Stutz' statement), you have not offered any.
As for your claim that my argument is "emotional" - the testimony of Dr. Stutz is what provides the emotional drama here, not me. And yes, his account as told in the "Haunted Memory" story will be repeated at trial. It will be dramatic and it will be emotional and it will hurt Gabe Watson. If Watson does not testify, the defense will have no option but to rely on his prior statements. Gabe Watson never mentioned being in a bear-hug with his wife. Dr. Stutz saw a dramatic event that, according to him, is forever burned into his memory. Dr. Stutz sees the bear-hug with Watson's arms wrapped completely around her and then he releases her and lets her sink. If Watson doesn't testify to refute it, the bear-hug and the events as Dr. Stutz saw them will stand as fact. The jury could easily conclude that the limp Tina did not struggle to survive and sank to her death like "Jesus on the Cross" because she was either already dead or in the process of dying when Watson released her. You far too easily discount what this eye witness had to say. I don't think the jury will take his testimony so lightly.
I am using reported facts in this case to look at the possibility of criminal intent on the part of Gabe Watson. That is what the jury will be instructed to do. They will look at Gabe Watson's actions and statements and they will decide what they mean. They will decide if each action is panic, diver error, cover-up for guilt of either of the previous two or - intentional action that shows criminal intent. The judge will instruct the jury that they cannot consider the facts of any other case - just this case and only this case. Obviously, the facts in the other "non-case" you mentioned did not warrant further investigation. The statement of the diver involved must have fit the evidence. Watson brought attention to himself because the statements he made did not fit with what happened, therefore, further investigation was warranted, which after nearly five years, finally culminated in an arrest warrant.
So I am focusing on the facts in this case, only this case, which you have not done. That is because so far, you have not been able to provide an "innocent" explanation for the facts in this case, and only this case - that I have presented. You say that there are plenty of ways in which Gabe did not kill his wife - but in looking strictly at the two facts that I presented (computer slow ascent and Dr. Stutz' statement), you have not offered any.
As for your claim that my argument is "emotional" - the testimony of Dr. Stutz is what provides the emotional drama here, not me. And yes, his account as told in the "Haunted Memory" story will be repeated at trial. It will be dramatic and it will be emotional and it will hurt Gabe Watson. If Watson does not testify, the defense will have no option but to rely on his prior statements. Gabe Watson never mentioned being in a bear-hug with his wife. Dr. Stutz saw a dramatic event that, according to him, is forever burned into his memory. Dr. Stutz sees the bear-hug with Watson's arms wrapped completely around her and then he releases her and lets her sink. If Watson doesn't testify to refute it, the bear-hug and the events as Dr. Stutz saw them will stand as fact. The jury could easily conclude that the limp Tina did not struggle to survive and sank to her death like "Jesus on the Cross" because she was either already dead or in the process of dying when Watson released her. You far too easily discount what this eye witness had to say. I don't think the jury will take his testimony so lightly.
InTheDrink
Contributor
K Girl, I knew the witness had said he saw that, but wasn't aware that Gabe's story didn't concur. Did he positively say he didn't do that or just not mentioned in any statement? That being the case I would say Gabe's got even more to worry about.
But I would still maintain that you're involvement in this has gone beyond the dispassionate. On the 'factual' thread the other day you made an erroneous statement about him clearly lying about being able to replace the mouthpiece. I think you've strayed into the territory where you are actively looking for things to hang him with. So the factual part of it goes out the window.
That notwithstanding, I think you've done a brilliant job of summarising this case. I would just stress that it'd be even better if you hadn't pre-judged the case. Basically, your 'factual' thread is essentially the case for the prosecution.
But I would still maintain that you're involvement in this has gone beyond the dispassionate. On the 'factual' thread the other day you made an erroneous statement about him clearly lying about being able to replace the mouthpiece. I think you've strayed into the territory where you are actively looking for things to hang him with. So the factual part of it goes out the window.
That notwithstanding, I think you've done a brilliant job of summarising this case. I would just stress that it'd be even better if you hadn't pre-judged the case. Basically, your 'factual' thread is essentially the case for the prosecution.
Ayisha
Contributor
In the earlier statements of Gabe's 16 versions of what happened during that fateful dive, he did not mention holding onto her at all. He said that he in fact couldn't hold onto her as she was too "heavy" and falling too fast. In another version he said that he could not equalize and kept trying to dive down for her unsuccessfully, which both his own computer profile (steady at 45 feet, no dips) and the Dr eyewitness (bear hug, no attempt to go after her lifeless body) do not support. After the police confronted him with the eyewitness evidence of a bear hug, THEN he said that he was trying to hold onto her, but she may have panicked and knocked off his mask and reg. While trying to fix them, he lost hold of her and she sank. In one of the versions, she winked at him as she sank, which he took as approval to get help at the surface. All of this is paraphrased of course.
So, his initial statements were not supported by his own dive computer or the eyewitness statement. His later statements were more consistent with the existing evidence that the police informed him that they had.
The operative phrase here, K-Girl, is that you are basing your conclusions to this point on “reported facts”. In other words facts filtered through the media, which in large part are filtered through whatever complete facts the prosecution has, and for that matter the potential defense team in this case.
It seems for your part at least that you haven’t considered that the media, much like you, have already decided what they think the outcome ought to be and are thus spinning their “reports” the way they want to. Do you deny that this is at least a mitigating factor leading into this trial?
The “reported facts” in newsprint mean nothing until they are tested at trial, replete with all the other facts yet unknown to the rest of us. Surely this aspect of jurisprudence is not lost on you given your background in this profession. The primary difference between you and those of us exercising caution in this thread when coming to a conclusion is that we think the entire picture ought to be seen before this guy is convicted of murder, a position it seems you have great deal of disdain for. I am not sure why to be honest. Perhaps it has something to do with differing personal requirements each of us entertain for a prima facie level evidence in a murder case.
In-the-Drink has it right, frankly, whether or not the jury will ultimately agree with your angle on the “reported” evidence in this case (a case that, effectually, isn’t even really an actual case yet).
By allowing your conclusions to provide you with the lens under which you choose to view the “reported” evidence in this case, you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Any post hoc conclusions you come to at this stage ignore the varied other explanations that are out there that could become relevant before this tragedy plays out, as others have already pointed out.
That you can’t personally see what these potentialities are is another logical fallacy called an appeal to ignorance. You’ve dismissed any other explanations as not relevant to the case because they are not “reported” as such, which rings as very odd since inquisitive minds tend not to view information missing in newsprint as evidence of an occurrence not happening or not being relevant to something else. It is best to wait until such time as all of that evidence is compiled and presented by both sides before making a final stand. Isn’t that also something that “the jury will be instructed to do” as well?
I say this not because I think Gabe is innocent. I say this because even if he is guilty, a laissez-faire approach to this case based on a preconceived slam dunk in circumstantial terms is a dangerous game that can backfire in the real world. You say you know how the jury will react when they hear this evidence. You may well be right. I find your confidence reflective of the fact that you want Gabe to be guilty. Fair enough. I think the guy is pretty slimy also to be perfectly honest. Hopefully we can agree on that much. But let’s face it. You don’t know how the jury will be made up any more than we do. And let’s also face the fact that you don’t know how this jury will react to the actual evidence in the case, not without at least knowing some aspects of the defense strategy before coming to that conclusion. You can read newspapers beforehand until the cows come home, but that isn’t going to give you any more edification than the rest of us on this point.
Taking into account a doctor who has made claims of this alleged “bear hug” and saying categorically that “this will hurt Gabe” is presumptuous and in the vein of prosecutorial standards unprofessional I would say. What is going to happen with this case if the doctor’s performance on the stand ends up being inconsistent? Will that mean his duress in the moment created the catalyst for inconsistent memory? I for one would like to know how close he was to Tina when he saw this anguished look on her face. Please don’t cite newspaper articles to establish this. I’d rather wait for his testimony if you don’t mind. And if we can grant this stalwart individual the benefit of the “emotional” baggage this evidence implies (if indeed he is inconsistent on the day), why should we not allow Gabe the same benefit of the doubt for his inconsistencies? I can’t answer any of my own questions at this point either.
The truth is I am as interested in seeing justice in this case as you are.
As righteous as your position is on this matter, one at least partially earned given the time you have put into posting on it, I wonder how things would play out if those of us disagreeing with you here in this thread now were on the jury with you during this case. If you allow yourself to imagine a jury comprised of at least some people thinking as we are, are you going to berate these jury peers who haven’t come to your conclusions, or will you try to work with them? Truth be told, you probably wouldn’t make it passed the voir dire process given the “emotional” derivative laden in your opinion to date. That tends to get vetted early on I would wager.
Cheers!
Last edited:
Interesting how this thread is starting to umm heat up a bit again.....
Lots of us have been following it for ages.... some of us have fairly strong feelings.... some have come to conclusions.... some have decided not to allow themselves to accept a conclusion (which is still a conclusion of sorts)
I find it fascinating that how many have come to conclusions about others' conclusions and thought processes. All this thread really is in my opinion is a group of people who are interested in whatever "facts" are available and ultimately seeing justice done.
A "fact" is a "fact" whether it is reported by the media, located in transcripts of police interviews or transcripts of the Coronial Inquest. I for one do appreciate that K-girl has put a lot of time into finding links and making them available to us to read and come to our own conclusions or form our own opinions. The weight I put on information is my personal decision and the source of the information. Thanks for K-girl.
As I have said here before... it doesn't matter what my conclusions are unless I happen to be on the jury. I will not be on the jury (glad of that as I am not sure I could put my bias aside at this point). I am finding the information and opinions here to be a worth while exercise.
K-girl I think you posted the link to the Coronial Inquest Transcript and I am pretty sure there was a statement by the Judge that he found the Doctor to be a credible witness and his testimoney to be consistent.... I don't think we will see the Doctor falling apart on the stand.
Lots of us have been following it for ages.... some of us have fairly strong feelings.... some have come to conclusions.... some have decided not to allow themselves to accept a conclusion (which is still a conclusion of sorts)
I find it fascinating that how many have come to conclusions about others' conclusions and thought processes. All this thread really is in my opinion is a group of people who are interested in whatever "facts" are available and ultimately seeing justice done.
A "fact" is a "fact" whether it is reported by the media, located in transcripts of police interviews or transcripts of the Coronial Inquest. I for one do appreciate that K-girl has put a lot of time into finding links and making them available to us to read and come to our own conclusions or form our own opinions. The weight I put on information is my personal decision and the source of the information. Thanks for K-girl.
As I have said here before... it doesn't matter what my conclusions are unless I happen to be on the jury. I will not be on the jury (glad of that as I am not sure I could put my bias aside at this point). I am finding the information and opinions here to be a worth while exercise.
K-girl I think you posted the link to the Coronial Inquest Transcript and I am pretty sure there was a statement by the Judge that he found the Doctor to be a credible witness and his testimoney to be consistent.... I don't think we will see the Doctor falling apart on the stand.
K_girl
Contributor
Thanks bowlofpetunias. Much of what I have examined comes from Gabe Watson's statements to police in his interview, (full transcipts are available on-line) the Coroner's Inquest report (full transcript available on-line) and the photograph. However, the rest does come from the media. The two key elements I discussed about the length of time for the ascent as reported by the Constable and the more dramatic description of eyewitness, Dr. Stutz, came from media reports. Dr. Stutz did testify at the Coroner's Inquest, the Coroner's Report did not have the drama that the media report did. However, in both these cases, the media did put the key elements in quotes. Certainly, that is not evidence that a jury can consider. The Constable and Dr. Stutz will have to be consistent with those newspaper accounts when they testify. That is because I have not found any kind of retraction or correction of those newspaper quotes. If they aren't consistent, they should be asked why they did not take any action to correct their statements to the media.
I am drawing my conclusions based on the premise that the testimony of these two witnesses will be consistent with how they were quoted in the media. If I were sitting on the jury and the defense was able to impeach the testimony of the Constable and Dr. Stutz, I would have to change my vote to not guilty. And I would change my vote to not guilty.
However, given the many inconsistent statements of Gabe Watson about the moment he left his wife go, as so eloquently stated by Ayisha above, I believe that the Constable and Dr. Stutz will be more consistent and the more credible witnesses. Of course, we have to wait and see what happens at trial.
I am really just speculating on how the trial will go on what we know now, which is really a lot. I'm sure we may be in for some surprises, twists and turns. I've tried to visualize every moment that Watson described and and give possible explanations for each and every element of Watson's story. I've tried to take all his statements and meld it together to match a timeline of events that flows consistently from one to the next and can't. I've asked myself, what is the possible explanation for innocence and the possible explanation for guilt for each issue.
There are people on this board who claim that there are innocent explanations for each of the issues I've listed in my blog, but.. they offer none. And I would really be interested in hearing it. They just keep personally attacking me and calling me emotional. But that's OK, I'm just a woman, we're all emotional - right?
I am drawing my conclusions based on the premise that the testimony of these two witnesses will be consistent with how they were quoted in the media. If I were sitting on the jury and the defense was able to impeach the testimony of the Constable and Dr. Stutz, I would have to change my vote to not guilty. And I would change my vote to not guilty.
However, given the many inconsistent statements of Gabe Watson about the moment he left his wife go, as so eloquently stated by Ayisha above, I believe that the Constable and Dr. Stutz will be more consistent and the more credible witnesses. Of course, we have to wait and see what happens at trial.
I am really just speculating on how the trial will go on what we know now, which is really a lot. I'm sure we may be in for some surprises, twists and turns. I've tried to visualize every moment that Watson described and and give possible explanations for each and every element of Watson's story. I've tried to take all his statements and meld it together to match a timeline of events that flows consistently from one to the next and can't. I've asked myself, what is the possible explanation for innocence and the possible explanation for guilt for each issue.
There are people on this board who claim that there are innocent explanations for each of the issues I've listed in my blog, but.. they offer none. And I would really be interested in hearing it. They just keep personally attacking me and calling me emotional. But that's OK, I'm just a woman, we're all emotional - right?
- Status
Similar threads
