Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[InTheDrink]

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?

Cheap shot. I have been known to cry when I see Homer and Marge making up so you've nothing on me in the emotional department.

The point I think you're failing to see is that you're alienating allies, who have the same feeling/thoughts/etc. as you. Even though most of what you say is rock solid, by making dodgy statements (e.g. mouth piece) it risks undermining previous statements. To flip what I said earlier - if what K Girl says now is incorrect, then perhaps the other things she also said are incorrect. Fallacious but human minds tend to follow these paths.

There have been many ways in which Gabe could be innocent. And my point really was how his actions were taken under suspicion when an NOAA diver wasn't with some fairly similar aspects. What were the differences? Well the fact that this was a honeymoon and the sensational aspect to this would have to be a big newspaper seller. Gabe may well have lied. That doesn't make him guilty of murder. Personally I think there's too many things stacked up against him and I can't get my head around the dive computer battery in backwards and yet still beeping. Maybe it's a new model. The Suunto Village Idiot 'Replacing sense'.

But I think what Dadvocate and I have been saying is not disagreeing with you - we're just saying don't wreck you're own argument by getting tunnel vision on this.



J

 

[james croft]

The guy whacked his old lady by cutting off her air and holding her until she drowned. Quit arguing about it.

 

[Argonaut Captain]

I truly assumed that any diver who read his statement would know it was bogus. There is no way events happened the way he said. The guy is a lying sack, and he needs to fry. That girl didn't deserve to go out like that.

 

[Dadvocate]

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?

K-Girl, you are the one who used the term “emotional” in the post I responded to at least, and the connotation was related to how the evidence would be presented and how the jury (comprised of men and women no doubt) would react when the doctor (for one) explained what he saw in those terms. In other words, “the emotion” is evident in the testimony that will come up later on in the trial, not some misogynistic throwback to pre-suffrage days or some patriarchal stereotype with all women being barefoot and pregnant or what have you. Your gender in this discourse is not germane at all, just as mine isn’t. Even burly police officers who have a vested interest in a case will weep from time to time given the emotion of it all. It’s called being human. Is it a slight on our part to note that you have a vested interest in this case? If your answer is yes, then I’d say that it is unwarranted. Please, don’t degrade a legitimate difference in opinion with banalities related gender ad hominem, as leveling such charges insults you more than us anyway. Take that at face value or not. It’s really up to you.

What part of “the evidence is not fully out yet” is not coming through clearly in our rebuttals to you drawing an early conclusion in this case? Please, by all means cite a relevant court case that has the defense team in a murder trial playing its hand early in the media before the trial begins, especially a case where this strategically ends up being a good idea. Please feel free to include specifics in Gabe’s trial where this might be a plan if indeed he does have an ace in the hole and has some explanation for his behavior on the day. How would it be a good idea for him and his team to leak this information at this point?

I’m not a legal professional by any stretch, but in my layman’s eyes, I would think the defense tipping its hand early before the actual trial would be a bad idea (this if he is guilty or not), as I think the police doing so way back when was a really bad idea when all this started. That being the case, I don’t see how we skeptics can really meet this challenge of yours in any realistic way. But I guess that is the point, isn’t it? You know we can’t cite what isn’t there in print, and for some reason this seems to galvanize you in your position about Gabe’s guilt. You, like any of us not actually relevant to the case, have that right, but your approach thus far still comes with some intellectual baggage all the same.

I’ll repeat that you may well be right that Gabe is guilty and that the jury will see things your way in the long run. I don’t deny the man has some explaining to do. You are probably spot on with your observation about him needing to testify for his own sake at trial, a risk of gargantuan proportions when one looks to his performance in the taped interrogations. We’re not talking Einstein here. As you note in your post above, however, there could be surprises in this case that ultimately play out. Any one of them could be crucial to this case, even though you and the rest of us don’t know about what these possibilities are or could be at this juncture. This is the only point being made by me and a few others, not that we can’t cite a surprise that we have no way of knowing exists, or worse that we think this guy ought to get off if he is guilty or some such nonsense. If the prosecution does an OJ-style foul up here and Gabe ends up walking, I’ll be with you in proclaiming my disgust at that outcome. If more evidence comes to the fore and he is proven to be guilty, I’ll gladly give you your props. If he is guilty, on top of being slimy, then may the evidence really show it in end.

I remind you again that citing the absence of an explanation that you (or your envisaged ideal jury pool) deem acceptable at this stage in the game is a logical fallacy in much the same way that the naysayers of yore held to when a heliocentric solar system came on the scene. They tapped their feet on the ground in disdain saying “it’s flat” and summarily dismissed the evidence they claimed wasn’t there or that didn’t make sense. It is the same fallacy creationists delve into when they say they can’t fully grasp how evolution could have lead to homo sapiens dominating the planet. That the flat earth pundits and the creationists couldn’t/can’t fathom these ideas is immaterial to the reality, and that scientists in the past couldn’t meet the dogmatic requirements of others for many, many years does naught to the reality of our spherical orb or its elliptical orbit around the sun. It takes a full investigation and TIME to make a real case for our origins and for the innocence or guilt of murder suspects to a lesser degree. That is really the only major disagreement we have by the way, not that you are a woman and have the audacity to disagree with us. It is really quite unfortunate that you chose to view things in this way, and worse that you actually typed these remarks and send them.

Cheers!

 

[K_girl]

InTheDrink - Regarding the "mouthpiece" statement I made, you forget that I said that the person who called me out on that had a valid point I retracted it and restated my point. As for me being right or wrong, that's not what I am trying to achieve here. I am trying to talk about how the case could potentially be argued - and I am interested in both sides of the argument. I may make one argument that could be refuted by the other side with a known fact or even potential fact. Then it will be point taken, now what could potentially be argued against it. I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that any good lawyer would want someone vigorously arguing the other side in order to understand what they may be up against.

Dadavocate - Geeze, can we keep to the facts of the case and cut-out all the esoteric mumbo jumbo? Can we please stop making this about me and personally attacking me?

As for my being a woman and being "emotional" - I was trying to make a joke, but I forget sometimes that the typewritten word does not always convey that. So please, let's just drop it.

I have asked anyone out there to make the potential defense arguments from what we know about the case. So far, I have been making mostly the prosecution arguments. If there is drama to be had for the prosecution, I have also made that dramatic, emotional argument because I believe the prosecution will. Since no one really wants to make the defense arguments on what we know about the case, I will. So, here we go..

The sudden ascent.

Potential Defense Argument: Did the police download the data from Gabe's computer? If not, why didn't they? If not, didn't they do a lousy job? If not, exactly how was the information captured? How often does Gabe's computer sample the information? If they don't know, didn't they do a lousy job? If it only samples at a rate of once every 30 seconds, or even a minute - how do they know that he wasn't going up and down in between the sampling times? What is the experience of divers out there who have downloaded their data? Can it be graphed visually? When I look at the playback of my dive computer's data, the last couple of minutes go by in just seconds. If you show a dive computer playback to a jury, they may feel they can't make a judgment about that. I can't really tell what happened in the last couple of minutes of the dive because the information goes by so fast.

Potential Prosecution Argument: If the defense nails them on anything mentioned above, they will probably go to Gabe Watson's statement where he said he shot to the surface so fast that he was surprised that he did not get the bends. One thing every dive computer will record is an uncontrolled ascent. My computer's profile will show flashing "slow" during the profile playback. (OK, I admit I've seen that a couple of times.) But if there was no "slow" warning, it contradicts Watson's statement that he shot to the surface so fast that he would have to worry about the bends. The prosecution will need to prove that Gabe's computer records "slow" warnings. The prosecution will have to show that it did indeed take 2 minutes and 30 seconds for the ascent and they will have to know exactly what depth that ascent started from. And it has to be exactly 2 minutes and 30 seconds as Constable Murdoch stated in the news account, or it could be a problem.

Dr. Stutz - Eyewitness to Bear-Hug

Potential Defense Argument. Dr. Stutz' memory may not be so sharp after six years. If Dr. Stutz was close enough to see the look in Tina's eyes, why didn't he go after Tina? Wasn't he just a couple of kicks away? If Dr. Stutz was looking at faces, did he look at Watson's face? What did he see in Watson's eyes? At the time this happened and he was still underwater, did Dr. Stutz think he just witnessed a murder, or did he conclude that later after the police became suspicious? Isn't Dr. Stutz just embellishing his story because he doesn't like Gabe Watson? Didn't Dr. Stutz hear other divers whispering about Watson? Didn't he hear them say that they thought he wasn't behaving like they think he should? If Dr. Stutz has any reservations about what he saw that day, he may retract some or all of what he said or not choose to appear.

Potential Prosecution Argument. If they can prove that Dr. Stutz gave his information to the police right after the incident, much of the above could be refuted. However, we don't know when Dr. Stutz was interviewed. The prosecution will have to make sure that Dr. Stutz' credibility can hold up. They will need to show that he is not a person who is prone to embellishment and at the same time, capture the drama of what he witnessed. I believe that Dr. Stutz's testimony will be pretty straight-forward and factual. The drama will probably come in the prosecution's closing statements as they re-tell the story of what Dr. Stutz witnessed.

So now I am the "fallasy creationist" for both sides. But to my mind, I am trying to discuss what we know about the case terms of potential facts, how it will be argued and how a jury may deliberate on it. If that is fallasy creationism, then I guess I am guilty. However, if I have to continue to defend myself personally because I have primarily taken the prosecution side of the argument, I simply will no longer respond to that.

If you don't desire to ponder about this case and how it could potentially be argued and would prefer to wait for trial, then maybe this discussion is not for you.

 

[K_girl]

Potential Prosecution Argument re: Dr. Stutz, Continued I took another look at the Haunted memory news article about Dr. Stutz's testimony at the Coroner's Inquest. It would appear when he testified in 2008 (five years later) that this incident was still very fresh in his mind and he actually was quite emotional about it. From the article:

At this point, far from being a hardened emergency doctor used to the loss of life, Dr Stutz broke down and sobbed openly.

"I have gone over this ... multiple times," he said.

"An event like that is obviously shocking.

"Outside of work, I had never seen anything like that in my life.

"(Along with Tina's family), I am also seeking closure – this has impacted on me too."

***END***

So I think the potential for Dr. Stutz's testimony to be dramatic and emotional is actually much greater than I first thought.

In terms of the defense potentially challenging Dr. Stutz about why he did not go after Tina, the article quotes him:

"She fell into the blackness – I did not see her land on the ocean floor. My first instinct as a doctor was to go up to help and I pushed my way past the other divers in my group down to my dive instructor to tell him, but he said to calm down and insisted I stay down with the group.

"Then I saw another diver in the water making a beeline for the bottom."

*****END****

So, Dr. Stutz is an emergency room doctor who is used to seeing extreme trauma and seeing people die. The prosecution could argue that an emergency room doctor, who when under pressure is trained to accurately observe symptoms and react quickly, would not be the kind of person who is likely to embellish a story. And yet, here is a man who has been traumatized by what he saw. Could it be he was traumatized by something he never saw before? - The commission of a murder (as I perceive it could be argued by the prosecution in closing statements).

This argument would open-up an examination by the defense into Dr. Stutz's performance record as a doctor, so the prosecution will need to examine it first.

******
By the way, thanks bowlofpetunias for understanding what it is I have been trying to accomplish here. I think what I have to do is keep emphasizing that what I am presenting are potential arguments. I sometimes visualize the potential scathing closing argument the prosecution could give and find myself saying it as my own words. I can see how that would be confusing since I do believe Watson is guilty and find myself feeling the same kind of passion for the case I think the prosecutor should have.

 

[Ayisha]

You know, Kgirl, there's a piece in Gabe's statement about the regulator that seems problematic and it hasn't been discussed yet. Here is his statement:

WATSON: I know I didn't say this at the time but when I went back my mouth piece was not connected to my regulator and I had a fitted mouth piece, you know they zip tie on there but I had to UI bowl of water and put it in your mouth and it moulds to your mouth

LAWRENCE: mmm

WATSON: um cause when I was getting back um you know a day or two later I think it was after you got here wasn't it

Mrs WATSON: yeah it was UI

WATSON: and I pulled my stuff out of my bag yet, cause my stuff was in my bag wet so I pulled out rinse them out and I noticed my mouth piece was not actually on my regulator..

He seems to be saying that a day or two after the incident, he was pulling his wet equipment out of his bag and that's when he noticed that the mouthpiece was missing.

Does that mean that the police did not confiscate his gear immediately? Does it mean that they only took the computer before that one or two day period? Or does that mean that the police did not take any of his gear into evidence until after one or two days in Gabe's possession? Or is it possible to return his gear within one or two days in police custody and testing?

I know that he was not considered a suspect immediately, until after the two "seasoned" divers told the police of their suspicions. So, if the police did take his gear anytime other than immediately, the chain of custody began pretty late, and they are lucky to have whatever evidence remained.

Regarding the missing mouthpiece, when he recovered and replaced his reg, he certainly should have noticed it was missing while the mouthpiece-less reg was in his mouth at 45 feet and for his 2 1/2 minute ascent. Finding the reg without a mouthpiece one or two days later in a bag means nothing about whether it was still on the reg during the dive. It may also have come off after the dive or anytime before it was put into the bag.

 

[K_girl]

All very good points Ayisha. You are trying to visualize what Waston is saying.

It is going to be really hard to place this timeframe, but I'll give it a shot. First he changed "when I went back" to "cause when I was getting back a day or two later.." The second phrase would seem to indicate that he went somewhere and came back. But because he did not leave the city between the time of the incident to the time of the interview, I think he was trying to say that his equipment was taken immediately and he got his equipment back a day or two later (because it was still wet). I think he was trying to time it around the same time the investigator arrived (not two more days after the investigator arrived). We know that Watson was interviewed four days after Tina's death, but the investigator could have arrived days before the formal interview.

It is interesting to note, as you have, that he never expressed any difficulties with breathing through his reg at the same time he pointed out that the mouthpiece was missing. He did, afterall say that Tina had knocked his mask askew and he had to deal with that. Surely if his mouthpiece was knocked off the regulator, he would have had to deal with it in some way during the dive. I think he would have to at least hold it in his mouth in order to breathe from it as the mouthpiece is required for biting down with the teeth to keep the reg in place.

There are a lot of examples of what Watson says that is extremely hard to decipher and you could potentially interpret this a multitude of different ways. I have spent a lot of time trying to decipher Waton's use of language and there are a many of examples where he is extremely difficult to follow. I think an interesting exercise for the prosecution would be to break down everything Watson said that was clear and understandable versus what is practically undecipherable, such as the example above and determine how those moments fit into the scheme of things. For instance, where his answer is clear, the question may not have been threatening to him and where his answer is almost impossible to follow, he may have felt more threatened by the question. In this particular example, he is not answering a question, but offering what he thinks may be potential evidence. So this would raise an eyebrow - he is not responding to a threatening question, so why is he so difficult to follow?

A good example would be, he was readily able to answer the question about his certification as a rescue diver, how many dives he had, how deep he had been, etc. However, but when he is asked the question of whether he received training on how to rescue someone, his answer has some ridiculous things in it like - he was never trained on how to revive someone on the bottom when even a non-diver knows, you can't revive someone underwater, you have to take them to the surface first. He was clearly uncomfortable with that.

The defense will probably argue that his confusing use of language was because he was nervous. However, the prosecution may make the argument that when you compare that to his comfort in answering what he perceived to be non-threatening questions, his answers are more quickly answered and clear. The fact that they video-taped his interviews could be very helpful to the prosecution in this regard, because I noticed these changes in his use of language through the portion of the video that has been made available on the Internet. If it would be acceptable to the court, an expert in both body language and language could potentially be useful - perhaps for either the prosecution or the defense.

 

[Dadvocate]

Dadavocate - Geeze, can we keep to the facts of the case and cut-out all the esoteric mumbo jumbo? Can we please stop making this about me and personally attacking me?

Hmm… esoteric how? Here’s the rub if you would like it in such language. Is it objectively wise for anyone at this juncture to presume Gabe’s guilt or innocence related to this occurrence given that we only have the transcripts of the earlier interviews, some reported aspects of the case run through the media, and as yet no idea what Gabe’s defense is going to be?

To be fair, I should be willing to answer my own question. My argument at this stage is that drawing any conclusions other than personal ones laden in the appropriate personal language is a bad idea. I am still not completely sure what your answer to that question would be to be honest. I would appreciate some clarification if you are willing to give one.

I agree we can look at scenarios for all kinds of things with this case, as long as we note that this is really only conjecture at this point. What I am particularly interested in (with some others it seems) are the specifics in how one turns off someone’s else’s air “bear hug” style 1) while not being seen doing so and 2) without leaving any trace whatsoever. Perhaps those questions will go unanswered. I am not sure. I have my Aussie in-laws looking out for local tidbits if there are any to be had, but I suspect we will get a hold of all that once the case starts anyway. Am I the only one who found that Aussie police video clumsy in demonstrating this presumed technique?

If you are claiming that your thought experiments related to this case are indeed merely you exercising this conjecture, then I really don’t have any issue with that at all. How could I? I’ve been doing the same thing, as have others. It seemed as though this was not the case earlier on when you were asserting what appeared to be logical conclusions that were actually really just personal ones. Quite a few people have picked up on this. By pointing this out, those of us who called you on it were essentially already referring to “the facts of the case”, or at least our ramblings related to this case in this particular thread anyway.

Formal debate is what I do (i.e. teach), as is how language is used for various memes in human existence. I apologize if my somewhat pointed style gave you the impression that I was attacking you personally. I never intended my disagreements with you to have that effect. In truth, I think you have contributed a great deal of interesting fodder for this conversation, albeit with a slightly biased lens at times. And when you’ve used charged language to point to discrepancies in my posts, I’ve not taken any of it to heart.

You are right that text type can mask sarcasm, and I see that I missed yours. The reason I responded as I did was that I thought you were claiming I (or we) had personally attacked you when from what I saw there was no such impart. I went over my language again and that of others in the last few pages and saw none; yet you request that “the personal attacks” aimed at you stop again in this response me, implying it seems that I am at least one of the culprits.

I have not engaged in any personal attacks toward you, and I am pretty sure In the Drink hasn’t as well (at least from what I’ve seen and from the way in which he chooses to make his points). Perhaps as a form of compromise it would be a good idea if you didn’t level such charges as easily as you do. The perception of a slight might not be one, just as my missing your reference to “emotion women” proves quite nicely. Could it be that you are reading insult into posts that have no such intent, just as I missed your sarcasm?
Actually, there is no need to answer that question. Consider this rhetorical device on my part an esoteric way of agreeing to your request so that the topic can move on.

Cheers!

 

[Dadvocate]

If the defense nails them on anything mentioned above, they will probably go to Gabe Watson's statement where he said he shot to the surface so fast that he was surprised that he did not get the bends. One thing every dive computer will record is an uncontrolled ascent. My computer's profile will show flashing "slow" during the profile playback.

You make some interesting points, K-Girl. I have to finish grading a bit more tonight, but I would like to chime in on this one aspect first. The comment about “shooting up so fast…” is not a categorical statement like “I was in Hooters by 10:00” or “I was talking on my cel at 7:30 in the Lido district of Beijing”. These are much more easily pinned down as lies than a semantically ambiguous claim like this one.
On the face of it, the claim could be seen in perceptual terms, for instance that he didn’t do a required safety stop for 3 minutes at 5 meters thus qualifying it as “a shot to the surface” in his mind, and ignorantly though it might seem to us the rabid thoughts that he should get the bends because of this. It won’t be hard for him to play dumb here.

My computer would flash a “slow” warning and then ding me with an additional surface interval if I were to forego my safety stop at anything under 3 minutes. Some computers won’t even function on a subsequent dive if this additional safety stop is ignored after an aborted safety stop.
Not knowing the computer for sure (I’ve long since forgotten to be honest), this could be a serious problem for the prosecution because a 2 minute and 30 second ascent is not 3 minutes, which will show up as a “slow” warning on quite a few dive computers. This is the wiggle room he needs for at least some doubt and then any number of “how it could have been” scenarios to follow. This kind of retroactive denial hearkens to the Clinton days with his obtuse answers about “what ‘is’ is”. It can be taken to the extreme of course, but it can also be done successfully in the hands of a crafty defense attorney and a well-trained…ummm… and intelligent defendant.
Couple this leeway in time with a slew of people testifying about how panicked divers get time, space, and details confused when interviewed (I’m not sure that includes ubiquitous Asian divers who can’t be found anywhere), and this could spell trouble for the prosecution.

If he says he “shot to the surface” in retrospect because he feels guilty about failing his wife, and that all of this song and dance is really the manifestation of a man so riddled with second guessing and wishful thinking that he has indeed remembered his actions in more favorable terms (and this type of thing can be corroborated as happening to divers before), this could be a serious pickle sans other evidence that directly ties Gabe to specific actions. That of course will depend on who is sitting on that jury.
K-Girl is right that the doctor’s testimony is key in some ways. The prosecution has to be sure he is ready to have his view of things hold up to scrutiny, otherwise any inconsistencies on his part could end up making Gabe’s case for him, at least in part. If the doctor was close enough to see her scared face, why did he do nothing? And why didn’t he see Gabe turning the air back on if he saw him let her go? He saw her scared face (she’s alive). He saw Gabe let her go (she’s dead). Where is the missing piece? Do you take your eyes off of such and event in the moment when the most crucial part of the murder is transpiring? There are others here more versed in the doctor’s testimony (oops… account is probably a better word} who could shed some light on this. As I recall there hasn’t been anything that looks that these puzzle pieces in chronological order. I could be wrong, of course. What was the vis on the day again?

Cheers!