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!

Don Valeska, the Alabama prosecutor, said there was not avenue for appeal.

I will add something after the 60 Minutes program Sunday night as my final offering.

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

Very, very interesting interview with Liz Hayes, the 60 Minutes reporter who interviewed Gabe and Dr Carl Edmonds. You should listen to it. Gabe Watson a free man
 
Thanks listened to it. Sounded interesting except for the comment about it breaking the law if you leave your buddy! I really don't understand what law they are referring to. I remember ages ago we had some discussion about whether this case would set a precident regarding dive buddies. UnderExposed, a barrister here seemed quite certian it did not:idk:
 
Only applies in Queensland, no other state in Australia, and as far as I know. nowhere else in the world has a law that would make a dive buddy responsible for the death of a buddy as occurred here.
 
I will post the links first but Under-Exposed is a Barrister in OZ and was a significant poster and contributed valuable insights into the issues of law. When we were discussing the possibility of establishing a precedent here is what he said

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/sc...on-murder-case-discussion-16.html#post4594998
Bruce, for what it is worth I don't think I agree. In order to determine the appropriate degree of punishment the Court still has to make a determination about the criminality of the conduct. So, while I accept that it does not need to engage in a debate about the obligation of one buddy to another in the particular circumstances for the purpose of determining whether criminal liability should attach, it DOES need to consider what those obligations are, in order to determine the extent to which they were departed from by Watson, and thereby determine the criminality of his behaviour.

Agreed, this will not create a binding precedent...but it will provide some guidance as to the kind of analysis a Court might undertake in a future case, particularly given that this is a relatively novel case.

Livvy, I think the point Bruce is making is that court proceedings (whether they be civil or criminal) are taxing on the participants in terms of time, money and emotional energy. And many civil cases that I deal with are professional negligence cases where reputation is significantly important for the professional as is liberty for the non-professional. Sure, they are different, but they are both emotionally taxing things to have to defend, and if that can be avoided or minimised and people get on with their lives then settlement (whether by compromise of civil proceedings or pleading guilty to a significantly lesser criminal charge) is a powerful incentive to accept a finding in relation to something you don't accept to be the truth.


http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/sc...on-murder-case-discussion-17.html#post4597447
Bruce you are now just teasing...you KNOW that there is no clear legal or philosophical answer to your question :)

As for negligence, that is something that i know a fair bit about. It is a little complicated because the various states and territories have different good samaritan legislation, so I am going to assume there is no such legislation for the time being.

Assuming non-professional rescuers (who have their own peculiar difficulties), there is ordinarily no duty to rescue. That is the main problem with this case. Let me say again, there is ordinarily no duty to rescue. So no matter what your qualification, if you saw someone drowning in a swimming pool or the ocean, you have absolutely NO obligation (legal anyway) to do anything to assist.

Now, the question is whether there is something inherent in the nature of the buddy system that changes that. That is not a question that could be confidently answered in the absence of some case that decides it one way or the other (and I am not aware of any). But in my view there is nothing in the nature of the buddy system that imposes such an obligation. Now, it might be that in certain circumstances there is some super-added factor whereby responsibility is assumed by the buddy...perhaps in the circumstances postulated where an orientation dive was refused on the basis that Gabe had assumed responsibility for Tina's welfare. But ordinarily, I would think no duty of care.

I do not think it is clear in Australia whether or not there is an obligation to continue to rescue once you have commenced. It seems an odd position to me...if you don't have to start why can't you stop? One reason might be because having started others may not have come to assist. But if there were just a victim and rescuer, then that could not be a factor.

Anyway, it seems to be generally accepted in the text books (based, from memory, only on some North American cases) that there is a duty to continue.

Noe, of course the standard of care is one of reasonableness. I don't think danger to the rescuer removes the duty of care. It simply changes what is required in order to act reasonably. In other words, if there is danger then you can reasonably cease the rescue (or change the course of the rescue).

Now, one needs ot be careful in characterising Gabe's decision as an abandonment of the rescue. On his version of events, he was in fact continuing his rescue efforts by trying to get help. Now, I don't want to debate whether that was good practice etc but simply point out that there are many different ways to render assistance.

Finally, and again at the risk of being flamed, I don't think that the fact you are certified as a Rescue Diver necessarily means that you have the skills necessary and the wherewithall to use them in every situation. While one hopes that having been through the training you won't panic when someone gets into trouble, I think it is unrealistic to expect otherwise in all cases.

IMHO Under-Exposed's posts certainly demonstrated the clear analyitical thought process required to be successful in the law! I also wish ItsBruce was participating here.
 
In the prviouos TV show mentioned earlier when Watson was interviewed, he clearly said the Australian legal case was based on an obscure and rarely applied local law.
 
About the only thing we're getting now from the Gabe-haters is more malicious gossip and character assassination. I take it they now accept the facts demonstrate overwhelmingly that Gabe did not murder Tina.

Here is a challenge to anyone who still thinks that Gabe murdered Tina. With reference the fateful dive, do you still believe there is evidence that indicates Gabe murdered Tina? What is that evidence?

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

Don Valeska, the Alabama prosecutor, said there was not avenue for appeal.

I will add something after the 60 Minutes program Sunday night as my final offering.

Very, very interesting interview with Liz Hayes, the 60 Minutes reporter who interviewed Gabe and Dr Carl Edmonds. You should listen to it. Gabe Watson a free man

I heard the interview. Good to see a report in the main stream media willing to provide a more objective and truthful review of what what happened. I'd disagree that Gabe coming from the Southern Baptist region necessarily defines his character as suggested by Liz.
 
Hi, Bowlofpetunias (I had meant to send this in Hanoi, but now I am in sunny Koh Tao. T minus four hours from the first dive in six months! I'll leave the message as intended so you get the gist of my excitement at the moment I typed it :).

Thanks for the well wishes! I have one more science class to teach, a meeting about boring educational, teacher stuff that no one really cares about, a run home on my motorbike through the crazy Hanoi streets, and then off to the airport in a taxi with scuba bags packed, a few beers grabbed from the fridge for the ride to Noi Bai Airport and my wife in tow (not necessarily in that order J). I am super excited to be getting back in the water with my fishy friends and then eating Thai food in between dives…Yummy!

I imagine all things diving are now in “the most despised” category for Tina’s family. They feel Gabe Watson is guilty of killing their daughter. There is little I can see that will help them overcome this other than a great deal of time and perhaps a change of venue out of Alabama. Well, that would be my take on the situation, but it is easy for me to pick up stakes and move elsewhere to reinvent myself. Others have a harder time doing that and leaving their family and support network behind.

I really hope this doesn’t get vigilante ugly in any way. I am sure this has crossed the Watson family’s mind a few times. Maybe the change of venue ought to be his when I stop and think about it. That might also be a good catalyst for Tina’s family to move on as well. I doubt this will take place, though.

Cheers!
 
Dr Carl Edmonds has been interviewed as well as Gabe. Gabe told me this morning that they decided to do the story after reading my web site, but they have not approached me at all. Not that confident it will be a good stroy as I have been burnt before by 60 Minutes through work.

I think Watson presented himself and his side of the story very well. Not a bad interview.

I note this reply on the 60 minutes website from the Queensland Police to which Liz Hayes referred. I did not hear Watson or Edmonds being "critical of police":

"The QPS conducted a thorough investigation into this matter during which all aspects of the evidence were carefully considered.

Following an inquest, Coroner David Glasgow charged David Gabriel Watson with murder and committed him to stand trial.

Watson returned to Australia voluntarily to appear in court and subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter, resulting in a conviction and custodial sentence.

There is no correlation between the case put before the Queensland judicial system and the matter heard in Alabama. The prosecution in Alabama was entirely a matter for US authorities.

Any decisions in relation to criminal charges are made based on the evidence available.

It is not unusual for people either convicted or acquitted of an offence to be critical of police."
 
I didn't hear anything said or even hinted at that was critical of police either! I think Gabe presented himself very well. Every time I see him interviewed and everything I have seen from his family have been devoid of criticism of the people you would expect them to be lashing out at!
 
I didn't hear anything said or even hinted at that was critical of police either! I think Gabe presented himself very well. Every time I see him interviewed and everything I have seen from his family have been devoid of criticism of the people you would expect them to be lashing out at!

He certainly didn't appear to be angry or wanting revenge. As he said, he just wants to move on and get on with his life. A pity though 60 Minutes didn't have more of Dr Edmond's information in the story.
 

Back
Top Bottom