Watson Murder Case - Discussion

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!

Years ago when I first started training here. When I was teaching refresher courses I remember thinking to myself.. "I wonder what idiot gave them their last certificate." then few years later I started realizing that I was the idiot who had given them their last certificate.

Reality is skills, memory and competencies erode with time. The assessment process is only a snapshot of what the person was capable of at a specific time and place. That is why you have to retrain in CPR and many other skills that you may have to apply under pressure. The trainer may have done a good job within his scope of practice. Gabe may have done a good job at the time but with time:idk:
 
Bowlofpetunias:

Of course for the Thomas’ this saga has played out in such a way that they are fairly well invested in the belief that he is guilty. I can’t say I blame them given all that has transpired. It is pretty nigh impossible for anyone who loved Tina to view the evidence that exists in this case in the same way that the judge in Alabama did. Does that make their conclusions “a truth” as you say? A perspective, sure. A truth, I don’t know.

I’ve been involved in a few conversations along this line, where the suggestion has been made that the US system of justice prefers scenarios where someone is to blame, where someone gets the finger pointed at him or her with the clear understanding that the guilty party has been named and ultimately punished. The subtle nuances of bad things just happen sometimes don’t fit in the lexicon of American jurisprudence so the argument goes.

As an American living overseas, these arguments from my somewhat biased international friends tend to come along with references to Hollywood endings and the litigious nature of civil lawsuits in the USA, which some people have already alluded to. Are we culturally predisposed to drawing such conclusions? Are other societies and cultures immune to it? Does this view of things add up to a truth in its own right?

In terms of truisms in this case or in many others, I don’t know. I still have no idea if Gabe Watson had any premeditated plans to kill his wife. I have to say that having read and listened to his answers to the Australian authorities, he doesn’t strike me as bright enough to have had that much forethought. Of course a chameleon would want us to draw exactly that conclusion, ala Keyser Soze in “The Usual Suspects”. Regardless, this doesn’t even get into the actual execution of the plan Watson was accused of having perpetrated.

Of course the degree to which he can and will be petty is also going to be interesting in my opinion, given that he is remarried and still wants to fight over the location of Tina’s body. If he carries on with this, well that would be a better glimpse into his soul, if you believe in such a thing.

We are never really going to know The Truth (registered trademark) in any meaningful way, certainly not in any pivotal sense of the word. The only thing that can be said of this case as far as I can tell is that the need to do a proper investigation when an incident happens is crucial and that proclamations about how one should or shouldn’t act in a stressful diving situation are not always telltale signs of anything other than panic and indecision, something all of us are capable of.

In the end hard evidence is what matters, and this case never had much, as two decisions in two different courts in two different countries clearly demonstrates.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
My theory is that if you put three people in a room and create an incident between two with the third as an observer then interview them you will get three "truths". Each will tell what they may believe is the truth but the filters of their experiences and bias will be reflected in how they perceived the event. The REAL truth if it could be had would be devoid of emotion and interpretation. Since each person reported what they believed was accurate.. they reported their truth in other words they did not lie.. so if they didn't lie.. they reported their truth!

What is sad is that sometimes well meaning people create new "truths" with the retelling.. the way they repeat/review the event reinforces their perception and can even impact their "memory" of the event! I think that is where this case failed and why it is so important to have a fair, thorough and timely investigation followed by a fair and timely court appearance (when it is appropriate).

It is indeed unfortunate how long this dragged out for all of the parties involved!

I haven't got the link but I have read Gabe has been denied access to Tina's grave after th flower removing caper. I have also read that he has access but Thomas doesn't not sure if anyone can verify which is correct.
 
Bowlofpetunias

My theory is that if you put three people in a room and create an incident between two with the third as an observer then interview them you will get three "truths". Each will tell what they may believe is the truth but the filters of their experiences and bias will be reflected in how they perceived the event. The REAL truth if it could be had would be devoid of emotion and interpretation. Since each person reported what they believed was accurate.. they reported their truth in other words they did not lie.. so if they didn't lie.. they reported their truth!

I agree with everything you say here with one possible exception. If we take your scenario and add a team of forensic scientists who come in after the incident, with them combing the scene with their brushes and tweezers, would this make a difference to the “truths” that the people recall?
If the witnesses in this case go about telling their version of “the truth” and are then confronted with evidence that these scientists find that contradict their testimony, would a they stick to their guns on the version told out of some misplaced pride, or would they acknowledge the fickle nature of memory and own up to possibly being wrong?

If the three people know going in that the incident they are about to recall is serious enough that officials might want to discuss the matter with them later (again with forensics and other tools at their disposal), would this force the witnesses to pay attention a bit more than they might otherwise?

By coincidence I was watching one of those crime shows this morning (Hanoi time) which was highlighting a case where a woman was murdered in the UK in 1976. Her husband was long thought to be the killer, but the evidence could not prove anything. He had claimed that his wife had left him for another man, thus deserting her three children. The story stalled for 21 years before our favourite heroes (three divers) happened upon her body in murky water. This led to a reopening of the case and renewed suspicion of the husband. The police were making headway and did arrest the husband and were preparing for trial when a couple who had read about the story in Scotland recalled a strange incident they’d forgotten about until the article jarred their memories. They happened to be on holiday at the time of the murder and were at a lake where the man was proposing to his future wife. They had returned to Scotland and had forgotten being at the lake for years, until they read the newsprint article of the case.

They contacted astounded police officials about having seen a man in a boat dumping something after looking in their direction to see if anyone was watching. The women claimed she had joked that she hoped he wasn’t dumping his wife’s body. With no immediate news of a missing woman coming up, the incident was forgotten.

When the trial started, the women in this couple recalled amazing details, contours of the hull in the water, the colours of the sails, that the defendant was wearing glasses, a certain parka, etc. Her recall forced the defendant husband to make mistakes in his own “truths” on the stand, namely that he had not had such a parka, that he had not yet started wearing glasses, that he had already sold that particular boat. In the end, the evidence that the woman recalled matched the forensics evidence that tied the man to his wife’s murder. Without the proof the police found by doing excellent investigation the woman’s recall could not have been corroborated. Without her coming forward in the first place and remembering what she did, the catalyst that forced the defendant to screw up on the stand would not have happened and the impact that the evidence ultimately had could not been made.

I think the combination of objective facts and the recall of people working in tandem can certainly help us approach the REAL truth in many cases. It doesn’t always happen, of course, and given that all of us carry our individual truth lenses into situations we encounter, it is really remarkable when someone can recall events (sometimes years later) that fit a “truth” scenario and can catch a killer in his own lies.
I have to believe we all have this capacity in us as well, even if we do get things wrong from time to time.

Cheers!
 
I think the combination of objective facts and the recall of people working in tandem can certainly help us approach the REAL truth in many cases. It doesn’t always happen, of course, and given that all of us carry our individual truth lenses into situations we encounter, it is really remarkable when someone can recall events (sometimes years later) that fit a “truth” scenario and can catch a killer in his own lies.
I have to believe we all have this capacity in us as well, even if we do get things wrong from time to time.

Cheers!

I certainly agree with what you are saying here. The forensic team would come closest the the "real truth" I was referring to. The key to the team's composition has to be their ability to be objective with their individual filters and the team must be able to recognize and compensate for bias.

The case we have been discussing shows an alarming lack of that ability in the investigators... it seems they were influenced by too many external factors. The Thomas Team and the Watson Team and their interpretations were also impacted by their biases and I believe this may have created NEW Truths as the individuals within teams supported their biases eroding and even changing memories due to readjusted interpretations.

Certainly the "experienced divers" who called BS to Gabe's statement of the fact had biases that were taken as truths and created an environment where Thomas's pre-existing dislike of Gabe easily turned into allegations of intentional wrongdoing.

It seems to me that in this case the Judges were indeed the most able to look at the facts in a dispassionate (unfiltered) way and not be influenced by the emotional pressure. I guess I find that reassuring in the end. I am just so incredibly sorry that so many people had to suffer additional pain for so much longer than should have been!
 
Last edited:
Clownfishsydney...I wish you could join in the discussion and just share your point of view. I have not been nearly as invested in this case as others have over the last few years. Therefore, unsure what specific questions to pose here. However, I am certainly very interested in what you can freely share on this thread. Your insights and point of view would be greatly appreciated. I know my personal interests lie in the character of Gabe Watson. I feel that justice was served here...but still have an unsettled feeling about him. I know that analyzing his personality is not your area of expertise. I am just curious as to any tidbits you can offer.

Thanks Petunia and Dadvocate for the intriguing dialogue the last few posts. It has been a great read. Keep it up!
 
From meeting and talking to him, I found Gabe to be a lot more likable than I thought he would be. I would also add that I do not suffer fools gladly and also hate pompous people. He is funny and always willing to help. I also got the opinion that he may have been a bit immature back in 2003, there is still a little bit showing.

All in all, I was surprised as what the media and book had portrayed was not what I found.

By the way, his rescue training NASDS - that post was deleted a few days ago.

Watch 20/20 tonight and you should see Gabe commenting on virtually everything, Dr Carl Edmonds and myself talking about the diving related evidence. His parents and others will also appear.

When I get back to Australia in 3 days I will start updating my web site, including a new page on the trial.
 
From meeting and talking to him, I found Gabe to be a lot more likable than I thought he would be. I would also add that I do not suffer fools gladly and also hate pompous people. He is funny and always willing to help. I also got the opinion that he may have been a bit immature back in 2003, there is still a little bit showing.

All in all, I was surprised as what the media and book had portrayed was not what I found.

By the way, his rescue training NASDS - that post was deleted a few days ago.

Watch 20/20 tonight and you should see Gabe commenting on virtually everything, Dr Carl Edmonds and myself talking about the diving related evidence. His parents and others will also appear.

When I get back to Australia in 3 days I will start updating my web site, including a new page on the trial.

I LOVE your webpage. Absolutely brilliant! Thanks for a great read. You sense of humor is almost as perverted as mine!
 
Can somebody help me out and supply a link to the web page. PM or email if necessary.
 

Back
Top Bottom