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!

Darn.. I get a message that I am in an Unathuroized country and can't view it:doh:
Really not much to see. I captured 2 of 3 videos and am trying to send to you on FB.

Or does my link above give all of the show? I don't know how long he was on. Maybe they have only uploaded previews so far and the entire show will be uploaded later? I'll see if I can capture the whole show, then load to a large file transfer site...??
 
Bowlofpetunias, I have been promised a copy of the show by the producer of 20/20, but then, I was also told that I was in the show! In any case, I would be happy to give you a copy when back in Sydney. Perhaps Theo/Lorraine could arrange a meeting!

As to Gabe not knowing Tina had not been in the ocean, Gabe was not permitted to attend Tina's training. This was the instructor's policy. Gabe dived in the ocean with his instructor within 2 weeks of finishing his course. Perhaps he assumed she also did this, but as they were engaged by then, you would think this had been discussed. In his first interview with police in Queensland, Gabe says he thinks Tina had dived in the ocean. His story has been consistent on this matter from day 1.

Thanks Michael! I should request you on FB..

Really not much to see. I captured 2 of 3 videos and am trying to send to you on FB.

Or does my link above give all of the show...??

The link above says Unauthorized Country... I get the commercial and the preview.. that is it. I will go check FB
 
As to Gabe not knowing Tina had not been in the ocean, Gabe was not permitted to attend Tina's training. This was the instructor's policy. Gabe dived in the ocean with his instructor within 2 weeks of finishing his course. Perhaps he assumed she also did this, but as they were engaged by then, you would think this had been discussed. In his first interview with police in Queensland, Gabe says he thinks Tina had dived in the ocean. His story has been consistent on this matter from day 1.
Consistent maybe, but bizarre. They didn't communicate enough for him to ask about how her training went, then ask about other dives, help her wash her gear, etc? Are some couples like that?

Anyway, I did not know that he was not aware that she'd not dived the ocean. I encourage first time divers to Cozumel to hire a private DM for the first couple of tanks even if they have dived the Florida Keys.
 
Bowlofpetunias, I have been promised a copy of the show by the producer of 20/20, but then, I was also told that I was in the show! In any case, I would be happy to give you a copy when back in Sydney. Perhaps Theo/Lorraine could arrange a meeting!

As to Gabe not knowing Tina had not been in the ocean, Gabe was not permitted to attend Tina's training. This was the instructor's policy. Gabe dived in the ocean with his instructor within 2 weeks of finishing his course. Perhaps he assumed she also did this, but as they were engaged by then, you would think this had been discussed. In his first interview with police in Queensland, Gabe says he thinks Tina had dived in the ocean. His story has been consistent on this matter from day 1.

Fascinating since it has been bandied about that he not only attended her training but was yelling at her during her course! I am glad that he has broken his silence. I have been saying for years that my discomfort with this has been the one sided nature of the information released! I don't doubt there is bias in his memory as well but at least we are hearing something from him. I understand why he couldn't speak out before the trial. If it is indeed true that Thomas did not suspect Gabe until after Ken Snyder's call :shakehead: It has been shown that Snyder's reasons for alleging suspicious circumstances are questionable at best! How sad.. how terribly sad! Sure goes to show the harm a few well intentioned but poorly thought out words and actions can cause.

The video links give about 2 to 4 minutes of the interview.

Wow King's comment about "He got away twice" He didn't face the jury twice... IMHO he faced the court twice... and even tho the jury didn't cast their ballot he faced them every day of the trial.

I am sorry but Thomas placing himself that close to the jury and trying to make eye contact with them every time they went in and out of the jury box:shakehead: Wow.. he may have thought he was doing that for Tina but I would have felt that he was trying to be intimidating and it would have alienated me had I been on the jury!
 
The video links give about 2 to 4 minutes of the interview.
Ok they are uploading the rest now I think. I have not had TV in my home since 1988 so I am not up to speed on what 20-20 does, much less how fast they upload segments of a show. So far I have 10 segments downloaded including the promo, having a little challenge with #11, and there may be more. I'll try to get you download links soon.
 
:hmmm: Was that wedding church empty on his side?

He certainly plays dumb a lot. They skipped the part of her having a fling with her ex-BF. Sounds like she was in love with the idea of getting married.

Nice dive vids. Did they ever establish that she was over weighted much? The show mentions that she may have got her inflate & deflate buttons confused.

So he denies the perky breasts comment. Seems they skipped him taking pictures of her beside ominous signs over there.

So the idea of moving Tina to a new, family plot was his grandmom's, so - since her family wasn't talking to him, he just did it.

Tina's father had said he just wanted a fair trial, but I don't think he's satisfied. I can't get the clip of former attorney general King to play, but the other clip that included comments from him seems to indicate he still thinks Gabe guilty.
 
Thanks DD.... yeah there were some comments earlier in the thread that Thomas would not be happy with anything but a guilty verdict. I agree with Dr Edmonds.. that two "experienced divers" have a lot to answer for!

Gabe certainly came across as reasonably articulate. The interviewer certainly didn't "go easy on him". I understand some of what he said.. but it does seem strange not to investigate what they were getting into a lot more. Does seem to have a consistent attitude of "She'll be right mate". I know a few people like that and I drive them nuts with my drive to check things out; look for what is the worse case scenario; figure out how I would deal with it. I have been told "why worry about it ... it may not happen". I am just more comfortable having thought through the process. Different people.. different reactions I guess.
 
Bowlofpetunias



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!

Exactly the reason one should not testify if the law permits one to remain silent.
 
I was interested in one thing Gabe said that was different from what had been previously reported. We were told that he talked the operator out of the required checkout dive because of his skill and experience supposedly putting him in a position to take care of Tina. He said in the interview that they were never offered a checkout dive.

I did a liveaboard in Australia at nearly the same time as this incident, but not with Mike Ball. We were not offered a checkout dive. On the other hand, our first dive was not on the Yongala, either.
 
The dive operator under Queensland law should have forced both Tina and Gabe to have an "orientation" dive. This was because their code of practise, the Safe Scuba System (SSS), required divers to have more than 15 ocean dives to qualify as the step up from the lowest diver. Gabe had 15 ocean dives, Tina none. In fact, the form they were required to complete did not even ask this, so this was another fault of the operator. The SSS did not say "offer them an orientation dive", it said they must have it. Wade Singleton admitted in court that he broke numerous rules in letting them dive.

My interview never made it into the show at all. I am disappointed that the bits about overweightedness (she was 9 to 12 lb overweighted) and both their lack of experience was cut out. I am not sure that anyone previous thinking Gabe was guilty would change their mind.

I will be out of internet access now for about 36 to 48 hours, so will answer and questions once back in Oz.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom