Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[vladimir]

Can a mod stick this update to that thread?

Or just delete this incredibly redundant thread?

(Here's the old thread Doc: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/basic-scuba-discussions/234548-diver-indicted-2003-gbr-mishap.html)

 

[HawgLeg]

Just came across this information. I know this has been discussed in the past but it looks like they mystery has been solved.

Bridegroom Gabriel Watson charged with wife's scuba-dive murder

 

[Rick Inman]

Yup, here's the current thread on this: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/basic-scuba-discussions/234548-diver-indicted-2003-gbr-mishap.html Your link and others posted there and lots of discussion.

 

[Louie]

Hmmm.

Spouse asks me to up my life insurance and make him sole beneficiary?

Is this sort of thing common? Maybe I'm an extreme cynic but it would certainly get my alarm bells ringing.

Yes indeed, a big clue.

 

[peterbj7]

Haven't read this thread so I apologise if this has been asked and answered, but what does "there was florid evidence of air embolism" mean (in the Coroner's report)?

One comment on a recent post - there's a world of difference between a deliberate act that affects someone and inaction which has the same effect. Who can say whether "inaction" was deliberate and with intent, or due to panic or just forgetting training?

We must not try this case in the media, for the simple reason that we don't have all the facts, and what we do know has mostly come to us via journalists. They have a reputation for twisting the facts to make a good story.

 

[SPG3K]

I realize my job is to arrest criminals. Not try them or find them guilty or not guilty.

However.

Asking a loved one to increase life insurance payouts and make you the sole recipient shortly before undertaking a dangerous activity that kills you = extremely suspicious.

He's lucky hes not already in custody.

If they bring an expert dive witness in to testify that his rescue training could have saved her life and that his ascent was longer than required based on deco profiles, etc, etc, etc... He could take a charge for negligence at least.

Put it this way. The deck is stacked against him.

 

[redrover]

In face of the evidence I keep wondering what the motive could be.

Just a thought here on the father speaking about insurance policy changes, how statements can be misconstrued and events, like statistics, be misleading to show what one wants to believe. Just that it seems as plausible as the criminal intent interpretation IMO.
I’d see a very benign conversation happening easily between father daughter with the advent of marriage.
“We’ve talked about upping our Ins policies….think we’ll make each other beneficiary.” When unmarried, my parents are my beneficiaries, and if planning on children certainly increase my policy the max I could afford. Just this is a possible situation and wouldn’t the father be a jerk to have expressed regret then?
She saying she said she had when didn’t – having not got around to it vs. unease and simply a little innocent white lie, and even told with a guilty smile.

I noticed no quotes, could the father simply relayed the conversation, and the reported skewed or implyed his interpretation of it, left things out. And considering the husband does appear guilty of some thing contributing to his daughters death…can’t imagine him favoraing the suspect. Of if even happen at all. I mean seriously, the sudden death of ones child doesn’t tend to bring out the best in people.

I’ve seen the same bare facts each time. Keep wondering much about the couples personal life and odd that it hasn’t come up. Her relatives had concerns about him or completely surprised he now seems guilty. His friends and relatives chiming in to defend. It may be in other interviews years ago but seems somewhere, now, they would be brought up again.

Not defending the guy…more thought re perspective and in hand of the Whitsundy couple. Any one recall seeing Badge of Courage?
This movie uses the same cinematic concept as the 1950 Japanese film Rashōmon, wherein the truth of an event becomes difficult to verify due to the conflicting accounts of different witnesses. The major difference here is that in Rashomon the characters believe the stories they tell. In Courage Under Fire, several of the characters deliberately lie to protect themselves.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

I realize my job is to arrest criminals. Not try them or find them guilty or not guilty.

However.

Asking a loved one to increase life insurance payouts and make you the sole recipient shortly before undertaking a dangerous activity that kills you = extremely suspicious.

He's lucky hes not already in custody.

If they bring an expert dive witness in to testify that his rescue training could have saved her life and that his ascent was longer than required based on deco profiles, etc, etc, etc... He could take a charge for negligence at least.

Put it this way. The deck is stacked against him.

Negligence is a civil cause of action, not criminal - unless you mean negligent homicide in which case he still must be the actual cause of the death, and not just negligently allowed her to die. Unless things are different in Austalia.

My perspective, having practiced law in 2 different common law countries, (though never in Australia) and currently being a prosecuting attorney, formerly a defense attorney: According to the publicly available evidence, I think a reasonably good defense attorney would get a not guilty verdict.

A defendant who is able to look the jury in the eye and say "I didn't do it" has a good chance of getting an acquital when there is no direct evidence to establish his guilt. So why, you may ask, don't defense attorney's always have their clients testify?

Because there is a funny little rule of procedure that allows the prosecution to discredit the defendant's testimony by brining up all of the past crimes the defendant has committed if he testifies. Many juries will think the defendant guilty of the current alleged crime if he's done enough bad stuff in the past. So the defense attorney advises against testifying if the defendant has a lengthy criminal record.

Conversely, without a lengthy criminal background, a defendant is free to get up before the jury and proclaim his innocence. And it only takes one to find he doesn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So in a case that doesn't involve damning direct evidence, and a defendant who can testify, I think the defense has an advantage.

That being said, Australia may have a whole different scheme that makes the above irrelevant. If so, sorry for waisting your time with the above. Maybe there's a member of the Australian bar here who could clarify.

 

[almitywife]

I realize my job is to arrest criminals. Not try them or find them guilty or not guilty.

However.

Asking a loved one to increase life insurance payouts and make you the sole recipient shortly before undertaking a dangerous activity that kills you = extremely suspicious.
.......

i on the other hand would suggest that when about to get married, looking/increasing your policies and updating your beneficiaries would be quite normal

cheers

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

i on the other hand would suggest that when about to get married, looking/increasing your policies and updating your beneficiaries would be quite normal

cheers

Really? A show of hands here: how many people on this board who, before even getting married, in their early twenties, sought to increase their future spouse's life insurance policies and make sure that the benficiaries were correct????

In the NBC piece, they had an insurance expert say that this isn't normal AT ALL, in fact, most people at this age only have life insurance through their work (as I believe was the case here) and otherwise wouldn't think about it. He pointed out that very rarely do couples of this age consider their life insurance status.

For two young people, both employed, the need for life insurance, especially large policies, is low priority to say the least and, I wager, most people who have been married for years either don't have much life insurance or, if they do, couldn't tell you what the pay out was.

The motive in this case is immaterial. What is irrefutable are the following:

1) he lied about his battery being in backwards
2) he lied about his ascent rate, to a ridiculuous extent
3) he changed his version of events at least twice
4) where he says he left his wife is inconsistent with where they found her
5) he never called her family and never asked to go to her as she died (he was on another boat)...the family found out about her death 12 hours later from the authorities

Nice

Forget the diving aspect and consider this:

what if she had fallen into a ravine and he told police he immediately went for help when, in reality, his cell phone GPS system showed he left the ravine and then went and sat in a diner for twenty minutes before summoning help? You would assume he wanted her dead, accidental fall or not. Why is this different?

Instead of immediately going to the surface as he claimed, his computer proves he lolly gagged about for something like 20 + minutes as she died on the bottom.

I'm sorry, the battery-backward crock and the lying about his "rocket ascent" would be enough for me, motive or no motive.

I predict he will be convicted.

And if that's "trying people in the media", tough. If it weren't for the glare of the media and the demand for justice by the general public, many possible murders (this one included) would be forgotten and unprosecuted.