Quote:She had a hefty insurance policy taken out by him not long before they were married. That's why his sentence was so unbelievable.
I haven't followed this case at all, but upon reading a little bit about it, there's a few things there which don't make sense to me - but why would a murder of this type make any sense anyway?
If this was a planned insurance job, why would he choose a crime scene where there were so many other divers around that he couldn't be sure that he wasn't being watched? He could've simply done a shore dive and come back alone.
From the pictures I see, it seems that he was batting above his average. If I had oodles of cash, then scuba diving around the world with such an attractive young woman wouldn't be a bad way to spend it.
He claimed that Tina had panicked in strong currents, pulling his mask and breathing gear from his face, and that he had been unable to rescue her as the currents took her away. That to me is an entirely believable situation. By the time you clear your mask, your dive buddy could be well out visibility. 10-15m is usually considered pretty good visibility.
He said Mr Watson had "talked down" his rescue diver qualifications, saying he was not qualified to bring a person to the surface, a statement heavily contradicted by his US dive instructor. That I don't believe. Bringing a person to suface is what the rescue diver course focusses on.
But approaching a person in panic mode is a different kettle of fish. You'd want to stay clear of them so that both lives aren't put at risk.
The inquest heard he had even undergone specialised training in helping divers who panicked or fell unconscious. So what is the difference between approaching a diver in panic and an unconscious diver? There's a big difference.
Mr Watson claimed that his dive computer had malfunctioned. That could explain why dive instructor Singleton, even carrying the body of Tina, took half the time to ascend twice the distance from the ocean floor as Mr Watson. But DS Campbell said they had found no evidence of malfunction. I can't believe that one. The computer doesn't lie, and it seems that he ambled quite safely to the surface.
Deco sickness (or the bends) isn't really a huge risk at less than 30m, but even if it were to occur, the sickness would be easily cured. If I were trying to pull off such a crime, I'd dart back to the surface to make the story more believable. But then again, maybe he wanted to be sure that she was beyond saving.
The detective added that there were concerns about the different reasons Mr Watson gave to try to explain why he was unable to go to his wife's aid, including ear problems and the fact she was sinking too fast. Ear problems may seem quite minor in the circumstance, but being unable to equalise can cause excruciating pain. The only way to stop the pain and the risk of popping your ear drums is to ascend a few metres to equalise properly before attemtping to descend again.
Mr Watson had argued soon after the tragedy that, had he known how strong the currents were, he would never have dived with his wife, who had completed only 12 open water dives.
But dive organisers insist all the divers were properly briefed on the water conditions and add that Mr and Mrs Watson had already dived once before on the fateful day. If she had only completed 12 OW dives, then she shouldn't have been allowed to do a wreck dive, especially if there were currents present.
Most times, the dive operators don't know the conditions underwater until they're told of the conditions. This wreck lies in 14-28m of water, the max. depth for an open water diver is 18m.
A police dive re-enactment found that Tina's body should have been located much nearer to the wreck. Singleton found her about 50ft away. And post-mortem examinations also found Tina may have suffered oxygen deprivation before drowning.I can't see how they could re-enact the currents present on the day. And yes, oxygen deprivation and drowning usually go hand in hand.
DS Campbell told the inquest that witnesses had seen Mr Watson holding an unmoving Tina "in a bear-hug" face-to-face for ten seconds before letting her go and swimming to the surface. Really? Then what did the witnesses do after seeing this murder in front of their eyes?
Did they go to the aid of the "unmoving Tina" like any logical person would do, or did they continue with their dive?
That doesn't make sense at all.
Dive photographer Uzi Barnai, who was on the Spoil Sport when Tina was brought to the surface, was questioned at the inquest about the impact of a diver's air tank being turned off while they were underwater.
Mr Barnai said air tanks could only be turned off at one place - a valve at the top - and that while experienced divers could probably turn it back on themselves, "no way" would an inexperienced diver such as Tina be able to do it. Of course an inexperienced diver could reach around and turn their air back on - if they have arms and hands that is. That's just ludicrous.
And would somebody planning an underwater job rely on the fact that their victim
could not accomplish such a simple feat as turning their air back on?
Anyway, I'm not convinced.