48 HOURS MYSTERY to feature the David Swain underwater murder on Saturday

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!

I also understand that there were some e-mails from Swain to this "soulmate" back home stating that his situation would be changing soon. These e-mails were allegedly sent shortly the death of his wife.

Really? This is the first I've heard of this and I know David and his family fairly well. I don't claim to have been aware of 100% of the evidence, but I'm completely unaware of these alleged e-mails. Where did you get this information? I'd really love to see a source for this. Maybe I'm just out of the loop...

Yes, there was a link to that statement made by David to the other woman about things changing soon in the original thread and it was shortly before Shelley died. I believe it was in a published excerpt from one of the three letters in evidence from David to Shelley rather than in an email.
 
he had an affair and still denies it... so it's established the man is a liar. who the heck writes letters starting with "my soulmate" to a friend? give me a break! I'm not sure if the circumstantial evidence was strong enough for a conviction but apparently the jury did and that's all that matters. I personally think he did it from the limited amount of information I heard.
 
i find it extremely irritating that ppl can be sent to prison with so little evidence. i guess it boils down to which do you find more offensive. sending an innocent man to jail or letting a guilty man go free.
it sounds like he could have done it but i dont believe it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It would have been much more reasonable to charge him with manslaughter for abandoning his buddy underwater and therefore putting her life at risk.
 
The CBS video said that another diver went down and pulled up the body; why is there no focus on him or her??
 
That is a mystery to us why Christian, who retrieved Shelley, was not interviewed for the 48 Hours piece. His part in the aftermath of the incident is detailed in the articles and the transcript of some of the testimony that was linked to in the original thread. Christian Thwaites was a witness for the prosecution. He (and his wife) seem to be about the only people involved/present who were NOT interviewed for the 48 Hours show. :idk:
 
Ken,

Bill Oliver?

It has been years! He was on my dive team in the LA County UW Instructors course in about 1967..He is one of the most inteligent knowledgeable persons I have ever had the pleasure to meet. You were fortunate to have him on your side.

Followed him to US Divers, Sea Quest etc then lost track after he left the dive industry. Please PM me with his telephone or E mail address.

Congrats on profesional witnessing..an awsome responsibility. After over 50 years of professional witnessing I have totally retired from that aspect of my life, how ever have a huge resource I you ever need it..Just contact me.

Cheers,
sdm

NAUI Instr number 27
Totally retired

Hi Ayisha! All is well in CenCal! Grand children are doing great! SDM
 
Last edited:
Ken, verrrryy interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I too found the NBC piece much more informative.

Like you, I think Swain knows all the answers about what happened, though we may never hear it. And I don't think he grabbed her from behind, either. I think he was face to face with her.

You know what struck me about her damaged gear? Here's my speculation: He did it all. He wanted her to know he was killing her. Wanted her looking in his eyes as he yanked the reg out of her mouth (after an exhalation, which any instructor knows is the most vulnerable moment). Yanked at her mask in fury. Wanted her to realize that with no regulator and no mouthpiece on her snorkel she was doomed. Wanted her to know how much he hated her for shutting off the money. Maybe she even caught him in some of the lies, which only fueled his anger further. Then as a final gesture of conquest he embedded the fin toe-down in the sand to clinch the act.

Of course I wasn't there, so the usual caveats apply.

On the other hand, forensic pre-sentencing psych evals I've prepared of individuals convicted of murder have several commonalities with this case. Rage-driven violence isn't so different between destroying every bit of life-preserving dive equipment, and stabbing a victim many more times than it takes to kill, or shooting many more bullets than it takes to end a life.

I also believe he did it soon after their descent; he needed some time to decompress emotionally before ascending so nonchalantly. Perhaps I'm wrong on the methods but the jury wasn't wrong to find him guilty.


I was rather disappointed too, especially having seen the NBC Dateline piece (two hours long) where I thought they did a much better job of presenting things.

The notion that was floated previously that Shelley stuck the fin in the sand herself as a marker (and then kicked around with one fin) simply defies logic. The idea that Swain staged it there to make it "look" like an accident has, to me, more credibility (which is not necessarily proof).

I think tthe prosectioin's theory (and video) of Swain swimming up to Shelley from behind and turning her air off is too complex for it to have happened that way. First of all, it takes 2-3 turns to turn the air off. Then you've got time left (as much as 7 breaths) for all the air in the hoses to be breathed down. Your victim might get away in that overall time frame and expose you.

Instead, it would have been much easier to wait until the victim exhales, yank the reg from their mouth, hang on to it, prevent them from getting their octo, and wait for them to drown. Much quicker, too.

I'm also bothered by the mask. Swain calmly says Shelley probably panicked. But when you panic, you likely rip the entire mask off your face and drop it. You don't pull the strap free and break a pin. And even if you do, you certainly don't also yank the snorkel mouthpiece from the snorkel tube. That's all more indicative of a violent struggle.

Anytime Swain has been asked about an inconsistency, he thinks about it for a moment and then simply shrugs and says, "I don't know." Personally, I think he DOES know. He's just not saying.

- Ken
 
Ken gave an excellent analysis on this case in another thread starting here:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/no...-convicted-wifes-drowning-47.html#post4925122

Some people think you need "hard evidence" in order to convict and their personal test is beyond a "shadow of a doubt." However, the law says you need "reasonable doubt" and Ken does a great job explaining the difference. A jury is burdened with the task of determining what is true and what is not true in view of the totality of the evidence. As they go through the process, they discover that reasonable doubt is establishing the probalility of truth. For instance, it is possible that Shelley may have purposefully dug her fin into the sand in a perfectly upright position and swam around with one fin (for what reason nobody knows), but in light of the metal pin that was bent and pulled out in order for the mask strap to be pulled away and the force it would have taken to pull the mouthpiece from the snorkel, it is highly unlikely that Shelley placed the fin in the sand.


In addition, I have kept a thread of reference materials in this case on the thread in my signature line. This includes newspaper articles that includes transcript excerpts, links to videos (including Swain's civil deposition), pictures captured from the NBC Dateline story, as well as links to some court documents.
 
Here are the things I took note of that I thought was new information in the "48 HOURS MYSTERY" program:

1. David consistently showed no emotion for Shelley the numerous times the interviewer got him to talk about her. Even several dramatic close-up of his blank, emotionless stare to emphasize the point. The one time David talked about the death of his mother, he did show emotion. If time is the factor that takes emotion away, Shelley's death was many, many years after David's mother's death as David was only 22 at the time of his mother's death. David was present for the Shelley's death, however, not present for the death of his mother (although he claimed to Shelley's parents that he did witness the beating death of his mother in response to their demand that he show some kind of emotion). I think the long-lasting emotional impact of witnessing someone die would have much greater and longer-lasting effects. However, that is not the case here. I think there was a purpose in this program for David showing no emotion for Shelley as opposed to showing emotion for his mother - and that was to bolster the idea that his mother's death had a deep impact on him and "changed" him. However, if he is indeed a "changed" and "non-emotional" person, why does he now, at this time, show emotion for his mother's death? I find his behavior confusing to follow.

2. David used the exact same words as he used in the courtroom when the interviewer asked him if he killed his wife - "I did not, would not, could not..." That indicated to me that there was a lot of rehearsal with that line and an indication of an insincere response.

3. I thought that David was often confrontational with the interviewer when challenged about what certain words or actions mean. Several times David challenged the interviewer by turning the question around and asking the interviewer what it meant and David seemed quite annoyed. In a courtroom, it would have been ruled as "non-responsive" and does not make a witness look good at all. Does this behavior go to the defense's argument that David does not have the capacity to respond as expected? Perhaps. It might also be interpreted as an element of a psychopathic personality.

4. For the first time we heard that David denied that his overtures to Mary Bassler were sexual in nature and that he had invited her (in writing) to join him for a weekend while still married to Shelley. David claimed that everything he wrote to Mary was based on only desiring a "friendship" with her. He described the moment he tried to passionately kiss Mary as foolish. He ignored the fact that Mary told him she was not interested in getting involved with him because he was a married man as she pulled away from this attempted kiss. Fact is that they did strike-up a sexual relationship two months after Shelley's death. I don't think the jury bought the idea that David had only friendship on his mind and he lost a great deal of credibility with the jury. It would be easy for the jury to conclude that David was lying to them about this, therefore, he would be capable of lying about anything else.

Two points of defense. Two witnesses not allowed to testify.

1. Calculation of air usage and time of death. I agree that the defense could have shown that the prosecution could have gotten the air usage wrong, but I don't think it would have changed the case. However, you do have to factor in the air usage, the fact that Shelley went through some kind of struggle underwater and that can quickly use up air. This was not a shallow dive, it was about 80 feet. I don't think either the prosecution nor the defense can accurately calculate Shelley's time of death on this dive. Only David knows when he split-off from Shelley and knowing that exact moment is not knowable with the evidence. Does it matter? No. Not really. It could only help the defense if the defense could prove that Swain came up to the boat well before Shelley had died - that cannot be proven and more likely air usage would show that David was still in the water when Shelley died. That is the only pertinent fact in terms of air usage. The prosecution tried to take it a step further by showing that David was actually with Shelley when she died and that went too far. They really could not prove that.

2. Swain psychologist. The reason this testimony was not allowed is a psychologist cannot qualify as an expert witness. They must be a psychiatrist in order to qualify. Would this have made a difference in the result of the trial? Some will see it as "manufactured" evidence, but certainly psychiatric evaluations are used in the U.S. cases all the time, but rarely is it successful in setting aside a conviction for a new trial. Psychiatric evidence is something that is usually used to explain why someone did the thing they did and to reduce the sentence. It is almost never successful in showing innocence of the crime as appears to be the basis of argument here. The court could potentially rule that a court-appointed psychiatrist be allowed to examine Swain. If the psychiatrist finds that Swain is a psychopathic personality, or if they get Swain's psychologist to admit that Swain's behavior could also be consistent with psychopathic behavior, it would be detrimental to his case. And since Swain's psychologist is not a psychiatrist, his testimony (if allowed) could more easily be impeached in favor of a psychiatrist's testimony.

However, as I have said many times, every possible point for appeal should be made and I will be very interested to see the appeal.
 
Ken,

Congrats on profesional witnessing..an awsome responsibility. After over 50 years of professional witnessing I have totally retired from that aspect of my life, how ever have a huge resource I you ever need it..Just contact me.

Cheers,
sdm

NAUI Instr number 27
Totally retired

Hi Ayisha! All is well in CenCal! Grand children are doing great! SDM

Hi Dr Sam! Hugs and kisses and hope you and your family are well. Your grandkids must be getting so big since I last saw them...

So Dr Sam, Have you had a chance to look at the details of this case on the death of Shelley Tyre? If so, in your expert opinion, what do you think?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom