BGF
Guest
I'll admit I don't have any first hand experience with the quality of life in various types of penal facilities.
aww cmon Chris, you KNOW there was that one time......
Anyone know how to reach David Swain?
- Thread starter SadiesMom
- Start date
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
aww cmon Chris, you KNOW there was that one time......
wreckedinri
Contributor
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 0
- # of dives
Since we already have a thread dealing with the "Swain" issue I thought that I would post a comment here. A bit of "food for thought".
Let me commence by saying that I do not know the man and I am not passing judgement one way or the other about what he did or did not do. My only knowledge of the case, as I suspect is the situation with most of us, is gleaned from what I read and hear in the newspapers, broadcast media, and on Internet posts.
Let's set aside the fact that they were husband an wife. What gives me pause is the notion that a diver was found guilty of causing the death of another diver without a witness present, nor any hard evidence that the "guilty" diver had physical contact with the deceased.
Let's see what we know:
OK, "unusual behavior"; say I am alone on a dive boat and paired with an instabuddy. Upon entering the water I pay no attention to him, have poor buoyancy skills, muck up the site, take off, get separated, in general I'm a JERK. In the process of being an $%#hole, I kill myself. Later, back on the boat after they recover my body, my former dive partner utters "good enough for him, what a clown". Is that unusual behavior?
How about financial motive? Here's a scenario; my brother and I dive the Bass. We get to the break, he wants to penetrate the wreck but I'm leery about doing so. In he goes while I wait on the outside. Long story short - he never comes back out and is found later with a strand of wire looped over his manifold and dead. We're each single, parents are not alive, and he is worth $500,000 - I'm his only heir. Financial motive? Do we need both motive and unusual behavior?
Again, this is not a commentary about whether or not the Swain decision was correct or not, but how does the decision effect other divers hence forth?
Let's look at the physical evidence:
How many of us have done that?
Ever read about the Doria deaths and the conditions of the bodies and equipment when the dead are later found? Divers have been known to snap their own limbs while struggling to free themselves . . . ALONE in the bowels of a wreck. There need not be a second person for a "violent struggle" to ensue.
Again; as stated earlier, this is just food for thought. IMHO, this case may provide a salient reason for diving alone and not having a buddy, or buddy's family to seek restitution if everything goes south. It's unfortunate that it seems to be that way, especially if we are depending on juries that are woefully ignorant about what truly is reality during a dive.
I'm certain people smarter than me - of which there are many- may comment that my fears are unfounded or my reasoning is flawed. Regardless; this case is one which has made me consider the ramifications regarding how we conduct ourselves in this sport.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Dennis
Let me commence by saying that I do not know the man and I am not passing judgement one way or the other about what he did or did not do. My only knowledge of the case, as I suspect is the situation with most of us, is gleaned from what I read and hear in the newspapers, broadcast media, and on Internet posts.
Let's set aside the fact that they were husband an wife. What gives me pause is the notion that a diver was found guilty of causing the death of another diver without a witness present, nor any hard evidence that the "guilty" diver had physical contact with the deceased.
Let's see what we know:
Jack Perry:
OK, "unusual behavior"; say I am alone on a dive boat and paired with an instabuddy. Upon entering the water I pay no attention to him, have poor buoyancy skills, muck up the site, take off, get separated, in general I'm a JERK. In the process of being an $%#hole, I kill myself. Later, back on the boat after they recover my body, my former dive partner utters "good enough for him, what a clown". Is that unusual behavior?
How about financial motive? Here's a scenario; my brother and I dive the Bass. We get to the break, he wants to penetrate the wreck but I'm leery about doing so. In he goes while I wait on the outside. Long story short - he never comes back out and is found later with a strand of wire looped over his manifold and dead. We're each single, parents are not alive, and he is worth $500,000 - I'm his only heir. Financial motive? Do we need both motive and unusual behavior?
Again, this is not a commentary about whether or not the Swain decision was correct or not, but how does the decision effect other divers hence forth?
Let's look at the physical evidence:
Jack Perry:
How many of us have done that?
Jack Perry:
Ever read about the Doria deaths and the conditions of the bodies and equipment when the dead are later found? Divers have been known to snap their own limbs while struggling to free themselves . . . ALONE in the bowels of a wreck. There need not be a second person for a "violent struggle" to ensue.
Again; as stated earlier, this is just food for thought. IMHO, this case may provide a salient reason for diving alone and not having a buddy, or buddy's family to seek restitution if everything goes south. It's unfortunate that it seems to be that way, especially if we are depending on juries that are woefully ignorant about what truly is reality during a dive.
I'm certain people smarter than me - of which there are many
- may comment that my fears are unfounded or my reasoning is flawed. Regardless; this case is one which has made me consider the ramifications regarding how we conduct ourselves in this sport.Thanks for letting me rant.
Dennis
Last edited:
ScubaSarus
Guest
My thought that I was afraid to mention before is that "if Dave's wife pushed off hard from the bottom in an urgent attempt to break to the surface, her fin may get stuck fin first into the sand and if the strap was loose come off.
I don't know though as I feel proper investigators should have examined the scene and not just any ole diver that happened to go back down htere.
I don't know though as I feel proper investigators should have examined the scene and not just any ole diver that happened to go back down htere.
LobstaMan
Guest
I suppose there was the time I got 30 minutes of detention back in high school for being late to class (my locker got stuck).
I don't know where you went to HS, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't count as 'hard time.'
LobstaMan
Dennis, Thank you. This is the first constructive and insightful opinion that has been shared on this thread. the outcome of this trial could have far reaching consequences on the way we enjoy our favorite hobby/pastime/passion.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this is the Achilles heel of the prosecution's case. I am not saying they won't get a conviction, but if the defense does win I'd think this will be the key to doing it.
Based on what was reported in the Providence Journal, it seems that in the civil case they used the damage to Shelley Tyre's gear (broken mask strap pin, missing snorkel mouthpiece and the fin stuck in the sand) as the primary evidence that it was murder rather than an accident. They called an expert witness to testify that an attack was the only way to account for the damage. The rest of the case seemed to build on that foundation with motive and Swain's "unusual behavior". If the prosecution can't first prove that a crime was committed, unusual behavior and motive mean very little. They need a crime before they can have a criminal.
If the defense in the criminal case can undermine the conclusion that only an attack could account for the damaged gear, I don't see how the prosecution will be able to establish that it was murder and not an accident beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence seen thus far. Maybe they have something we haven't seen but given the age of the case it seems unlikely any major revelations have occurred since the civil trial.
The defense could call one of the people who recovered those bodies from the Doria to testify to what a panicked diver in their last moment is capable of doing. They could call medical examiners who have seen such bodies, people who study dive accidents from DAN, medical doctors to talk about the physical and psychological responses to drowning and panic. They can even call divers who have either witnessed or experienced panic. That could go a very long way towards establishing "reasonable doubt".
Time will tell I suppose, but even if Swain is acquitted, it appears based on the articles posted above that the Civil verdict will stand, basically meaning he is ruined no matter what happens in Tortola.
Last edited:
neptune08
Registered
I do agree with the issues raised about what can happen when your life is on the line. We have all heard the story of the guy who cuts off his limb to save his life.
Also go back to our dive buddy training. If he had never left his dive buddy who was also his wife, we would not be having this conversation. If he had proper council during his trial, we might not be having this conversation. How many lawyers out there would have defended him for free? I bet quite a few. He was an EMT but he stopped CPR? I have been one for over 10 yrs and I have never stopped CPR, why because they tell you not to stop unit a Doctor says stop, we are not qualified to determine when it is time. He wanted her dive gear donated, lets stop and think this one through Americans will sue over hot coffee.
So if your wife just died then it would be reasonable to think you would want is some type of explanation and investigation on what when wrong, and who is liable. At the lease you may be able to prevent this tragedy from happening to someone elses wife.
Point to this is Hind sight is 20-20. We could always look at the what if, but the truth is we were not there and may never know the truth. Is we ruined or did he ruin himself? The only way you can be sure of Guilt is through admission and that is even that is not fool proof. OJ was acquitted, but Rubin Carter was convicted. No one is perfect, thats why we have lawyers
The sad truth is what we do know, two families lives will never be the same. Nothing can ever bring his wife back. Nothing will ever bring their daughter back.
Also go back to our dive buddy training. If he had never left his dive buddy who was also his wife, we would not be having this conversation. If he had proper council during his trial, we might not be having this conversation. How many lawyers out there would have defended him for free? I bet quite a few. He was an EMT but he stopped CPR? I have been one for over 10 yrs and I have never stopped CPR, why because they tell you not to stop unit a Doctor says stop, we are not qualified to determine when it is time. He wanted her dive gear donated, lets stop and think this one through Americans will sue over hot coffee.
So if your wife just died then it would be reasonable to think you would want is some type of explanation and investigation on what when wrong, and who is liable. At the lease you may be able to prevent this tragedy from happening to someone elses wife. Point to this is Hind sight is 20-20. We could always look at the what if, but the truth is we were not there and may never know the truth. Is we ruined or did he ruin himself? The only way you can be sure of Guilt is through admission and that is even that is not fool proof. OJ was acquitted, but Rubin Carter was convicted. No one is perfect, thats why we have lawyers
The sad truth is what we do know, two families lives will never be the same. Nothing can ever bring his wife back. Nothing will ever bring their daughter back.
ScubaSarus
Guest
I just hope a fair investigation is carried out leading to a fair trial and that truth prevails. Some of the evidence is flawed IMO and thats whats really disturbing as a foresnic team or proper investigators never really properly examined the dive site afterwards IMO. And now there are unanswered questions. This is upsetting to both families involved and the people close to both families.
They let it go until after the civial trial (12 yrs); and IMO, should have been the opposite way around.
Dave has lost pratically all he owned. The plaintiffs in the cival trial have a lot of compensation ( and I know you can't put a price on a loved one). Claims are he didn't show any feeling for losing his wife and I don't know how true this is (I hope the claims are false).
I don't know if putting Dave in jail at this time will make society a safer place or change anything at this point or make any difference.
They let it go until after the civial trial (12 yrs); and IMO, should have been the opposite way around.
Dave has lost pratically all he owned. The plaintiffs in the cival trial have a lot of compensation ( and I know you can't put a price on a loved one). Claims are he didn't show any feeling for losing his wife and I don't know how true this is (I hope the claims are false).
I don't know if putting Dave in jail at this time will make society a safer place or change anything at this point or make any difference.
Last edited:
LobstaMan
Guest
If you believe the authorities both in RI and in BVI, the reason why there was no "proper" investigation and evidence is "flawed" is because the defendant attempted to make a homicide look like a scuba diving accident. Therefore, if at first glance the scene looks like an accident, there is little reason to forensically examine the scene and preserve evidence because no crime has occurred. Only later when witnesses and other circumstantial evidence casts doubt on the accident theory do we then have a criminal investigation. There is no one to blame for the lack of evidence or forensic examination than the trickster who attempted to dupe the invesigators into believing this was an accident.(I'm not saying I believe the BVI/RI authorities)
Besides, an outdoor/underwater crime scene would be a challenge even for the most seasoned big-city homicide and crime scene investigators even if responding officers did their best to preserve the crime scene. Let alone investigators from a tiny tourist island in the Caribbean.
LobstaMan
