Article on Death In Ginnie Springs

[boulderjohn]

I have some thoughts about the progress of this thread.

Roughly 90% of this thread is composed of posts by knowledgeable people, including expert divers, physicians, and attorneys, who all agree that the investigation following this incident was totally proper given the circumstances. They also believe that the circumstances are entirely plausible and consistent with the well established practices of the deceased. Everything that can be said to this effect has been said repeatedly.

Roughly 10% of this thread is from one person, with some minor support from a second, who says that the procedures do not match his standards for how they should have been done. He finds the scenario implausible, but does not offer a more plausible scenario.

I see no possibility that any further posts will make any difference. I therefore suggest that all who feel a screaming frustration at this point refrain from repeating the same points yet again. Perhaps that the ensuing silence will eliminate more responses that bring on more screaming frustration.

 

[gianaameri]

He finds the scenario implausible, but does not offer a more plausible scenario.

The only plausible scenario is that Carlos died because he was breathing O2 from an O2 marked bottle too deep (except that we cannot be entirely certain because the bottle was not seized by the Police and tested by a Lab).

 

[Lorenzoid]

The only plausible scenario is that Carlos died because he was breathing O2 from an O2 marked bottle too deep (except that we cannot be entirely certain because the bottle was not seized by the Police and tested by a Lab).

I like the idea of being "entirely certain" about everything. It is a basic human right to achieve 100% certainty, not 99.9% or 85.4%.

 

[gianaameri]

I like the idea of being "entirely certain" about everything. It is a basic human right to achieve 100% certainty, not 99.9% or 85.4%.

A Lab test result will give you a level of accuracy as good as the certified instruments they use, which should be more than enough for the purpose of testing the gas content of a SCUBA tank.

 

[Lorenzoid]

A Lab test result will give you a level of accuracy as good as the certified instruments they use, which should be more than enough for the purpose of testing the gas content of a SCUBA tank.

Well, not necessarily. You have to assign some uncertainty to the human doing the tests, whether the sample or something else could have been contaminated (all that chain-of-custody stuff that was mentioned earlier). As I alluded to in a previous post, it seems you are willing to place great faith in the evidence-gathering, testing, reporting, etc., but not willing to place much faith at all in the authorities at the scene who, applying their professional skills, made the determination that no deeper forensic testing was necessary to conclude with high certainty what happened.

 

[gianaameri]

it seems you are willing to place great faith in the evidence-gathering, testing, reporting, etc., but not willing to place much faith at all in the authorities at the scene who, applying their professional skills, made the determination that no deeper forensic testing was necessary to conclude with high certainty what happened.

You are right.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

A Lab test result will give you a level of accuracy as good as the certified instruments they use, which should be more than enough for the purpose of testing the gas content of a SCUBA tank.

No, no, you're going off-message! The issue isn't the level of accuracy - the Analox O2 tester employed by Joe Cave Diver at the scene was more than accurate enough to conclusively demonstrate that regardless of +/- a few % error, he was going to ox-tox - the issue is OMGWTFBBQ were they thinking not (1) having a forensic chain of custody so that there could never be any doubt about the veracity of the results and (2) testing for the second shooter on the grassy knoll who just might have been secretly boosted into the tank just before it was used.

Also, the gun-in-hand comparisons I see in the latter part of this thread strike me as inapt. A better comparison is a road race on a winding mountain road with sheer cliff drop-offs: a bunch of teammates see a driver with an open, half-empty bottle of Laphroaig in his hand as he stumbles towards his car; they tell him he looks like he's had too much and gee maybe he should blow a quick breathalyzer test to make sure he's good to go; he flips them off, jumps in, and off they all go...an hour later his weaving car goes flying off a cliff, killing him in a massive fireball.

The corpse, despite the fire, still stinks of peaty whisky; the charred bottle is found in the wreck; and there's no obvious sign of tampering with the car. But HOLY ! You cops still better seize that car and test the brake and steering fluids for EVERYTHING! Because maybe something else was at work here and how else can we be SURE?!

 

[Six Feet Under]

My reply from the same thread on Deco Stop:

I'm curious about one thing regarding this: how many people in this thread (including the OP) have ever taken part in a death investigation? I'm wondering what they were supposed to do (in the OP's eyes especially) in this case besides analyze the gas (which was found to contain 98% O2, correct?) that was being breathed at a depth four times greater than the MOD for that particular gas, and speak to witnesses. Serious question, what else do you expect the police to do?

Does FDLE have the necessary equipment to analyze breathing gas in their laboratory, to include the percentage of each gas present in the mix and any contaminants, etc? They might, but I'm not sure. That would make sense, but you wouldn't have answers anytime soon.

DNA and fingerprints are not going to be present after a dive to 100 FFW. There is no way for detectives to visit the underwater crime scene, and what would they find if they did? Nothing. Witnesses at the scene provided similar statements about the deceased, his actions, and his statements prior to starting the dive. The gas mixture was found to contain a percentage of oxygen only safe to breathe at a depth four times shallower than the deceased was breathing it. What more do you have to go on before the guy is put in a bag and sent off for autopsy? Even if it was assumed he was the victim of foul play, any first week law student could disprove a chain of custody of those tanks without a problem (seeing as competent attorneys do it all the time on a single error on a police chain of custody logs for evidence).

If your friend says "I'm going to go kill myself," walks out the front door and moments later you hear a gunshot, walk out and find him dead in the grass... it's going to be treated like a suicide, not a murder. If a man makes a critical error in the sport of his choice and dies because of it, it's going to be treated like either a suicide or an accident (depending on his temperament and/or statements prior to the dive), not a murder. If he packs his own parachute and it doesn't deploy, nobody is going to open a homicide investigation because he "could have" been murdered, without a valid reason to do so.

Death cases are very basic unless there is valid reason to believe the deceased was a homicide victim or there was gross negligence on the part of another that warrants further investigation... neither of which seem to be at play here.

 

[gianaameri]

Serious question, what else do you expect the police to do?

This is a dive forum and this is the Accident Analysis area of it.

I am just flabbergasted how many people in 2015 still do not see that after a diving accident the equipment has to be seized by the authorities and tested by a Lab. - and this in the Accident Analysis thread of a Diving Forum.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Too bad with the Laphroaig, though.

If I had to go in a fiery cliff wreck, that's what I'd want in my hand unless there's some 20yo Hirsch around still. Or maybe a '28 Yquem, but that's a different animal entirely...more like last meal stuff.

---------- Post added February 9th, 2015 at 06:06 PM ----------

This is a dive forum and this is the Accident Analysis area of it.

I am just flabbergasted how many people in 2015 still do not see that after a diving accident the equipment has to be seized by the authorities and tested by a Lab. - and this in the Accident Analysis thread of a Diving Forum.

Serious question: what makes diving accidents so special? People die under apparently explained circumstances every minute of the day. Are you seriously contending "proper" procedures would be for all aspects of their environment to be impounded and forensically analyzed, just so that the sum total of human knowledge has no area of ambiguity on how anyone died?