vladimir
The Voice of Reason
- Messages
- 45,634
- Reaction score
- 67,555
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
That's quite a bias, AfterDark. If you were judging the case you would have to recuse yourself.
BREAKING NEWS: David Swain Wins Appeal Against Murder Conviction
- 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
OP
And AfterDark wasn't on the jury, so no recusal is necessary.
The reality is that no matter what anyone *thinks* for any reason - whether they know him as AfterDark and I do (and admittedly, that probably makes us biased in his favor) - or they're just basing their opinion on the (biased against him) media coverage - the trial simply wasn't fair. The trial judge, in essence, told the jury to ignore the defense' case and only consider the prosecution's case.
I don't care who you are or what you believe about David's guilt or innocence, if you believe in fair trials, you HAVE to agree that that is simply WRONG. A fair verdict cannot be rendered if the judge has biased the jury against the defendent. Period. Which is what the three-judge panel of the Eastern Carribean Court of Appeals found (I'm paraphrasing based on reports, since the document hasn't been published yet - they appear to be about a week behind in publishing them on their website - but maybe they'll get this one up quickly with all the media attention.)
I agree that I'd rather see 9 guilty men go free than an innocent man sit in prison for something he didn't do. And if you or a friend were that innocent man, you'd believe exactly the same thing.
While I personally don't believe that David did it based on my knowledge of him and his character, I can also divorce myself from that and say that there simply was not enough evidence to prove that he was guilty of murder - the Crown simply didn't prove its case, IMO. And given that, there IS a legal presumption of innocence - he doesn't have to "prove" he's innocent nor does a court have to pronounce him innocent (no matter what that idiot Ren Olenn says).
The reality is that no matter what anyone *thinks* for any reason - whether they know him as AfterDark and I do (and admittedly, that probably makes us biased in his favor) - or they're just basing their opinion on the (biased against him) media coverage - the trial simply wasn't fair. The trial judge, in essence, told the jury to ignore the defense' case and only consider the prosecution's case.
I don't care who you are or what you believe about David's guilt or innocence, if you believe in fair trials, you HAVE to agree that that is simply WRONG. A fair verdict cannot be rendered if the judge has biased the jury against the defendent. Period. Which is what the three-judge panel of the Eastern Carribean Court of Appeals found (I'm paraphrasing based on reports, since the document hasn't been published yet - they appear to be about a week behind in publishing them on their website - but maybe they'll get this one up quickly with all the media attention.)
I agree that I'd rather see 9 guilty men go free than an innocent man sit in prison for something he didn't do. And if you or a friend were that innocent man, you'd believe exactly the same thing.
While I personally don't believe that David did it based on my knowledge of him and his character, I can also divorce myself from that and say that there simply was not enough evidence to prove that he was guilty of murder - the Crown simply didn't prove its case, IMO. And given that, there IS a legal presumption of innocence - he doesn't have to "prove" he's innocent nor does a court have to pronounce him innocent (no matter what that idiot Ren Olenn says).
A court system and a trial does not guarantee "justice" one way or the other as laws, courts and juries are far from perfect.
However a court system and a trial must at least provide a chance for the defendant to get a fair trial - and in this case the judges summation to the jury removed that chance. I don't care if David Swain were Ted Bundy, both deserved a fair trial and David Swain did not get one. Whether he is saint, sinner, innocent or guilty as he'll doesn't matter, he did not get a fair trial and the conviction was rightly overturned.
I also agree that the outcome of a civil trial with a much lower burden of proof is a very suspect reason to re-open a murder investigation and prosecution. That smells of money and improper influence. Just because the victim of that persecution is a sleaze does not make it right.
However a court system and a trial must at least provide a chance for the defendant to get a fair trial - and in this case the judges summation to the jury removed that chance. I don't care if David Swain were Ted Bundy, both deserved a fair trial and David Swain did not get one. Whether he is saint, sinner, innocent or guilty as he'll doesn't matter, he did not get a fair trial and the conviction was rightly overturned.
I also agree that the outcome of a civil trial with a much lower burden of proof is a very suspect reason to re-open a murder investigation and prosecution. That smells of money and improper influence. Just because the victim of that persecution is a sleaze does not make it right.
vladimir
The Voice of Reason
- Messages
- 45,634
- Reaction score
- 67,555
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
I used if and the subjunctive case (were) to signal that I was speaking hypothetically. Nobody thinks AfterDark was a judge or juror in the trial. My point, which we all recognize, is that he is not an objective observer. It's not a criticism--who could be with their history?
Quite correct, and he is free, as he should be, under the circumstances. But that does not mean we can't, or shouldn't, form our own opinions on whether or not he actually killed his wife.
OP
Actually, I don't know that you "should" form your own opinions on whether or not he killed his wife, since you likely have not heard any of the defense's case and have only read or seen the biased reporting about the case, which has assumed his guilt from Day 1. Here in Providence, RI, the newspapers reported the case as though it were a foregone conclusion that he murdered Shelley pretty much from the second she died. Every newspaper article I've read from the Providence Journal (the local rag we unaffectionately call the Projo) is unashamedly biased against David - as are all of the major local TV networks.
Afterdark and I - and pretty much anyone who knows David, I'd imagine - will admit that he's not a warm and fuzzy, socially skilled, instantly likable guy. He's a pretty "different" personality. When I first met him, my first reaction was "Wow - that guy has some MAJOR walls up and I doubt I'll ever get to know him well." But I didn't give up on him - because that's not what I do - and despite the fact that I don't know that I would ever say we became good friends - I like him. Hey - if everyone I knew were the same kind of person, I'd be bored as hell with all my friends. My personal experiences with David have all been positive and interesting. I accept that he's got a personality that doesn't read as warm and fuzzy - he is who he is and I accept that - even more so now that I know more of his background growing up, which IMO, really has explained that to a great degree.
Honestly - believe what you want - but realize that your sources are VERY biased against David if you're depending on media reports. The media doesn't like people who aren't fuzzy little puppies. And they're LOVING playing Shelley's parents off as befuddled elderly victims.
Afterdark and I - and pretty much anyone who knows David, I'd imagine - will admit that he's not a warm and fuzzy, socially skilled, instantly likable guy. He's a pretty "different" personality. When I first met him, my first reaction was "Wow - that guy has some MAJOR walls up and I doubt I'll ever get to know him well." But I didn't give up on him - because that's not what I do - and despite the fact that I don't know that I would ever say we became good friends - I like him. Hey - if everyone I knew were the same kind of person, I'd be bored as hell with all my friends. My personal experiences with David have all been positive and interesting. I accept that he's got a personality that doesn't read as warm and fuzzy - he is who he is and I accept that - even more so now that I know more of his background growing up, which IMO, really has explained that to a great degree.
Honestly - believe what you want - but realize that your sources are VERY biased against David if you're depending on media reports. The media doesn't like people who aren't fuzzy little puppies. And they're LOVING playing Shelley's parents off as befuddled elderly victims.
Last edited:
Lookmanohands
Registered
Wonder if RI will charge him under the same assumptions that Gabe Watson was charged in Alabama? Seems to have a similarity to me in regards to the concept of planning a crime in one jurisdiction and carrying it out in another.
- Messages
- 54,184
- Reaction score
- 8,306
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Your first post too. How do you know these people?
Lookmanohands
Registered
I do not know "these" people that you speak of. I do however know Gabe and Tina. Just wondering if the US judicial system will play out evenly or if RI will not go the route of AL. Wondering what the thoughts are of those close to the Swain case and whether that ladies parents will be able to pressure the RI govt to charge Swain under the same "type" theories as Al charged Gabe.
And he's not even certified - can you say "troll?" Need to learn what a troll is, amirite? Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And he's not even certified - can you say "troll?" Need to learn what a troll is, amirite? Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Lookmanohands
Registered
Don I think you have severe glare on your glasses if you are referring to me. Let me copy for you what is posted right above yours and would answer your question had you read it.
"Wondering what the thoughts are of those close to the Swain case and whether that ladies parents will be able to pressure the RI govt to charge Swain under the same "type" theories as Al charged Gabe."
If you are versed in the Swain case it refers to you, if you are not, it does not. LTR
"Wondering what the thoughts are of those close to the Swain case and whether that ladies parents will be able to pressure the RI govt to charge Swain under the same "type" theories as Al charged Gabe."
If you are versed in the Swain case it refers to you, if you are not, it does not. LTR
nolatom
Contributor
Here's what I wrote to a loyal supporter of his on "that other dive board"
quote
I suppose there will be folks on both sides of this, which is inevitable when one court says there is sufficient evidence of guilt, an a second court says there isn't. Plus, courts don't find you "innocent", just "not (proven) guilty".
the latter doesn't answer the 'did he in fact do it' question. I followed this though not super closely, understand he made a poor witness for himself at trial, which may have been a behavioral trait of his (or not?), made him appear unconcerned and indifferent when maybe he wasn't. (or not? Who knows--I don't).
But I do recall that that implicit in his guilt was the concept that his wife was an experienced and competent diver, who wouldn't have panicked and snuffed herself, at least not early in a not-very deep dive (expert testimony for the Crown to this effect. But then afterwards, I recall reading some earlier dive log entries she'd made, describing anxiety and near-panic on several dives, and lack of confidence in her ability. These apparently weren't given to the court, nor mentioned by any expert which, if true, is downright surprising.
Am I remembering this right? Because those log entries caused me, reading far away from the incident to be sure, to have a lot more doubt than I would have had without reading them.
unquote
I also recall the wife's family bankrolled the expert who didn't notice, or noticed but didn't mention (I know not which), these log entries. Nor apparently did Swain's expert, or his lawyers. It didn't sound like a level playing field to me. If I'm right about these logs (am I?), that's one of the reasons why.
quote
I suppose there will be folks on both sides of this, which is inevitable when one court says there is sufficient evidence of guilt, an a second court says there isn't. Plus, courts don't find you "innocent", just "not (proven) guilty".
the latter doesn't answer the 'did he in fact do it' question. I followed this though not super closely, understand he made a poor witness for himself at trial, which may have been a behavioral trait of his (or not?), made him appear unconcerned and indifferent when maybe he wasn't. (or not? Who knows--I don't).
But I do recall that that implicit in his guilt was the concept that his wife was an experienced and competent diver, who wouldn't have panicked and snuffed herself, at least not early in a not-very deep dive (expert testimony for the Crown to this effect. But then afterwards, I recall reading some earlier dive log entries she'd made, describing anxiety and near-panic on several dives, and lack of confidence in her ability. These apparently weren't given to the court, nor mentioned by any expert which, if true, is downright surprising.
Am I remembering this right? Because those log entries caused me, reading far away from the incident to be sure, to have a lot more doubt than I would have had without reading them.
unquote
I also recall the wife's family bankrolled the expert who didn't notice, or noticed but didn't mention (I know not which), these log entries. Nor apparently did Swain's expert, or his lawyers. It didn't sound like a level playing field to me. If I'm right about these logs (am I?), that's one of the reasons why.
Similar threads
