Because of what she wrote in her log book about previous dives,that she had panic issues,and the fact there are no witnesses or other real forensic proof, I cannot see how they found David guilty.I do not think he did it..
Diver convicted in wife's drowning
- Thread starter Seanpaul
- 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
Because of what she wrote in her log book about previous dives,that she had panic issues,and the fact there are no witnesses or other real forensic proof, I cannot see how they found David guilty.I do not think he did it..
ItsBruce
Contributor
I have no clue if David did it or not. However, I do have a great deal of trouble with the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, what may be significant doubt to one person may be near certainty to another. A common saying among criminal defense lawyers is that you should go with a jury if befuddling them is your only chance for an acquittal.
I should note that unlike the Gabe Watson case in Australia, here, there was some evidence, in the form of damage to the mask and snorkel, that would arguably enable a jury to find that there was a struggle. If the jury made that finding, then David's denial of being nowhere near becomes a lie and everything goes downhill from there.
Incidentally, from what I understand, the defense had some pretty good experts. I have no information on the prosecution experts.
I should note that unlike the Gabe Watson case in Australia, here, there was some evidence, in the form of damage to the mask and snorkel, that would arguably enable a jury to find that there was a struggle. If the jury made that finding, then David's denial of being nowhere near becomes a lie and everything goes downhill from there.
Incidentally, from what I understand, the defense had some pretty good experts. I have no information on the prosecution experts.
I don't think the defence called any expert witnesses in Swain's trial.
The prosecution called the dive instructor who examined the deceased gear locally after the accident. Although the press referred to him as an expert, I am not quite sure if he was really there as a true expert witness so much as to relay the results of his examination (although it is probably a slightly grey line in this case).
AfterDark
Contributor
The only thing this proves is that you shouldn't be allowed as part of a jury.
AfterDark
Contributor
Scott L
Contributor
How was his counsel paid for if you don't mind me asking? Did the court give him option of goverment legal route or mandate that he use last nickel for defence? Rhoneman indicates such work when granted is typically assigned to quite young and thus less experienced attorneys from private sector firms (pro bono). That said, could the goverment route with arguably more resources availiable have been the better path with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?
AfterDark
Contributor
Dave, his kids, his ex-wife and donations to a defense fund his ex started paid for his defense. I've often thought that his ex-wife getting involved to help Dave was telling. Other women I know would be partying over something like this happening to their ex. I suppose he'll get another chance to go a different route on the appeal. I'm not sure the government would pay for "expert witnesses" for David, which is what he needs to cast doubt over the prosecutions "expert witnesses". The only thing that even comes close to evidence that I know of.
Scott L
Contributor
Thank you for the reply. The ex-wife's support is certainly a positive fact worth noting. Obviously the more attenion paid to this case by the media, ect. will have an effect on the quality level of his goverment legal aid...
AfterDark
Contributor
Anyone who's interested, I found a web site that has a time line of events related to Dave.
I haven't read all of it but what I did read so far seems accurate, at least from my knowledge of events. His defense fund site is not accessible.
Here is the time line site:
David Swain: ZoomInfo Business People Information
I haven't read all of it but what I did read so far seems accurate, at least from my knowledge of events. His defense fund site is not accessible.
Here is the time line site:
David Swain: ZoomInfo Business People Information
Thanks for the post After Dark.
Perhaps you or anyone else familiar with the case can help me understand this. When exactly did Olenn and the authorities he used in the civil trial get their hands on the equipment? Secondly, had the equipment been used by other divers prior to being handed over? Lastly, Was David's dive computer part of the evidence that was gathered as well, not to mention readings on his air when he hit the surface?
The link you provided refers to a lot of strange conclusions being made based on no autopsy and no indication whatsoever how equipment could show a struggle so long after the fact. I'm quite surprised by this actually.
I do think David needed to take the civil suit more seriously. He essentially went absent for most of it and appeared to try and freewheel it when he was there. This was a mistake.
I sincerely hope that the paltry evidence that has been cited isn't all that there is if he is guilty, and I also hope that if he is innocent an appeal is going to happen to put this laughable line of evidence under greater scrutiny, preferably by divers.
Cheers!
Perhaps you or anyone else familiar with the case can help me understand this. When exactly did Olenn and the authorities he used in the civil trial get their hands on the equipment? Secondly, had the equipment been used by other divers prior to being handed over? Lastly, Was David's dive computer part of the evidence that was gathered as well, not to mention readings on his air when he hit the surface?
The link you provided refers to a lot of strange conclusions being made based on no autopsy and no indication whatsoever how equipment could show a struggle so long after the fact. I'm quite surprised by this actually.
I do think David needed to take the civil suit more seriously. He essentially went absent for most of it and appeared to try and freewheel it when he was there. This was a mistake.
I sincerely hope that the paltry evidence that has been cited isn't all that there is if he is guilty, and I also hope that if he is innocent an appeal is going to happen to put this laughable line of evidence under greater scrutiny, preferably by divers.
Cheers!
Similar threads
