Diver convicted in wife's drowning

[Ken Kurtis]

Just curious what you mean by "And then there's the whole Gabe Watson thing"

I was trying to re-emphasize the point that something might be amiss when the stories don't seem to make sense or pan out. And if it doesn't pass the sniff test, you need to look further to try to figure out what really happened.

Gabe Watson is the guy in Australia who just pled to the circumstances surrounding his wife's death on the Yongala. In his case, the "explanations" of what happened just didn't seem to make sense in terms of what he could/couldn't do did/didn't do.

In both these cases (Swain & Watson), it appears that we have instances of a diver deliberately killing another diver underwater. Maybe it's not as rare as we'd like to believe. It can definitely be hard to prove.

- Ken

 

[ACES50]

Ken

In either case, what evidence is there the death was deliberate? If you only rely on media reports it would seem that way but we all know about the media.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

In either case, what evidence is there the death was deliberate? If you only rely on media reports it would seem that way but we all know about the media.

First, I'm a member of the media out here in LA and have been for years (KABC, KCET, LACityView35) and while media-bashing is convenient, it's also a red herring. While some of the specifics may be incorrect (calling it an "oxygen bottle" for instance), the overall facts and stories are correct 99.99% of the time (which is certainly more than we can say for some of the styuff we read on the Internet).

Please feel free to point out the instances where the "media" has gotten it totally wrong in a scuba fatality (not just some nit-picky detail mainly of interest to the dive community - but flat-out factually WRONG) and I'll be happy to eat my words.

Secondly, there's no denying these people died unexpectedly. So there's got to be a reason and it's usually findable. An autopsy will rule out any medical complications, or a bullet through the head, or whatever, and frequently points to drowning. Then you ask, well, why did they drown?

Don't forget about Big MO - Motive & Opportunity. Seems to be present in both cases (Watson & Swain). Doesn't mean they did it, but it means they might have.

Then look at their explanations. Again, doesn't mean they did it but when things don't make sense you start to think that maybe someone's lying to you and then you wonder why they would be lying to you.

And also, for the lay public, take their stories and cirumstances and ASSUME they did it. From that perspective, does their story look/sound like someone trying to hide something?

In the case of Gabe Watson (and I got this at a dinner the other night from one of principals in the case) there was actually someone from another boat on the wreck at the same time who saw a struggle and a diver fall to the bottom. This witness was under instruction at the time, couldn't get his instructor to turn to see the woman on the bottom, and they went the other way. I don't know if he testified or not.

Again, doesn't mean Watson did it but adds a little bit more to the cloud of suspicion.

Then, again with Watson, he says he made a direct ascent but his computer shows otherwise (inclduing a safety stop), he says he didn't think he could get her off the bottom but he'd completed a rescue class, he says he thought it was better to go get help than to go get his wife on the bottom, and his story changed almost every time he told it. So it sounds a bit fishy at best. I mean, does this really sound like a guy who was all that concerned that his new wife might be dying?

If you've got something else to offer for either of these cases, then offer it. But to ignore all the evidence and circumstance, regardless how those came to be publicly known, seems to reflect more of a head-in-the-sand approach than an objective look at the facts.

- Ken (Forensic Consultant - LA County Coroner)

 

[Scott L]

I was trying to re-emphasize the point that something might be amiss when the stories don't seem to make sense or pan out. And if it doesn't pass the sniff test, you need to look further to try to figure out what really happened.

Gabe Watson is the guy in Australia who just pled to the circumstances surrounding his wife's death on the Yongala. In his case, the "explanations" of what happened just didn't seem to make sense in terms of what he could/couldn't do did/didn't do.

In both these cases (Swain & Watson), it appears that we have instances of a diver deliberately killing another diver underwater. Maybe it's not as rare as we'd like to believe. It can definitely be hard to prove.

- Ken

Ken,
Excuse me but I am real late coming to this story. With regard to the fins issue....along with the assumption that they were stuck purposely in the sandy bottom, what could have been the reason for that action? Seems odd...

 

[AfterDark]

Ken, I haven't heard of any hard evidence in the Swain case. There are things that don't look good but I have a hard time putting my finger on any hard evidence. As I've said before if one goes to bed and there is no snow on the ground and upon waking one looks out the window and sees snow, there's no need for an eye witness to tell you it snowed while you slept. I see no such evidence in the Swain case. As I understand the case 2 divers went in the water 1 came out, one died some of the deceased divers gear was damaged. No autopsy was done. The equipment wasn't confinscated by the BVI police. The death was ruled an accident and remained such until 10 years later when Swain lost a civil case in the matter. After the civil suit without any new evidence the incident was ruled a murder and Swain was arrested. Do you think if this case was tried here in the USA it would be a winner for the state? Money and romance was pointed to as motive and Swain was there in the water so there was oppotunity but were is the evidence? What do you see as hard evidence in the Swain case?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

With regard to the fins issue....along with the assumption that they were stuck purposely in the sandy bottom, what could have been the reason for that action?

Fins were Swain, not Watson.

Ostensible reason was to show that she panicked so serverly that she kicked her fins off. Except that they were found in a position inconsistent with how they'd have fallen if they were really kicked off and the only way to replicate the position in which they were found was to physically jam them in to the sand.

- Ken

 

[AfterDark]

Fins were Swain, not Watson.

Ostensible reason was to show that she panicked so serverly that she kicked her fins off. Except that they were found in a position inconsistent with how they'd have fallen if they were really kicked off and the only way to replicate the position in which they were found was to physically jam them in to the sand.

- Ken

So it wasn't possible that she tried to push off the bottom to reach the surface and lost her fin(s) stuck in the bottom? Too many ????? unanswered.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Ken, I haven't heard of any hard evidence in the Swain case. There are things that don't look good but I have a hard time putting my finger on any hard evidence.

I can appreciate your desire to stand up for your friend but I'm not sure what you consider "hard" evidence. It almost sounds like the OJ jury: Unless they could produce an eyewitness that saw OJ slice open the two victims, there was "reasonable doubt."

As I've said before if one goes to bed and there is no snow on the ground and upon waking one looks out the window and sees snow, there's no need for an eye witness to tell you it snowed while you slept.

Where's the evidence that it really snowed? How do you know I didn't come in overnight with trucks and spread the snow? Based on your call for hard evidence, apparently there IS a need for an eyewitness.

What do you see as hard evidence in the Swain case?

As I've said, I think the fins are pretty damning. And given Swain's explanation about them, I think it throws reasonable doubt on to many of the other statements he's made. It's sort of like Bernie Madoff: First there's a crack in the veneer and soon a torrent pours out and you find, as the old Firesign Theater album said, "Everything You Know Is False."

Much as I love the banter, I'm going to have to excuse myself from the rest of the conversation. A good friend of mine says, especially regarding Internet posts, say what you want to say, say it thoroughly, and say it once.

I think we're rehashing ground here. I think I've been preety clear in my general thoughts and it's certainly not unusual for there to be different opinions and conclusions.

And since I've been using this as a diversion from reviewing/preparing for a case where I really do have to have to testify as an expert witness in a few weeks, I think I'd better get back to that. (Besides, I get paid for that. This is a freebie.

If anyone has any continuing/pressing questions about any of this, please feel free to e-mail me directly at kenkurtis@aol.com .

- Ken

 

[Dadvocate]

Best of luck to you, Ken. Thanks for the feedback on the fins, etc.

One little nitpick, though. The jury in the OJ case chose to ignore a great deal of damming DNA evidence as well as insisting on eyewitness testimony among other things. In Swain’s case, one has none of this to choose to overlook. That is a pretty substantial difference in my book.

Anyway, all the best to you, and thanks a bunch for your input. Please feel free to have a break and toss us quibblers a bone if your friend wishes to share something else from the case.

Cheers!

 

[Nylorac]

I can appreciate your desire to stand up for your friend but I'm not sure what you consider "hard" evidence. It almost sounds like the OJ jury: Unless they could produce an eyewitness that saw OJ slice open the two victims, there was "reasonable doubt." .......

As I've said, I think the fins are pretty damning. And given Swain's explanation about them, I think it throws reasonable doubt on to many of the other statements he's made. It's sort of like Bernie Madoff: First there's a crack in the veneer and soon a torrent pours out and you find, as the old Firesign Theater album said, "Everything You Know Is False."

Thanks for your thoughts here Ken - very well thought out and hard to argue against. As you said one thing that I find damaging is the fins - no way in hell you are going to plant them down when trying (however unsucessfully) to surface - wedging them into the sand would actually take some effort when tyring to surface (just my opinion here - but really?). I do understand his friends trying to prove his innocence (and respect it) but none the less I think he got off easy.