Diver convicted in wife's drowning

[AfterDark]

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

People lie under oath all the time. In fact, nearly 100% of convicts languishing in jail cells who took the stand in their own defense lied under oath about their innocence.

My post was intended for SadiesMom, not at you. My apologies.

Most defendants are kept off the stand exactly because they'd probably lie. The Dr. is not was a convict or defendant but a witness called by the prosecution to testify about a personal matter that she has full knowledge of and had better tell the truth about or charges could result. Your comparing apples to grapefruits when you talk of convicts, I'm referring to witnesses whom as long as they tell the truth willl be going home after the trial.


Apologies accepted thank you.

 

[idocsteve]

Most defendants are kept off the stand exactly because they'd probably lie. The Dr. is not was a convict or defendant but a witness called by the prosecution to testify about a personal matter that she has full knowledge of and had better tell the truth about or charges could result. Your comparing apples to grapefruits when you talk of convicts, I'm referring to witnesses whom as long as they tell the truth willl be going home after the trial.


Apologies accepted thank you.

Witness lie all the time too. Whether it's for the prosecution or for the defense, people lie to serve their best interests.

Defendents are not "kept off the stand because they'd probably lie". You think a defense attorney is worried about the "ethics of his client?"...LOL they're kept off the stand because under cross examination they'd probably get clobbered and hurt their own case. Because they're GUILTY more often than not.

How many times do defendents produce witnesses with false alibis that "place them away from the crime scene" but are later convicted because the alibi is found to be a fabrication? How about when a convicted criminal is given a break because they testify for the prosecution? You think the criminal cares about the truth? Or about shortening their jail term?

That's just a couple of examples of many. Like I said, people lie, all the time. On the stand, off the stand, under oath, on the alter, you name it.

You keep referring back to the principles in this specific case. Let me be clear on this, I have no idea who's telling the truth, or who is lying.

But I do know this:

People lie under oath for self serving reasons. Fear of "God" or of "perjury" isn't going to stop them.

 

[ItsBruce]

SadiesMom, thanks for your additions and comments.

A couple of thoughts:

Words from a witness are as easy to spin as circumstantial evidence. It is incumbent on counsel to attack the spin. Of course, the problem with spin is that if it is well countered, the initial spinner loses some degree of credibility. Were there witnesses who testified that the dives were called “fun dives”? Were the words capitalized in the log book as being the title of the dive? While those may be small issues or even non-issues now, I mention this only in terms of my comments on circumstantial evidence. BTW: circumstantial evidence is not the same as an inference, especially one that lacks a foundation.

As far as what evidence is admissible, unless a party objects to a piece of evidence, it is deemed admissible. In fact, it is not uncommon for a judge to overrule an objection if it is not in the proper form. I have tried cases where the judge will overrule an objection if the one making it does not stand when he or she makes it. I have tried cases where the judge will overrule an objection if the attorney says anything more than the specific objection. For example, “Objection, lacks foundation,” is sustained, while “Objection, lacks foundation, there is no factual basis for that,” is overruled.

The fact that David did not have counsel in the civil case was very unfortunate all around.

 

[AfterDark]

Witness lie all the time too. Whether it's for the prosecution or for the defense, people lie to serve their best interests.

Defendents are not "kept off the stand because they'd probably lie". You think a defense attorney is worried about the "ethics of his client?"...LOL they're kept off the stand because under cross examination they'd probably get clobbered and hurt their own case. Because they're GUILTY more often than not.

How many times do defendents produce witnesses with false alibis that "place them away from the crime scene" but are later convicted because the alibi is found to be a fabrication? How about when a convicted criminal is given a break because they testify for the prosecution? You think the criminal cares about the truth? Or about shortening their jail term?

That's just a couple of examples of many. Like I said, people lie, all the time. On the stand, off the stand, under oath, on the alter, you name it.

You keep referring back to the principles in this specific case. Let me be clear on this, I have no idea who's telling the truth, or who is lying.

But I do know this:

People lie under oath for self serving reasons. Fear of "God" or of "perjury" isn't going to stop them.

I don't know the answers to those question. I do know the times I testified as a LEO and a witness I told the truth as I knew it. Was I always correct? No. Did I lie? No. Ask your self those questions. As professional if called to testify would you tell the truth or lie? If you'd tell the truth why? Are you "different" from everyone else? If you would lie than you should examine your ethics.

 

[SadiesMom]

People lie under oath all the time. In fact, nearly 100% of convicts languishing in jail cells who took the stand in their own defense lied under oath about their innocence.

Actually, your assumption that only guilty people are convicted and go to prison is very much incorrect. Several studies have been done on the number of innocent people in prison (easily found on Google). According to a University of Michigan study in 2004, between 2.3 and 9% of death row prisoners were exonerated. The US Department of Justice says that between 8 and 12 percent of all US prisoners are innocent. I can't think of a reason that the conviction rate would be much more accurate in a tiny Caribbean country where the jury for this case involving highly technical diving evidence consisted of 9 non-divers.

Why should you care? Because it could be you or someone you know who is in the wrong place at the wrong time or something happens that you can't explain and you become one of that roughly 10% who's convicted and ends up with your freedom taken away from you - even though you didn't do a damned thing wrong. It's a scary thing to know that it not only can happen but that it does happen so often.

And BTW - It was indeed my impression that your post was accusing Dr. Basler of lying about her involvement with David prior to Shelley's death. I think most reasonable people would read it that way. I was simply reminding you that it's unfair to assert or imply that in a public forum and if Dr. Basler or any of her patients were to read it here, it could be quite upsetting to all involved.

 

[idocsteve]

I don't know the answers to those question. I do know the times I testified as a LEO and a witness I told the truth as I knew it. Was I always correct? No. Did I lie? No. Ask your self those questions. As professional if called to testify would you tell the truth or lie? If you'd tell the truth why? Are you "different" from everyone else? If you would lie than you should examine your ethics.

There is no practical usage of the word "should" in daily application.

Regardless of whether or not I would lie under oath, there is no reason whatsoever to "examine my own ethics". They're just fine for my own purposes and simply because someone such as yourself might not approve of them does not give you the inherent right to not only pass judgement on me but expect me to reexamine myself.

 

[idocsteve]

Actually, your assumption that only guilty people are convicted and go to prison is very much incorrect. Several studies have been done on the number of innocent people in prison (easily found on Google). According to a University of Michigan study in 2004, between 2.3 and 9% of death row prisoners were exonerated.

I never assumed "only guilty people go to jail", please show me where you think I did?

Most prisoners are guilty, as per the data you posted that says less than 10% of prisoners have their decisions reversed on appeal, and of those that ARE exonerated, they may still be guilty (however in many cases they were able to turn around the original verdict either due to lack of evidence or on a technicality). That only makes them innocent in the eyes of the law, it does not necessarily mean they didn't commit the crime.

 

[SadiesMom]

S
The fact that David did not have counsel in the civil case was very unfortunate all around.

Wow. Given what you just wrote, Bruce, that has never been more clear to me than now. It seems that all of this has really come from the fact that he lost the civil judgement - which might not have happened had he had adequate counsel. Damn.

Thank you for your input.

 

[idocsteve]

And BTW - It was indeed my impression that your post was accusing Dr. Basler of lying about her involvement with David prior to Shelley's death. I think most reasonable people would read it that way. I was simply reminding you that it's unfair to assert or imply that in a public forum and if Dr. Basler or any of her patients were to read it here, it could be quite upsetting to all involved.

The way I understand the case, there WAS some involvement between the parties. Both the defendant and the witness admitted to kissing one another. If it was just a peck on the cheek, then that's one thing, but if it was sexual in nature then it's an indication that there was more going on, and IF that was the case there is certainly good reason for the defendent to deny it and there might be reason for the witness to do so as well, even though she was "a witness for the prosecution".

The fact that both of them testified otherwise in a court of law means nothing, because like I said, people lie under oath all the time. It's human nature to watch out for #1.

 

[SadiesMom]

I never assumed "only guilty people go to jail", please show me where you think I did?

This was your quote which implies it:

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.
People lie under oath all the time. In fact, nearly 100% of convicts languishing in jail cells who took the stand in their own defense lied under oath about their innocence.

(emphasis added for clarity)

And of course, you chose the lower of the two statistics I quoted - the smaller UofM study of 255 death row prisoners only. The US Department of Justice (hardly a crazy liberal source) figure is the more accurate - they quote between 8 and 12.3% - which averages 10.1% of people in prison are innocent. You say that's a small percentage. Personally, I find it completely appalling that roughly 10% of those in prison don't belong there.

Most people agree that it's better to let 10 guilty men go than to convict one innocent man and take away his freedom wrongly. Apparently you don't agree.

I'm done arguing with you. I'm not here to argue - but simply to give additional information about David, and the defense that most of you don't have access to but that I do (as Afterdark may as well) because I've been in touch with David's daughter and several of his close friends who have intimate knowledge of the case.