Diver convicted in wife's drowning

[ItsBruce]

Here are my thoughts on having jurors with specialized knowledge:

The jury's job is to determine what the "true" facts are when they are in dispute. The jury does this by weighing the evidence and in particular by determining which evidence is worthy of belief and which isn't. A lot of things go into this determination and the judge usually instructs the jury on these things. One very important factor is whether the witness who is presenting the evidence is credible. That may be impacted by the witness's demeanor, possible bias, ability to perceive that about which the witness is testifying and ability to recall.

For the jury to do its job honestly and fairly, it must come into the case with a clean slate. It cannot have any preconceived ideas, which would be the case if it had specialized knowledge.

In terms of expert testimony, when an expert testifies about the mouthpiece of a snorkel missing and what it means, the fair thing is for a jury with no knowledge of diving to assess what the expert has to say. I've been diving for a lot of years and have never heard of the mouthpiece of a snorkel coming off. I personally have a hard time believing it just fell off or that a diver would knock it off in an "ordinary" panic (as compared to one induced by a struggle). But that's just me. Clearly, David would not want me on the jury and would kick me off. At the same time, the prosecution would not want Dadvocate and would kick him off. So, how could anyone possibly select a jury if there were divers on it?

It is for the lawyers, through their experts, to educate the jury about the technical aspects of the case and for the jury to decide which experts are the more credible.

 

[captain]

60 Minutes ran a whole 60 minutes on the case tonight and I feel from what they showed there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

 

[bsee65]

Here are my thoughts on having jurors with specialized knowledge:

The jury's job is to determine what the "true" facts are when they are in dispute. The jury does this by weighing the evidence and in particular by determining which evidence is worthy of belief and which isn't. A lot of things go into this determination and the judge usually instructs the jury on these things. One very important factor is whether the witness who is presenting the evidence is credible. That may be impacted by the witness's demeanor, possible bias, ability to perceive that about which the witness is testifying and ability to recall.

For the jury to do its job honestly and fairly, it must come into the case with a clean slate. It cannot have any preconceived ideas, which would be the case if it had specialized knowledge.

In terms of expert testimony, when an expert testifies about the mouthpiece of a snorkel missing and what it means, the fair thing is for a jury with no knowledge of diving to assess what the expert has to say. I've been diving for a lot of years and have never heard of the mouthpiece of a snorkel coming off. I personally have a hard time believing it just fell off or that a diver would knock it off in an "ordinary" panic (as compared to one induced by a struggle). But that's just me. Clearly, David would not want me on the jury and would kick me off. At the same time, the prosecution would not want Dadvocate and would kick him off. So, how could anyone possibly select a jury if there were divers on it?

It is for the lawyers, through their experts, to educate the jury about the technical aspects of the case and for the jury to decide which experts are the more credible.

A jury never has a clean slate. Everyone has experiences, baggage, and biases when they come into the courtroom. I want my jury educated in the "technology" of the case. Ideally, that education would be unbiased and thorough. In reality, it has to come from one or more expert witnesses in the courtroom. There is a trade-off between thoroughness and speed of trial, so the education provided by the experts won't be complete. There may be two experts giving opposite and biased explanations for a set of facts. I'd rather the jury believed the one who was correct rather than the one with the most charisma or the nicest tie. The credibility of an expert witness should be judged by an understanding of the technology and not colored by other factors. Here is where I'd like for the court to appoint a neutral expert to present and advise the jury before the trial, or at least before the experts get into it. It would also be great if the jury could ask questions of the experts.

The fact is that there is no ideal and practical solution. When higher learning factors heavily into the outcome of a trial, there will be mistakes made periodically.

With regard to the snorkel mouthpiece, I'm sure there are variations between manufacturers and models. An after-market mouthpiece might fit differently from the original. Age and care could make it easier to remove if it were popped off for cleaning many times, or the rubber dried out some. The ones I have used have not fallen off easily, but I accept that there are circumstances that could be different.

 

[adamtodd]

I saw the special tonight, and agree with Captain's comment above. Although there is a bit of circumstantial evidence, and his character and demeanor suggest guilt (IMO) -- There really wasn't anything proving his guilt...

 

[AfterDark]

Any fair minded person that looks at this case as the same reaction. How can they convict on such light evidence?

 

[idocsteve]

Any fair minded person that looks at this case as the same reaction. How can they convict on such light evidence?

David had motive- A hefty life insurance policy and an ongoing affair proven by numerous letters, one stating that "he had no way out of the mess his life had become". His wife was making a job change closer to home and making much less money and would be less able to support his dive shop that was barely making it.

There was no indication that she EVER, in the past, made the absolutely ridiculous decision to "remove her fin and stick it in the sand" in order to "count fish" in some way. I can't even comprehend that. If she wanted to place some sort of marker..then use a rock, or carve something in the sand. To remove a fin, especially when she never said anything about that in the past (nor logged it), is inconceivable, and that's the only way the defense can come up with an alternate theory to murder.

The pin was pulled out of the mask and the snorkel was pulled apart. A diver in panic would not cause that sort of damage, they would pull the mask off their head and that would be the end of it.

In her log book there are only a couple of minor references to something she described as panic in 350 dives, (but she NEVER actually panicked). In order for David to be innocent, in addition to all of the above it has to be assumed that she panicked in calm, clear waters, when nothing even close to this happened during numerous dives in and around the same general area during the week prior to the "final dive". That in of itself is suspicious...what a coincidence, it was the last dive. Either he was "getting the nerve up and knew it was his last chance", or he didn't want to ruin the vacation by knocking her off sooner.

Throw in the fact that even though he's a trained paramedic he discontinued CPR after a brief time, while the standard of care is to continue until advised to stop by first responders. He discouraged further rescuisitation efforts and stopped someone from making a rescue call. Throw in his disconnected demeanor, his apparent lack of caring which can only be possibly explained by a "traumatic childhood"...

The whole defense theory is just like throwing a coin 100x and getting 100 heads. Sure it "could have happened the way the defense said it did" but the odds are so astronomically small that the jury had no problem coming up with a unanimous verdict in a matter of hours, and most who know the defendant felt the same way.

 

[idocsteve]

I had my first snorkel kicked off of my mask accidently when I got too close to my buddy (I have a clip that attaches to the rubber strap for easy removal in between dives) and when I recovered it later, I found the mouth piece had come off in the collision.

Your snorkel lost it's mouthpiece because it was KICKED OFF your face by a buddy.

By David's own admission he was "nowhere near her" when the incident occurs. Show me how she can kick her own snorkel off her face and then you just might have something there.

Add to that that the mask pin was missing, those two things in of themselves are a very unlikely coincidence.

Then throw in all of the other mitigating factors...quite often when there is a death there is no one around to tell the tale, and circumstantial evidence has to be considered because there's nothing else to go on.

If the law was structured in such a way that there could not be a conviction in this case, it's unlikely that there would EVER be convictions unless there was an actual tape recording of the crime.

 

[SadiesMom]

Ya know, I have to say that for a relative newbie to the sport (i.e. <200 dives) a certain optometrist seems to have a whole lot of definitive opinions about what never happens, what divers in a panic "do" and "don't do." Must be his vast experience.

 

[idocsteve]

Ya know, I have to say that for a relative newbie to the sport (i.e. <200 dives) a certain optometrist seems to have a whole lot of definitive opinions about what never happens, what divers in a panic "do" and "don't do." Must be his vast experience.

If you can't attack the argument, attack the person.

:cool2:

 

[AfterDark]

David had motive- A hefty life insurance policy and an ongoing affair proven by numerous letters, one stating that "he had no way out of the mess his life had become". His wife was making a job change closer to home and making much less money and would be less able to support his dive shop that was barely making it.

There was no indication that she EVER, in the past, made the absolutely ridiculous decision to "remove her fin and stick it in the sand" in order to "count fish" in some way. I can't even comprehend that. If she wanted to place some sort of marker..then use a rock, or carve something in the sand. To remove a fin, especially when she never said anything about that in the past (nor logged it), is inconceivable, and that's the only way the defense can come up with an alternate theory to murder.

The pin was pulled out of the mask and the snorkel was pulled apart. A diver in panic would not cause that sort of damage, they would pull the mask off their head and that would be the end of it.

In her log book there are only a couple of minor references to something she described as panic in 350 dives, (but she NEVER actually panicked). In order for David to be innocent, in addition to all of the above it has to be assumed that she panicked in calm, clear waters, when nothing even close to this happened during numerous dives in and around the same general area during the week prior to the "final dive". That in of itself is suspicious...what a coincidence, it was the last dive. Either he was "getting the nerve up and knew it was his last chance", or he didn't want to ruin the vacation by knocking her off sooner.

Throw in the fact that even though he's a trained paramedic he discontinued CPR after a brief time, while the standard of care is to continue until advised to stop by first responders. He discouraged further rescuisitation efforts and stopped someone from making a rescue call. Throw in his disconnected demeanor, his apparent lack of caring which can only be possibly explained by a "traumatic childhood"...

The whole defense theory is just like throwing a coin 100x and getting 100 heads. Sure it "could have happened the way the defense said it did" but the odds are so astronomically small that the jury had no problem coming up with a unanimous verdict in a matter of hours, and most who know the defendant felt the same way.

Any fair minded person that looks at this case as the same reaction. How can they convict on such light evidence?