Diver convicted in wife's drowning

[AfterDark]

You spelled "fried" wrong.

That's Rhoneman quote take it up with him.

 

[SadiesMom]

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” — Bertrand Russell

Thanks for your clarification, Rhone Man - and BTW, I love your tag line It's seeming sooooo apropos in this thread....

 

[idocsteve]

That's Rhoneman quote take it up with him.

Rhoneman you spelled "fried" wrong.

And I thought you knew EVERYTHING.

AD I never said I know everything, that's your quote.

I have an advantage over you in that I am not biased by having known the guilty party. I come into this thread objective, and I clearly see a man who has murdered his wife, he has motive, he had opportunity, and the odds of everything that has been presented in this case happening in any other scenario other than the murder for which he has been tried and convicted are about as good as an asteroid striking this planet.

You and Sadie can continue to refute the overwhelming evidence and debate the overwhelming majority of posters on this thread who are pointing the finger of blame, in a futile attempt to convince them to see it your way, but David will continue to sit in his jail cell and there's very little chance he will ever see the light of day.

 

[K_girl]

Minor point perhaps but my feet don't fit anything.

Last two trips I spent quite a lot of time mono finning. First time cos I had really bad abrasion/tissue erosion on my left toot where the front part of the fin met the ankle. Last dives I got some random cut/bruise from god only knows where and I also did a lot of one finning on that occasion. If I was at a gentle site it would be completely within my parameters to remove a fin, dig it in, and take up with my hand at the end of the dive, so as to relieve my discomfort.

I'm not saying anyone did or didn't do anything, I'm just saying that in a calm dive site I can imagine situations where I'd ditch the irritant fin. The way I'd do it would likely be to stick vertical in the sand, if there was sand there.J

But it sounds as though you did not remove the fin, you simply used your other leg to do all the finning and drug the other one behind. My guess is you didn't remove the fin because you were concerned it would get lost. Sounds like you had a chance to leave one fin on the boat, but didn't do that either. I believe that in light of these things, the reasonableness of Shelley removing her own fin and digging it into the sand is not the most reasonable explanation of what happened to her fin.

 

[K_girl]

I'm not sure that that's true, K-girl. Maybe Rhone Man will chime in here, but as I recall, the William Labrador (a US citizen convicted of murdering a woman in Tortola)appeal to the Privy Council in London resulted in an overturned verdict which released him from prison entirely. There was no second trial. Granted, that was after the verdict was apparently upheld by the Eastern Caribbean Appeals Court. But I believe that it's within the Eastern Caribbean Appeals Court's power to overturn a verdict and free a prisoner as well...Rhone Man, please correct me if I'm wrong.

(I know there have been other appeals that have overturned verdicts on appeal and freed prisoners, but frankly right now I haven't had enough coffee to remember them )

Thank you for the correction. I think the best an appeal can do in the U.S. is get a second trial and then the prosecution can decide not to prosecute. The only way to get what you are talking in the U.S. about is through a pardon. At least that is my layman's understanding.

 

[SadiesMom]

Sounds like it's just one of those things that differs between the US and British trial systems. Believe me, your knowledge of the US system has been most appreciated, at least from my perspective, even while I may disagree with your point of view on occasion.

I'm one of those people whose personal exposure to the court has been limited to serving jury duty and watching Law and Order.

 

[K_girl]

Rhoneman you spelled "fried" wrong.



AD I never said I know everything, that's your quote.

I have an advantage over you in that I am not biased by having known the guilty party. I come into this thread objective, and I clearly see a man who has murdered his wife, he has motive, he had opportunity, and the odds of everything that has been presented in this case happening in any other scenario other than the murder for which he has been tried and convicted are about as good as an asteroid striking this planet.

You and Sadie can continue to refute the overwhelming evidence and debate the overwhelming majority of posters on this thread who are pointing the finger of blame, in a futile attempt to convince them to see it your way, but David will continue to sit in his jail cell and there's very little chance he will ever see the light of day.

IdocSteve - I would never say never because you just never know what may happen. Personally, I am leaving myself open to see if the defense can present a better case if he would happen to get a second trial. What we are discussing is the evidence that we have found in the public record, but it is by no means, a complete or officially accurate record of the evidence. As we have seen little bits of transcript come out, we learn just a little more, but I have to honestly say that the public record represents more from the prosecution than from the defense. For instance, the audio transcripts that were released on David's testimony - the prosecution's cross was very meaty, whereas the transcript on David's direct was cut-off in mid-sentence just as they were getting to the meat. If there was defense re-direct of David, we did not see any of that.

That said, David's quoted statements in writing and video of David, along with the audio of his trial testimony, he does not leave a good impression. I think all of that has really hurt him a great deal and it is the most substantial part of his defense in the public record. David's daughter, bless her heart, is trying to find ways to explain his demeanor, but I don't think that is the whole problem. It is also the content of David's statements that creates much of the problem, not necessarily the way he said it. When you see the words he spoke written-out, without the man saying them, it's still a problem. There were probably people who testified about the character of Swain that they knew, but I don't believe the jury saw that man with their own eyes. I believe that all they saw was a man who was just denying everything and that hurt him as well.

I was glad to see that some of David's supporters got a chance to have their say on the NBC Dateline show and the show's fairness was impressive because of the people who only heard about the incident through this show, I think we saw a split in opinion. On this forum, David's supporters have presented other potential scenarios, but their knowledge of what happened at trial is really skimpy, especially compared to an actual trial transcript. They tend to focus on the elements of what they heard about the trial that gives them hope and you can't really blame them for that.

You seem to be personally angry with David and you are lashing out at the people who support him. You would prefer that everyone in the world should abandon him. I can understand how Shelley's family and friends would feel that way, but I think the posters on this forum should try to be more objective and recognize that we were not present at the trial and we do not have all the information. As for posters who are David's friends posting here, I want to see them keep fighting for his position. Lashing out at David and his supporters is not a process I want to participate in. To me, justice has not been completed until the appeals process is completed and Swain has been vigorously defended. As far as whether or not an appeal will be successful - I really don't know, but lawyers do seem to agree that there is a basis for appeal. If Swain does spend the rest of his life in jail, I would want to know that he was afforded every opportunity to defend himself fairly.

 

[idocsteve]

IdocSteve - You seem to be personally angry with David and you are lashing out at the people who support him. You would prefer that everyone in the world should abandon him. I can understand how Shelley's family and friends would feel that way, but I think the posters on this forum should try to be more objective.

I'll rephrase your post about me as a question. "Are you personally angry with David?"

Answer- "No, I don't even know the man, in fact the first I ever heard about the case was right here on Scubaboard, although I might have heard a blip here or there because it was in and out of the news".

I find his 2 (or is it 3) supporters, who refute any and all negative evidence, and continue page after page with the same repetitive ad-nausium posts that say the same things "He would never do this, I know him", and "Here's a (ludicrous) scenario that fits all the evidence" and "he didn't get a fair shake in a corrupt system", to be an insult to my intelligence and to those on this board who have been objective and factual.

They blame the system, they blame the jurors, they blame the courts, they blame the authorities, they blame Shelley's family, they blame David's friends who changed their minds and no longer stick by him, they blame everyone except the one who is responsible for being behind bars in the first place.

 

[ACES50]

EGAD

The Dateline producer is a lady named Esther Zucker. Her Email is: ESTHER.ZUCKER@NBCUNI.COM

 

[K_girl]

idoc - your frustration only entrenches people in their positions, it does nothing to persuade. You can't slap your detractors in the face and hope to gain the support of others. If anything, it only alleniates you and will cause some people who might agree with you on some basic principles to argue with you and make you even more frustrated. Your frustration elevates and things start to get out-of-hand and people start shouting at each other. Don't let that happen. I remember from a previous post you made, that this is something you really don't want to happen.

I noticed where you stopped my quote and added a period at the end of "objective" when actually, my sentence continued on with: "and recognize that we were not present at the trial and we do not have all the information." And with your additional comments, apparently, you are not ready to admit that we do not have access to a complete official record of the trial and you are saying that all the evidence has been evaluated in some sort of completeness in this forum. Fact is - that is not true. I feel there are a great many questions we can ask that we don't have the answers to.

As far as repeated "ad nauseum" posts, I think all of the regular posters can raise their hands of being guilty of that, including myself, including you.