Diver convicted in wife's drowning

[SadiesMom]

Unfortunately for David, it would not take much for someone on a jury to look at his behavior and make a connection to a sociopath. And if they believe he's a sociopath, they might believe that he would be capable of murder. There are too many examples of Davids words and behavior that fits into the description:

Profile of the Sociopath

I have to agree with Afterdark completely. That's what, I think, many of us who know David have been trying to say that many who don't know him don't understand. I said it before - I know a fairly large number of people in the dive community who will call David arrogant - and in fact, David has used the word to describe himself. He's well aware that others find him arrogant, and yet he is who he is. It's a little late to ask him to change that. Judging his character - which is quite "different" than the vast majority of people I know - against what is "normal" to most people simply isn't realistic. He is the way he is because of how he's dealt with how he grew up. Which is exactly why the testimony of his psychologist SHOULD have been allowed to be brought before the jury. Look - David is someone who's easier to dislike than a lot of people - if you never take the time to get below the surface.

But the question that comes from that is very key....can you/should you convict someone of murder simply because he's arrogant??? can you/should you convict someone of murder because you don't like him???

In looking at your link on the traits of a sociopath, K-girl, I really don't see anything that applies to David.

Glibness and Superficial Charm - I wouldn't say that David is particularly charming or glib...he is what he is. And Afterdark described him accurately - when he was pre-occupied, he often came across as cold and abrupt - hardly what one could call "charming."
Manipulative and Conning - I've never seen David as being manipulative - he's pretty open about what he wants and how he goes about getting it. I've certainly never seen him dominate or humiliate anyone.
Grandiose Sense of Self - Can't say as I've ever seen his self-esteem to be any higher than anyone else's...
Pathological Lying - I don't think that David has lied any more or less than anyone else and I most definitely wouldn't call it pathological. Did he explore the possibility of an affair while he was married to Shelley? Yes. And obviously, that took some lies. But I know a lot of people who've lied much more about much worse...and no one's calling them sociopaths....
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. - I'm leaving this explanation in because I think it's important. David has a LOT of longstanding friends who by no means are "victims," "targets" or "opportunities." He most assuredly does see those around him as real live people - he just limits the number of people that he lets into his inner circle of trusted friends.
Shallow Emotions - Very much untrue.
Incapacity for Love - Again - very much untrue.
Need for Stimulation - Unless one calls diving "living on the edge" I don't think that that's even remotely true. And I don't recall anyone who knows of David ever having a single violent outburst or ever physically hurting anyone - ever.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy - I can see that people might interpret things he's said as callous or lacking empathy, but I would say that they come more from his inabiliity to handle painful events well.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature - completely untrue.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency - I never knew him as a child, but to my knowledge, this was never reported as a problem.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability - I can't say that I've ever known David to be irresponsible or unreliable as a person. I do know that he felt that a certified experienced diver should be capable of diving solo if they felt comfortable with doing so - we had that discussion once.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity - Although he was attracted to Mary Basler, by both their accounts, this was not taken to physical infidelity during his marriage to Shelley and in fact, a letter from David to Mary Basler indicated that her rebuffing of his advances caused him to go back and get to work on renewing his marriage with Shelley. To my knowledge he has not been "promiscuous" by any stretch.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle - I can't say that David has a poor work ethic, since he worked his butt off at the shop to make a go of it. He's lived in two places his entire adult life, to my knowledge and they were both in RI...so he certainly didn't move around a lot....
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility - Definitely untrue. If David had wanted to leave to avoid prosecution, he certainly could've done so during the 10 years after Shelley's death. He did not have to return to the very small island community in which both he and his deceased wife's parents lived after her death. He could easily have taken the money and moved to another country where there were no extradition laws. He did not. Even after the civil verdict, he stayed here. He was arrested exactly where one would expect to find him - behind the counter of the dive shop.

 

[idocsteve]

Glibness and Superficial Charm - I wouldn't say that David is particularly charming or glib...he is what he is. And Afterdark described him accurately - when he was pre-occupied, he often came across as cold and abrupt - hardly what one could call "charming."

Right, David is hardly what you'd call charming. Sociopaths are not charming. That's why any charm demonstrated by a sociopath is "superficial". That word might be a bit much for you, it really means "false".

Pathological Lying - I don't think that David has lied any more or less than anyone else and I most definitely wouldn't call it pathological. Did he explore the possibility of an affair while he was married to Shelley? Yes. And obviously, that took some lies.

He lied when he said he went to look for his wife. He lied about the length of time he did CPR. He lied about many other factors involved in the death of his wife. I don't know anyone who lied about anything worse than the circumstances regarding a spouse's DEATH.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt David has a LOT of longstanding friends who by no means are "victims," "targets" or "opportunities." He most assuredly does see those around him as real live people - he just limits the number of people that he lets into his inner circle of trusted friends.

David has an ex spouse who would be considered a "victim" by most. That's why they are referred to as "murder VICTIMS". I notice you completely avoided his lack of remorse following the death of his wife, when he was seen in a light hearted and happy mood, and spent the next year or so blowing through the life insurance proceeds on expensive vacations.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy - I can see that people might interpret things he's said as callous or lacking empathy, but I would say that they come more from his inabiliity to handle painful events well.

Of course you would say that it comes from his inability to handle painful events. Others, who aren't biased because they're his friends, would probably say it's because he's a SOCIOPATH.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity - Although he was attracted to Mary Basler, by both their accounts, this was not taken to physical infidelity during his marriage to Shelley and in fact, a letter from David to Mary Basler indicated that her rebuffing of his advances

LOL! You don't think he exhibits promiscuous sexual behavior and infidelity, yet you acknowledge that his intended mistress rebuked his advances. Thanks for my first chuckle of the day.

To my knowledge he has not been "promiscuous" by any stretch.

"To my knowledge" this, "To my knowledge that". Um..you're not David, you can't see inside his head, and just because you don't know something about him, doesn't mean it's not present. For example, AfterDark didn't know David was having an affair (or trying to), I doubt you did either.

The argument presented Ad Nauseum by AfterDark and SaidiesMom on this thread that "I know David and he's not like that" just doesn't fly. It's the first thing supports of convicted murderers say when they're interviewed, and it means NOTHING.

He could easily have taken the money and moved to another country where there were no extradition laws.

Hello? He spent all the money and then went into debt.

All this talk about how David acts the way he does because of a traumatic incident involving his brother and his mom. Well you know what? Lots of people have traumatic incidents in their lives, and it doesn't give them a free pass to go and do messed up things later on in their lives.

 

[K_girl]

This is the kind of sociopathic lying I am talking about. This is not a little white lie, this is a major lie. And it clearly shows that David is attempting to manipulate the emotions of Shelley's parents and it fits the pattern of manipulation that is described of the sociopath:

The Tyres learned things during the trial, disturbing details.

"The one thing I wish came out at trial," says Richard Tyre, "was about that day when (Swain) brought back her body, I said to him in my anger, 'How come you're not showing any grief? How come you're not showing anything a husband shows for his wife who has died?' And he turned to me and said: Because I was 16 years old and standing there when my brother beat my mother to death."

"He used the term bludgeoned," adds Lisa Tyre.

Swain's brother, Richard, is serving a prison term in Minnesota for the killing.

"All these years I believed. I sort of gave him slack, because I think if you go through that you deserve slack. And then it comes out in the trial [in Swain's deposition testimony] that he was 20, and it happened far away. And he lied to us that day."

Source (Lexis/Nexis): http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/4934718-post544.html

As far as making people his victims, I do see, without question, where he made Shelley his financial victim. He was a financial drain on their marriage. He manipulated her to basically support him. I noticed entries in Shelley's logbook that expressed many feelings of ineptness in herself. I suspect there may be evidence that Shelley may have been emotionally abused and made to feel less than what she was. There was testimony that she was changing jobs to be closer to home in order to save her marriage because she was aware that he was courting another woman. She is supporting him and yet, she feels obligated to be the one to save her marriage. What does that say? It says to me, that she was bearing the blame and the entire burden of that marriage. That kind of situation does not occur unless someone is being manipulated and more than likely lied to. Some people will say Shelley was a strong, independent woman. But you read the description of a sociopath who is able to fool and manipulate even what you would call strong people - as far as I am concerned, the evidence of his manipulation of Shelley is indisputable.

Swain also displayed a complete ineptness to run a business, which fits in perfectly with the description of a sociopath to hold a job. Also, there are many functioning sociopaths among us, they represent 1% of the population. They are not a rarerity. Most of them do not commit murder, but they do leave a wake of financial destruction without remorse which fits Swain to a "T." Where a murder of a spouse has been proved to have occurred, the spouse responsible exhibits patterns of behavior that is very similar to David's. It is certainly not proof that he killed her. The only value it has is that it makes it possible for the jury to believe that he would be capable of the murder and to disregard the testimony of his supporters who say otherwise.

 

[SadiesMom]

I'm sorry - I thought that the term "sociopath" was one that was assigned by a trained psychologist or psychiatrist AFTER having had a chance to examine a patient in person for a period of time. I wasn't aware that laymen without any training could make a medical diagnosis of a personality disorder and assign it to someone they've never met, simply by reading third-hand, biased articles from a newspaper without the benefit of ever meeting the person they've diagnosed.

Wow. Who knew?

Wait - you're not a psychiatrist are you? 'Cause if you're not, you don't have the expertise to make such a judgement and if you are, then you're completely unprofessional for doing so without ever having met or talked to the person involved for even a second.

 

[idocsteve]

Wait - you're not a psychiatrist are you? 'Cause if you're not, you don't have the expertise to make such a judgement and if you are, then you're completely unprofessional for doing so without ever having met or talked to the person involved for even a second.

Took longer than I thought for the insults to start flying.

My guess is that K_girl will be on Sadie's ignore list along with myself before the ball drops in Times Square tomorrow night.

 

[K_girl]

Sadiesmom is right about one thing, neither idoc nor myself are experts at any of this stuff. And I do not begrudge her reminding everyone that is the case. It would be interesting to know if there was any psychiatrist testimony from either side in this case. If there was no psychiatric testimony, I am speculating how a jury might evaluate his behavior. My guess is, they would have discussed it in some fashion. I don't think they would say his behavior means he is guilty. I think they may look at it as his behavior allows them to believe he could have done it and to even begin to personally dislike him. I remember that the defense attorney pleaded with the jury not to let any personal dislike they may feel towards Swain cloud their judgement, so my guess is - it was a concern.

Sadiesmom - do you know if there was any psychiatrist testimony from either side regarding Swain's behavior?

 

[vshearer]

Can we agree he was morally insane?

 

[AfterDark]

Swain also displayed a complete ineptness to run a business, which fits in perfectly with the description of a sociopath to hold a job. Also, there are many functioning sociopaths among us, they represent 1% of the population. They are not a rarerity. Most of them do not commit murder, but they do leave a wake of financial destruction without remorse which fits Swain to a "T." Where a murder of a spouse has been proved to have occurred, the spouse responsible exhibits patterns of behavior that is very similar to David's. It is certainly not proof that he killed her. The only value it has is that it makes it possible for the jury to believe that he would be capable of the murder and to disregard the testimony of his supporters who say otherwise.

Dave maybe be a lousy business man although around here dive shops do not do well. The winters are cold and long and not many people dive year round, not enough to keep a dive shop running at a profit. Most dive shops here are ski, snowboarding, etc.. shops. The air compressor is down from Oct. to May in these places. OSS was open for diving services year round. Before he bought the dive shop Dave held the same job I did for many years probably close to 20 years. We were shipyard workers not exactly an easy job. Dave had no trouble at all holding a job. I believe Shelly and Dave were partners in trying to keep the shop going. I don't believe Dave was manipulating Shelly at least in this aspect. His trauma wasn't only the one incident involving his brother, his whole childhood was a mess because of other factors many leading up to the murder of his mother.
"Can we agree he was morally insane?" No definitely not, he knows right from wrong,moral from immoral.

 

[bsee65]

Right, David is hardly what you'd call charming. Sociopaths are not charming. That's why any charm demonstrated by a sociopath is "superficial". That word might be a bit much for you, it really means "false".

No, it doesn't mean "false", it means shallow. It means that you would see him being charming on the surface, but maybe have a feeling if you looked more closely or were exposed to it over time that it was an act.

David has an ex spouse who would be considered a "victim" by most. That's why they are referred to as "murder VICTIMS". I notice you completely avoided his lack of remorse following the death of his wife, when he was seen in a light hearted and happy mood, and spent the next year or so blowing through the life insurance proceeds on expensive vacations.

The "light hearted and happy mood" sighting was denied and I'm not sure it was proven. Even so, getting drunk when a loved one dies is a cultural tradition, and how one acts when intoxicated is often quite different to what you'd get from them sober. As far as the vacations and spending goes, I believe that we all would acknowledge that diving costs money. Was he off diving in places he otherwise wouldn't have been able to go, or was he sitting in five star hotels eating fine foods and drinking vintage champagne? There's quite a difference in how one might view those two scenarios. The former isn't too far from throwing himself deeply into his business and hobby in order to escape mentally.

Of course you would say that it comes from his inability to handle painful events. Others, who aren't biased because they're his friends, would probably say it's because he's a SOCIOPATH.

I'm not his friend. I could understand how he might react and speak as he did as an innocent man. It isn't sociopathic to have trouble coping with trauma.

LOL! You don't think he exhibits promiscuous sexual behavior and infidelity, yet you acknowledge that his intended mistress rebuked his advances. Thanks for my first chuckle of the day.

Talk isn't action, and neither action for the possibility of action never occurred. Beside that, a single extra-marital partner isn't exactly promiscuous at a socially abnormal level. Sure, it is unacceptable to cheat on a partner mentally or physically, but we're talking about a dive shop operator who would have all sorts of interactions with women. We don't have dozens of customers talking about how he was flirtatious and made passes at them.

"To my knowledge" this, "To my knowledge that". Um..you're not David, you can't see inside his head, and just because you don't know something about him, doesn't mean it's not present. For example, AfterDark didn't know David was having an affair (or trying to), I doubt you did either.

The argument presented Ad Nauseum by AfterDark and SaidiesMom on this thread that "I know David and he's not like that" just doesn't fly. It's the first thing supports of convicted murderers say when they're interviewed, and it means NOTHING.

Neither does your remote opinion based upon reading of a few articles and dsome internet discussion. All any of us should have is a feeling or opinion about what could have happened or what probably happened. No one here is in possession of any set of facts that would allow us to say that we know absolutely what happened under the water that day.

Hello? He spent all the money and then went into debt

That's exactly her point. He had enough cash to move his dive op to some exotic foreign locale. Instead, he went about business as usual. He operated and expanded his local dive business and went on a bunch of trips. I suspect that, with Shelley alive, he would have done the exact same thing with her coming along if he somehow found an extra half million dollars to blow through. David's bad financial management doesn't prove anything related to Shelley's death.

All this talk about how David acts the way he does because of a traumatic incident involving his brother and his mom. Well you know what? Lots of people have traumatic incidents in their lives, and it doesn't give them a free pass to go and do messed up things later on in their lives.

It certainly wouldn't give him a pass on murder, but it might explain a screwed up reaction to the death of his wife.

I am sure that Shelley died in 1999. I am sure that David was found responsible in a civil suit and later convicted in a criminal trial in Tortola. I can't be sure of how she died. I can believe it possible, even probable, that David murdered her, but I can't be sure. As I see it, the possibilities are that Shelley got into some trouble with the wrecks, had a medical or mental issue, or that David killed her.

One other item that is coming out of this for me is to consider where the theoretical "beyond a reasonable doubt" line lies. I'm having trouble getting there with this case, more than I did in considering Gabe Watson's actions. While the scenario that Swain killed his wife for freedom and insurance money is certainly reasonable, I don't see how it isn't possible that Tyre was narced, or otherwise afflicted, and unable to self-rescue. The only fact that makes it hard for me to believe is the fin in the sand, and narcosis could cover that. Sure, it's unlikely, but so is murder. It's not like the only non-murder explanation involves flying saucers or time travel. Can anyone put forth a good description or example of "reasonable doubt" a la law school?

 

[bsee65]

Sadiesmom - do you know if there was any psychiatrist testimony from either side regarding Swain's behavior?

Somewhere among all the citations I do recall the prosecution and court blocking testimony from Swain's doctor in at least one of the cases. That's the only mention of psychology/psychiatry I remember.