Diver convicted in wife's drowning

[bsee65]

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.

You seem to be treating this more as a case of trying to be the best board-warrior than an attempt to discuss an issue rationally and seek out truth. You seem way too excited about getting a rise out of the two people here who actually have a personal attachment and concern for David Swain. I recall you writing about bragging to your friends about having won a board war and calling for the death penalty, but I'm not sure you have added a single meaningful thought to this discussion. K_girl puts in all sorts of time digging for facts, reproducing articles (which I believe is questionable in terms of copyright law), and analyzing facts. Even at this point, I believe that she considers the possibility that Swain might not have done it and that's a part of why she's making the effort; To see if the truth is hiding there somewhere.

Everyone, without exception, should have compassion for Shelley's untimely end and her family. Equally, though, I believe it's appropriate to show some for David's friends and family even if you can't feel any for David himself. Either a guilty man has been sentenced to prison after a legitimate conviction and all is in balance, or a grave injustice has been done to a man who lost everything. In neither situation can I feel it is necessary to start flinging barbs at people who care about him as more than an abstract news story. If you want to be bitter about something, be bitter about the guy who probably did the same thing you believe of Swain to a young and inexperienced wife on their honeymoon and got off with a year and a half for being a bad dive buddy. Maybe that isn't interesting, though, since none of Gabe Watson's friends came to that thread to speak on his behalf.

 

[idocsteve]

I recall you writing about bragging to your friends about having won a board war and calling for the death penalty

That was said "tongue in cheek". I didn't win any "board war" and I have no friends.

but I'm not sure you have added a single meaningful thought to this discussion

For the most part that's probably correct.

Everyone, without exception, should have compassion for Shelley's untimely end and her family.

I dislike that word "should". Is there some sort of rulebook we're supposed to be following here, that says what we're supposed to do? I don't know Shelley's family, and I don't feel anything for them one way or another, just like they don't know me and couldn't care less about my personal tragedies.

Equally, though, I believe it's appropriate to show some for David's friends and family even if you can't feel any for David himself.

See my comment right above this one. I could care less about David's friends or family. I owe them nothing, and I expect nothing from them.

bitter about the guy who probably did the same thing you believe of Swain to a young and inexperienced wife on their honeymoon and got off with a year and a half for being a bad dive buddy. Maybe that isn't interesting, though, since none of Gabe Watson's friends came to that thread to speak on his behalf.

According to a post on this thread, there's a good possibility that Gabe Watson will not be free and clear when he gets out of confinement in a year and a half. Perhaps true justice will be served on him just like it has been on our sociopathic friend who goes by the name of David Swain.

 

[Ayisha]

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.

Swain's psychologist was not approved as an "expert witness" because he was not a medical doctor. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor while a psychologist may have a Ph.D. or Masters and is not a medical doctor.

It is interesting that many expert witnesses, including in this case, were not medical doctors or doctors of any kind, yet they were heard. It would seem that a licenced practicing therapist or psychologist, whether they have a Masters or Ph.D., should be able to speak about a client they were treating as long as the confidentiality agreement is waived. Many psychologists work closely with a psychiatrist in order to have a psychiatrist prescribe drugs or treatments for the patient, so David may have been in contact with a psychiatrist as well. The psychologist that was rejected as a defence witness was not a medical doctor, however.

I only have a B.A. in Psychology, so I am definitely not qualified to diagnose anyone and will refrain from commenting on Swain's condition or lack thereof.

 

[ItsBruce]

1. This morning, I spent several hours preparing a very detailed treatment. I have not yet decided if I am going to post it. The most recent series of exchanges makes me think that it will not serve the greater good of the discussion for me to do so.

2. In post #579, bsee65 comments about reasonable doubt. I'll make a few observations. First, none of us, including the judge and jury, knows what really happened. David may or may not. All the judge and jurors could do is draw conclusions based on the evidence that was presented. (As far as a discussion of evidence and what is or is not admissible, see #1 above.) The rest of us can only draw conclusions based on second-hand reports of the evidence combined with things that may or may not even be "evidence." Second, my guess is that David killed Shelly. However, I am not convinced of that beyond a reasonable doubt … at least not by what I’ve seen and heard on SB.

But, let’s talk about “reasonable doubt.” Just because there is an alternate explanation, that does not mean there is reasonable doubt. Just because there are 10 or 20 alternate explanations, that does not mean there is reasonable doubt. Just because there is some doubt or some question, that does not mean reasonable doubt. What constitutes a “reasonable doubt” varies from person to person. I offer the following for your consideration:

You go to the dive shop to get an air fill. You ask for EAN 45. The shop gives you your tank and says it is EAN 45. You use the meter to test the mix. It says EAN 45. You put the tag on your tank. You put the tank into your car. You drive to the beach. You notice that the tag has come off your tank. As you pick it up, you notice it says EAN 32. You remember that you have a meter in the car and can test the mix again. However, you discover the batteries are dead. No one has a spare meter or batteries. Do you leave, get fresh batteries and test the mix again before diving it or otherwise adjust your dive plan?

I’d say that if you wonder where the “32” tag came from, you have no doubt about the mix. I’d say that if you either went for new batteries so you could test the mix or altered the dive plan, you had a reasonable doubt about the mix. If you wished you had new batteries, but went ahead with the dive as planned, I’d say you had a doubt, but that it did not rise to the level of a “reasonable doubt.”

I'm not sure if that is helpful or not. I could also use an example in which you've driven 60 miles from home when you start to wonder whether you remembered to lock the front door. Driving home to check it or calling (and waking) a neighbor to ask him to check it, equates with reasonable doubt. Just wondering about it does not.

3. In post #581, bsee65 says: “You seem to be treating this more as a case of trying to be the best board-warrior than an attempt to discuss an issue rationally and seek out truth.” I could not have said it better myself. That is why I have not yet posted my comprehensive treatment.

4. idocsteve's posts confuse me. He professes not to know any of the relevant players or to be emotionally invested in the matter. Yet, many of the things he says and the way he says them strike me as being inconsistent with his assertions. If he were a friend of the Tyre family or were an eyewitness to Shelly's death, I could see why he has so much venom. Otherwise, I have trouble. But, maybe it is me.

5. I see way too many logical fallacies and self-fulfilling conclusions for my tastes. Some say "David is a liar." To prove this, they say he lied when he denied having killed Shelly. Then they use their conclusion that he is a liar as evidence that he killed her. My problem with this is that is requires the assumption that he did, in fact, kill her. However, if he did not actually kill her, then his denial is not a lie; he is not a liar, and one cannot say his status as a liar proves he killed her.

6. If David killed Shelly, then he got what he deserved. If he didn't, then he and Shelly were both victims of an unfortunate, unexplained, random scuba accident.

 

[bsee65]

1. This morning, I spent several hours preparing a very detailed treatment. I have not yet decided if I am going to post it. The most recent series of exchanges makes me think that it will not serve the greater good of the discussion for me to do so.

Please do if it has any bearing on the incident and/or applicable law.

2. In post #579, bsee65 comments about reasonable doubt. I'll make a few observations. First, none of us, including the judge and jury, knows what really happened. David may or may not. All the judge and jurors could do is draw conclusions based on the evidence that was presented. (As far as a discussion of evidence and what is or is not admissible, see #1 above.) The rest of us can only draw conclusions based on second-hand reports of the evidence combined with things that may or may not even be "evidence." Second, my guess is that David killed Shelly. However, I am not convinced of that beyond a reasonable doubt … at least not by what I’ve seen and heard on SB.

But, let’s talk about “reasonable doubt.” Just because there is an alternate explanation, that does not mean there is reasonable doubt. Just because there are 10 or 20 alternate explanations, that does not mean there is reasonable doubt. Just because there is some doubt or some question, that does not mean reasonable doubt. What constitutes a “reasonable doubt” varies from person to person. I offer the following for your consideration:

You go to the dive shop to get an air fill. You ask for EAN 45. The shop gives you your tank and says it is EAN 45. You use the meter to test the mix. It says EAN 45. You put the tag on your tank. You put the tank into your car. You drive to the beach. You notice that the tag has come off your tank. As you pick it up, you notice it says EAN 32. You remember that you have a meter in the car and can test the mix again. However, you discover the batteries are dead. No one has a spare meter or batteries. Do you leave, get fresh batteries and test the mix again before diving it or otherwise adjust your dive plan?

I’d say that if you wonder where the “32” tag came from, you have no doubt about the mix. I’d say that if you either went for new batteries so you could test the mix or altered the dive plan, you had a reasonable doubt about the mix. If you wished you had new batteries, but went ahead with the dive as planned, I’d say you had a doubt, but that it did not rise to the level of a “reasonable doubt.”

I'm not sure if that is helpful or not. I could also use an example in which you've driven 60 miles from home when you start to wonder whether you remembered to lock the front door. Driving home to check it or calling (and waking) a neighbor to ask him to check it, equates with reasonable doubt. Just wondering about it does not.

The tank thing would have me wondering if I picked up the wrong one as I left the shop. If that wasn't possible and I recognized the tank as mine, no problem. On the door thing, I'd have to also factor in the likelihood that a door left unlocked for the duration of my travel were an issue. That said, I see your points in these examples.

3. In post #581, bsee65 says: “You seem to be treating this more as a case of trying to be the best board-warrior than an attempt to discuss an issue rationally and seek out truth.” I could not have said it better myself. That is why I have not yet posted my comprehensive treatment.

4. idocsteve's posts confuse me. He professes not to know any of the relevant players or to be emotionally invested in the matter. Yet, many of the things he says and the way he says them strike me as being inconsistent with his assertions. If he were a friend of the Tyre family or were an eyewitness to Shelly's death, I could see why he has so much venom. Otherwise, I have trouble. But, maybe it is me.

5. I see way too many logical fallacies and self-fulfilling conclusions for my tastes. Some say "David is a liar." To prove this, they say he lied when he denied having killed Shelly. Then they use their conclusion that he is a liar as evidence that he killed her. My problem with this is that is requires the assumption that he did, in fact, kill her. However, if he did not actually kill her, then his denial is not a lie; he is not a liar, and one cannot say his status as a liar proves he killed her.

6. If David killed Shelly, then he got what he deserved. If he didn't, then he and Shelly were both victims of an unfortunate, unexplained, random scuba accident.

I agree with all of the above at some level or another. It's comforting to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. To be fair, I think there are some other statements that are mutually inconsistant to show that David did lie about some things. I don't believe they are at a level to prove guilt, but it's hard to call any lie "innocent" when you're dealing with such a precariously balanced case.

This case is built on some circumstancial evidence from the scene as well as the interpretation of a number of situational issues. How many of them would have to be satisfactorily explained before the scales would tip?

 

[AfterDark]

iDoc - actually you raise another interesting issue. Let's say he gets the best possible outcome with freedom on appeal and BVI decides not to re-try the case. What happens in a foreign country does not bind the U.S. He could potentially be re-tried in the U.S. on the argument that the crime started in the U.S. by his formulating a plan to kill his wife while still in the U.S. Alabama prosecutors are planning for this argument in the Watson case once he is released from Australia.

The US already passed up a chance to prosecute Swain. How does the US go about proving the "plot" was hatched in the US as opposed to a hotel room on the 3rd day of vacation in the BVI?

 

[AfterDark]

4. idocsteve's posts confuse me. He professes not to know any of the relevant players or to be emotionally invested in the matter. Yet, many of the things he says and the way he says them strike me as being inconsistent with his assertions. If he were a friend of the Tyre family or were an eyewitness to Shelly's death, I could see why he has so much venom. Otherwise, I have trouble. But, maybe it is me.


Itbruce, it's not you. Check out some of his posts in other threads he's the same everywhere.

 

[idocsteve]

Itbruce, it's not you. Check out some of his posts in other threads he's the same everywhere.

True.

 

[SadiesMom]

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.

That's correct. Paul Block, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist from Middletown, RI, treated David for two years and made a diagnosis of something akin to post-traumatic stress disorder - I'm not sure if he used the actual term or not. In any case, it was his opinion that the trauma from David's childhood has caused him to deal with painful memories - not just Shelley's death, but all painful memories throughout his life - by repressing them. He was in Tortola for the criminal trial and ready to testify to that. It is very possible that knowing this information would allow the jury to understand why David did not have good recall of what happened on that dive.

The prosecution raised an objection that Dr. Block's testimony was inadmissible because he did not have an M.D. The objection was sustained and Dr. Block went back to RI without being allowed to testify.

For the record, in two years of regular treatment, Dr. Block never diagnosed David as a sociopath.

 

[SadiesMom]

4. idocsteve's posts confuse me. He professes not to know any of the relevant players or to be emotionally invested in the matter. Yet, many of the things he says and the way he says them strike me as being inconsistent with his assertions. If he were a friend of the Tyre family or were an eyewitness to Shelly's death, I could see why he has so much venom. Otherwise, I have trouble. But, maybe it is me.


Itbruce, it's not you. Check out some of his posts in other threads he's the same everywhere.

And hence the reason I've found the "ignore" feature to be so useful on this thread. Unfortunately, it's defeated when others choose to quote *it,* but for the most part, not having to even listen to a troll is quite refreshing.