Diver convicted in wife's drowning

[idocsteve]

Don't see how that would have been worst.

Of course you don't see it. You and SadiesMom have had blinders on throughout this entire ordeal.

I bet if you were on the wreck watching David rip the regulator out of Shelley's mouth and wrestle with her until she drowned, you probably would have said "oh he was just trying out a new method of buddy breathing".

 

[K_girl]

I could be way off here but if the authorities wanted the gear I would guess they would have taken it. So I'll continue under the assumption that they didn't want the gear. . If Dave wanted to dispose of the gear for the purpose of cover up, as next of kin (husband) the gear becomes his property after Shelly's death. So the way I see it he would have demand that his property be returned to him and then he would have gave it away.
Don't see how that would have been worst.

Interesting point, but.. At the time this was happening, it was not known whether or not the police wanted the gear. After Swain suggested to Brown that the equipment be given away and Brown said it had to be held for police inspection - it would be even more suspicious if Swain demanded the gear and then Brown refused on the same grounds. That would be like - well, if you won't get rid of it - I will. Swain wasn't ready to go that far and I think it would have been even worse for him if he had. Take the equipment, get rid of it yourself, even after someone tells you it has to be held for the police. It would have been far better for Swain to persuade Brown to do it.

It was ruled "accident" until proven otherwise, and they were talking "inquest" for quite some time and the police never officially closed the case. That is why Brown held onto the equipment all those years.

Source: April 2006 - http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20060427_swain27.f683b9b.html

"..While Tortola police say the case of Shelley Tyre's death was never officially closed, their request for documents is one of the first active steps they've taken.."

In addition Brown was following protocol, whereas Swain did not appear to be interested in following that protocol:

"..Following divemaster protocols, Brown said, he took all of Shelley Tyre's scuba equipment -- including her air tank -- and locked it in his office to await inspection by Tortola police. But two days after Tyre died, David Swain came to visit his shop.."

 

[idocsteve]

A crucial piece of evidence has been recovered

- The missing dive slate

Click HERE

 

[ItsBruce]

I agree that it is perfectly reasonable for the judge to refer to Swain as a murderer in this context. What I don't understand is how he knows if the jury considered it to be a carefully planned murder for money or a spur of the moment crime of opportunity. The jury didn't pass judgment on that since, either way, the verdict is murder. When the judge has such power over the sentence, I would like to think that the jury should be able to describe what they believe happened and that the judge should pass sentence based upon that set of facts. Apparently, that isn't what happens, though.

The finding of first degree murder means the jury found it was premeditated. Beyond that, the judge is entitled to evaluate the evidence and draw his own conclusions as they pertain to sentencing. As far as the jury being able to describe what they believe happened, the law does not require the jury to be unanimous or even that any two agree on what happened, only that they all agree that there was an intentional homicide with premeditation. That is one juror could believe David turned off Shelley's air and let her die for the money, while another could believe that David wrestled the regulator from her mouth so he could pursue another love interest. All that matters is that the requisite number find an intentional killing with premeditation.

 

[ItsBruce]

Steve:

This thread is for the analysis of the case and conviction. Posts should contribute to that either by asking questions, answering questions, providing analysis, etc. It does not matter whether those posts support the conclusion that Swain was guilty of murder or challenge the conclusion.

However, your posts do not seem to do either. They certainly do not seem to contribute to anyone's understanding of the matter or to the discussion itself.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that Swain was convicted of first degree murder, which is a very heinous crime. So, you probably don't need to remind us of that.

Perhaps you might consider that if you do not actually have anything to add, that you not post. (Of course, if your posts are so that you can easily identify posts you have not yet read, then disregard my suggestion.)

 

[AfterDark]

Steve:

This thread is for the analysis of the case and conviction. Posts should contribute to that either by asking questions, answering questions, providing analysis, etc. It does not matter whether those posts support the conclusion that Swain was guilty of murder or challenge the conclusion.

However, your posts do not seem to do either. They certainly do not seem to contribute to anyone's understanding of the matter or to the discussion itself.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that Swain was convicted of first degree murder, which is a very heinous crime. So, you probably don't need to remind us of that.

Perhaps you might consider that if you do not actually have anything to add, that you not post. (Of course, if your posts are so that you can easily identify posts you have not yet read, then disregard my suggestion.)

Bruce,this post reminds me of the old saying concerning pearls and swine.

 

[idocsteve]

Bruce,this post reminds me of the old saying concerning pearls and swine.

Look, David may be a cold blooded murderous sociopath, but calling him a swine is over the top.

Just say'en.

 

[AfterDark]

Look, David may be a cold blooded murderous sociopath, but calling him a swine is over the top.

Just say'en.

Now I thought you were smarter than that:mooner:

 

[idocsteve]

Now I thought you were smarter than that:mooner:

You thought wrong.

Again.

 

[bsee65]

Interesting point, but.. At the time this was happening, it was not known whether or not the police wanted the gear. After Swain suggested to Brown that the equipment be given away and Brown said it had to be held for police inspection - it would be even more suspicious if Swain demanded the gear and then Brown refused on the same grounds. That would be like - well, if you won't get rid of it - I will. Swain wasn't ready to go that far and I think it would have been even worse for him if he had. Take the equipment, get rid of it yourself, even after someone tells you it has to be held for the police. It would have been far better for Swain to persuade Brown to do it.

It was ruled "accident" until proven otherwise, and they were talking "inquest" for quite some time and the police never officially closed the case. That is why Brown held onto the equipment all those years.

Source: April 2006 - Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

"..While Tortola police say the case of Shelley Tyre's death was never officially closed, their request for documents is one of the first active steps they've taken.."

In addition Brown was following protocol, whereas Swain did not appear to be interested in following that protocol:

"..Following divemaster protocols, Brown said, he took all of Shelley Tyre's scuba equipment -- including her air tank -- and locked it in his office to await inspection by Tortola police. But two days after Tyre died, David Swain came to visit his shop.."

I have to say that a significant part of my doubt about Swain's guilt is based upon a distrust of Brown. Brown and Thwaites had a disagreement in their testimony with regard to who picked up the tanks. I believe Thwaites, but it sounded like Brown remained adamant about his version. That also tied in with Brown's testimony about Swain asking for a secluded dive spot which goes to premeditation. It just seemed like Brown was too invested in seeing Swain convicted, and, as a non-neutral party, I have concerns about him being the one to hold onto the gear.

If Brown isn't trustworthy, then what happens to the case? Is it possible that a local jury would favor the testimony of the local over the foreigners wherever there might be doubt? That gets to the general question of if a foreigner can get a fair jury trial when pitted against a local.