This is absolutely ridiculous. 25 years on apparent expert testimony commenting on a scenario they never witnessed regarding a body that never had an autopsy. Were these experts working in some scientific field of some sort? Were they divers themselves? Were they reading tealeaves or consulting soothsayers to come to their conclusions?
Give me a break! They couldn’t possibly have anything to testify about other than speculation, and a reasonable defense attorney should have copiously perused and presented the jury with the annals of diving tragedies highlighting how masks, fins, clothes, etc have been lost in panicked diver situations, sometimes almost inexplicably. Without some forensics to rule these contingencies out, reasonable doubt is established, is it not? Some are saying that both the prosecution and defense cases were weak. If that is true, then he should be found innocent. The prosecution ought to have a higher degree of burden of proof and a jury ought to hold them to that.
I would have run the experts through the ringer on this, assuming what they testified on was in fact speculation. I admit I can’t know for sure (just like everyone else), but I am trying to imagine what these experts could testify about given what isn’t known and given the time that had transpired before the trial.
Did they run through diving scenarios where they explained this was the “only way” that her body could have been found in such and such condition, or that her mask could have only come off in such and such a way? As divers we all know that experts can’t speak to this without very hard evidence predicated on data compiled from the diver’s body and the equipment taken immediately after the incident. Sans either of these things, the experts where spinning their wheels just like we are in this thread. But the crux ought to be that the man is found innocent if this plays out as it has. I think many people are right in saying that emotions and bias lead to this conviction.
Did the jury ever hear of other diving accidents from actual divers who know what it is like down there, and if they did, were they simply following prosecutor bias as Rhone man suggests?
This proves to me yet again that juries are not the way to go with trying criminal cases. They are comprised of laymen who do not understand the evidence they are looking at (or the lack thereof). I’m not sure exactly what the system should be, but I don’t get the feeling it is working well enough when I see these outcomes. If the guy is guilty, we have to expect that a prosecution team with better resources do a better job proving their case.
Scary indeed.
