Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[BKP]

the key word you said there was 'circumstantial'.


They might be able to convict him on it, but if he has a good enough of a lawyer, then the facts will confused enough to persuade the jury.

If not then, then easily on appeal.

I just don't see him serving any real time for this in the long run.

Unfortunately, I agree with you.

 

[Diver Dennis]

It could end up with him being acquitted of murder but having to pay up in a wrongful death civil suit a la OJ. Which pretty much says he is guilty but a jury could not convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[BKP]

It could end up with him being acquitted of murder but having to pay up in a wrongful death civil suit a la OJ. Which pretty much says he is guilty but a jury could not convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ha... that's where the *real* pain is.

I'm not a lawyer... however, I'm wondering if a wrongful death civil suit could be filed in the USA, or would it have to be filed in Australia... and if so, would there be extradition issues?

 

[Diver Dennis]

I'm not a lawyer either but I think it can be filed in the US.

 

[TexasFencer]

what witness statements?

No one actually witnessed her dying by cause of him.


You have people on the boat, but they didn't witness it. They only told the police what the husband told them and that they thought it was bogus. But anything else is "hearsay".

The only real witness is the one who witnessed the "Bear Hug". But apparently didn't pay attention to what happened after the bear hug was over. So they can't be sure either.

Yeah he's guilty. we all pretty much agree with that. But no one witnessed him killing her, thus showing the possibility of 'reasonable doubt'.

What I meant regarding witness statements was his statement that he was going after other divers underwater for help (they said he didn't), that he was on the boat with his wife after she was brought up (they say he wasn't) and the like. Those do a lot of damage to his credibility.

 

[IceBergSlim]

Also the sinking faster than he could keep up is total BS, and her being too heavy when you can't feel weight in water like that.

It is what is known as being "negatively buoyant".

I was surprised those "Dive Masters" (with the highest lever of certification the sport allows) had difficulty with that one as well.

It's on the second page of the PADI open water dive manual.

 

[mike_s]

Ha... that's where the *real* pain is.

I'm not a lawyer... however, I'm wondering if a wrongful death civil suit could be filed in the USA, or would it have to be filed in Australia... and if so, would there be extradition issues?

Believe it or not, the 'husband' filed a civil lawsuit against the liveaboard boat in Australia after his wife died.... He's suspected of murder and he files a lawsuit against the boat. go figure. It was recently dropped though.


But can a wrongful death civil suit be filed in the US for it? I don't see why not. You can file a civil suit for about anything regardless of where it happened. I'm not sure why the wifes family couldn't file a civil suit against him. Nichole Simpsons family won a wrongful death civil suit against OJ Simpson. (of course all this happened in the US).

I'm sure there is precident for wrongful death suits that happened outside the US being filed in the US court systems.

What I meant regarding witness statements was his statement that he was going after other divers underwater for help (they said he didn't), that he was on the boat with his wife after she was brought up (they say he wasn't) and the like. Those do a lot of damage to his credibility.

Yes it damages his creditbility. But it doesn't prove guilt.

All it proves is that he lied and that he is a dumbass for not keeping his story straight.

Unfortunately there isn't a law against being a dumbass. If so, our jails would be full

 

[BKP]

Believe it or not, the 'husband' filed a civil lawsuit against the liveaboard boat in Australia after his wife died.... He's suspected of murder and he files a lawsuit against the boat. go figure. It was recently dropped though.

Actually, it makes sense (for him). What's that old adage... "The best defense is a good offense..."

 

[jldodd]

It is what is known as being "negatively buoyant".

I was surprised those "Dive Masters" (with the highest lever of certification the sport allows) had difficulty with that one as well.

It's on the second page of the PADI open water dive manual.

True BUT, she was laying on the bottom at 100' deep. That is well within the recreational limits of someone rescue certified. Even if you are low on air, you could bounce dive that deep with some ill effects to you but with at least the slight chance of saving the girl's (your wife's) life.

In reality a panicked husband would have been more likely to make the mistake of going positive to the surface from 100' and getting an AGE for his wife and himself. That seems quite a bit more plausible to me than the 40' in 2 minute "emergency ascent".

 

[Hetland]

the key word you said there was 'circumstantial'.

Prisons are full of people who were convicted using only circumstantial evidence.

Don't forget that there is direct evidence as well, the computer log, the findings that she was deprived of O2 before she drown, her position and location at the bottom.

He had a motive, he was at the scene, and he could have easily turned off her tank. His recorded statements have been disproved through the use of his computer, and through re-inactments by the police using the exact same gear the victim was wearing during the incident (which should have refuted the negative buoyancy claims above) Throw in the "bear hug", and it looks like something worthy of taking to trial. What would be really interesting is whether or not he gave testimony at trial. I'd pay a dollar to watch that