Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[driftwood]

What we saw on Dateline was the prosecution's side of the story and it is enough for a Grand Jury to bring charges. I will bet you that the Australian authorities are no more pleased than the husband with Dateline. The story puts a lot of pressure on both sides. That's what her family wanted.

One question that will be asked of all potential jurors is, "Are you a certified scuba diver?". The prosecution will love us and the defense will move to exclude us.

 

[John_B]

Semantics really. And yes, I think you've put too fine a point on it.

What I meant to say was that presumed innocent doesn't mean he's not guilty, it means he is entitled to due process -- to have his guilt or innocence proven in a court of law (and not just on Dateline). For that to be available for the wrongly accused, it has to also be available to the justly accused. We tried using sensationalism, innuendo, unsupported accusations and orchestrated outrage as a replacement for a justice system for a while, it ended in the Joe McCarthy witch hunts. The justice system may suck, but its still better than any alternative I've seen.

 

[Sas]

What I meant to say was that presumed innocent doesn't mean he's not guilty, it means he is entitled to due process -- to have his guilt or innocence proven in a court of law (and not just on Dateline). For that to be available for the wrongly accused, it has to also be available to the justly accused. We tried using sensationalism, innuendo, unsupported accusations and orchestrated outrage as a replacement for a justice system for a while, it ended in the Joe McCarthy witch hunts. The justice system may suck, but its still better than any alternative I've seen.

I agree totally. I just think that so did everybody else and perhaps you were mistaken in thinking that when people said 'innocent until proven guilty' actually meant that people thought he was *actually* innocent by saying that. That is what I meant by saying semantics. Innocent until proven guilty = presumed innocent until proven guilty is what I am sure everybody here meant

Anyway, even if this guy is guilty I would rather he be let off due to the evidence being poor than people convicting him just because the circumstances don't look in his favour - if that makes sense. The 'beyond reasonable doubt' in my opinion means you have to be 100% certain that someone is guilty before convicting (so need more than circumstantial evidence) just so that innocent people don't get put away. That to me is worse than if a guilty person gets off on a charge so I am glad the system is set up that way even if it does not always work in practice.

But yea, I am not privy to all the facts in this case so really do not want to take a side other than what I said in my previous post.

 

[Noboundaries]

The prosecution has a lot at stake, and money always enters into the picture. Given the logistics, circumstances, and politics of this international case, it is no wonder it has taken so much time to reach a point to decide whether to prosecute or not. On the prosecution's side it boils down to money and time. Don't prosecute unless you can win a conviction, and even then it is going to cost the prosecution a lot of money to present their case.

I've sat as an alternate on a jury in a capital murder case involving insurance funds. The kid was guilty, but reasonable doubt existed because the prosecution chose a money-saving strategy to prove guilt. It was a murder involving conspiracy, but the prosecution chose to go after only one of the two people involved in the murder because they felt they had an easy conviction. The other conspirator ended up as a prosecution witness against the accused. The accused responded by claiming the other conspirator solely committed the murder. The prosecution's case fell apart. My trial ended up with a hung jury. The following trial chose the same exact prosecution strategy and the kid was acquitted. He got away with murder and so did the other conspirator, who collected $1.5 million in insurance money. I learned then you can get away with murder if the prosecution doesn't want to spend the money to do all the necessary work to prove the truth.

As I said in an earlier post I believe the kid will be prosecuted. I saw the Dateline program. The kid has dug quite a hole for himself due to the inconsistencies of his story, being caught in lies, and his dive computer telling a story different than his mouth. Unfortunately the prosecution will have to spend a lot of money to present a case. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[mike_s]

What we saw on Dateline was the prosecution's side of the story and it is enough for a Grand Jury to bring charges.

True... but it was also "Datelines version of the story". Meaning it was sensationalized to make the show more interesting, for ratings, etc. but all shows do that.

One question that will be asked of all potential jurors is, "Are you a certified scuba diver?". The prosecution will love us and the defense will move to exclude us.

I think that all depends on who the diver is. There are some divers out there that are clueless and wouldn't know what to do in a situation like this.

But if he was to truely get a "jury of his peers" for this case, I would think that involving a couple of experienced divers would be wanted by the prosecution.

 

[Noboundaries]

This case reminds me of the type of evidence they had against Scott Peterson.

 

[Hetland]

I've met two women in classes that flat out said, "I'm doing this because my husband wants me to". I've heard the same from another woman that was signing up for classes. I'm guessing that it's more common than people think. I'm also guessing that a significant amount of those women fall in love with it, and it becomes a passion.

 

[jon m]

funny , i signed up for scuba because my wife wanted to...(really)
for what it's worth, i (not being recue cert'd) would have died, rather than letting my wife sink to the bottom (too heavy my @$$)...i think he did it...

 

[vfox]

I saw the last half of the show and if I'd had any doubts about his guilt, they were out the door when they showed him taking bolt/wire cutters to her gravesite to take of the flowers - that just screams Control Freak !

He couldn't even leave the family such a small thing as their items of affection.

Sadly, that only shows he's got no class; can't jail him for that - hopefully they'll pull all the rest together for conviction sometime down the line.

 

[TexasFencer]

I saw the last half of the show and if I'd had any doubts about his guilt, they were out the door when they showed him taking bolt/wire cutters to her gravesite to take of the flowers - that just screams Control Freak !

He couldn't even leave the family such a small thing as their items of affection.

Sadly, that only shows he's got no class; can't jail him for that - hopefully they'll pull all the rest together for conviction sometime down the line.

Well, maybe all the gals in his area know it now and are avoiding him like the plague. I guess I could settle for that in the absence of prison time.