Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[K_girl]

About the insurance as a motive, the coroner's report stated that the husband did think that the insurance had been changed because he made the inquiry with the insurance company. So this will not be based upon the father's testimony alone on this issue.

I work for a government criminal defense office in the U.S., but I am not a lawyer. We have seen many innocent people in this country convicted of crimes that they did not commit. Usually, these cases involve over-zealous prosecution, sometimes even malicious prosecution where evidence is skewed, fabricated and the use of false or highly questionable testimony comes into play. However, in this case, I believe that the defendant's own inconsistent, contradictory statements will provide grounds for a successful prosecution. There was very little physical evidence that tied Scott directly to the murder of his wife in the Scott Peterson case, but his statements and his behavior convicted him, and rightfully so. In this case, they have a dive computer which is physical evidence that contradicts two of his statements. So, maybe you can forgive a few mis-statements because he feels guilty about not being able to rescue her, but I don't think you can forgive all of them. I don't think this man can get up in front of a jury, look them in the eye and say "I didn't do it.." and then try and come up with an explanation of why he would not go to her side for about an hour while she was dying on the other boat and then lied to her father saying he comforted her while she died and then maliciously removed flowers from her grave on more than one occasion, even bringing bolt cutters with him. This is not a man who will garner any sympathy for what he has been through. None at all.

One thing that interested me about the Coroner's report was his statement that the 4 elements to describe the drowning as accidental had been ruled out by the medical examiner, one of them being panic. But we don't know what the medical examiner reported on this issue exactly. I'm thinking back to the video I saw of Gabe's description to investigators of her panic, saying that her arms outstretched and sinking, and she was pleading with her eyes for him to rescue her. He gave the impression that she was still conscious and aware of her situation and he became very emotional at that point. Divers who are in a state of panic don't just outreach with their arms and sink to the bottom. This is an imaginative, movie-like substituion of someone falling from a plane or a cliff in air, not the description of a panicked diver. A panicked diver will swim furiously to try and get to the surface. So, the only explanation for his scenario is, at that moment as he was watching her sink and looking into her eyes begging him to save her (his words), she was already dead and not alive as he was leading investigators to believe. OK, so you may say, well things get crazy when someone is in a panic, she could have already drowned when he saw her sinking - then why make-up this elaborate story about her arms outstretched for him, her eyes begging him to save her? Anyway, I would still like to know why the medical examiner ruled out panic as the potential cause of accidental drowning.

 

[K_girl]

OK - so I thought of a reason for the elaborate story. If someone else saw what he saw - her arms outstretched, his description would match. Problem was, he elaborated too much. In the police interview video, Gabe said the look in her eyes - she was begging him to save her with her arms outstretched towards him, sinking to the bottom. And someone did see this and so, the stories match with regard to the outstretched arms, giving credibility to the doctor witness. However, the witness saw much more than Gabe anticipated. Not only the outstretched arms, but that he had her in a bear-hug and that she sank to the bottom with no bubbles.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Maybe he didn't directly kill her, but he sure as hell didn't do alot to help her. 2 min to surface from 40' while his wifes drowing? Sending a sweet xmas card to her best friend, This guy's an accredited rescue diver he knows how to save people. If it were my wife, I would honestly say I would have done a hell of alot more to get to her. I have seen stories of divers found still holding eachother. Clear water at 80', and the picture has great visability, since you can see her laying on the bottom. This bear hug theroy could work, especially for a well accredited rescue diver against someone who wasn't so experienced who may think that person was trying to help them. I mean how would she know what he was going to do. Somethings not right here, but he may just get away with it. Only two people really know what happened unfortunatly only one is still alive. With that all we can do is allow our faith in the justice system run It's course.

A lot of the opinions here seem based on attitudes like what I quoted above.

The problem is that being a "rescue diver" demonstrably means NOTHING. Under PADI standards for example, one can become a rescue diver without ever having demonstraded anything resembling decent dive technique.

It's simple enough to establish that it isn't required that you be a "good diver" to get into a rescue class. It's simple enough to establish that the rescue class doesn't cover basic dive skills (so there's no reason to think that you'll be good after the class). It's simple enough to demonstrate that the rescue class doesn't have much in the way of real performance requirements for the rescue skills...it's a try it, learn a little and hopefully come out better prepared than you went in sort of class.

What's really scary is that the coroners report even mentions the hmmm...hmmm...choke..ckoke..."credential".

Whether this guy killed her or not, it's clearly time to hold some of the certification agencies responsible for what they don't teach. This case sets something of a precident that probably puts many of you at risk and the majority of you don't know enough about diving or dive training to recognize it.

You're right, something isn't right here and my money says that the something is that she was never taught to dive and he isn't much better. You folks crack me up which is fun but this guy is probably going to jail whether he did it or not.

LOL, I saw a guy try to kill his wife on a dive (I don't remember but I may have already mentioned it in this thread)...at 30 ft sitting in the wing of a sunken plane the wife gets "uncomfortable". The wrestle a bit and the husband drags her off the wing of the plane and pulls her to the bottom where he smashed her down into the silt and holds here there. A while later and they rise up out of the silt cloud and he drags her to the surface by way of one of the most rapid ascents I've ever seen. I didn't time it but I'll be the ascent took 4 minutes (because of the time spent wrestling on the wing of the plane and down in the silt.

Murder attempt or just the normal everday goings-on and flounderings of people who are diving but don't know how? LOL, they were both trying to get to the surface the whole time and just didn't have the control to do it and I've seen similar events not once or twice but countless times.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

I have to agree with Mike here. A lot is being made about the fact he "was a rescue diver." That makes it sounds as if he was a professional SAR swimmer who did this sort of a thing for a living. Not just some guy that happened to take the Padi class a few years ago.

I think he probably did do it, but there is a long, long way from "he probably did do it" to "certain beyond any reasonable doubt he did it."

Then again, I haven't been following it too closely, so maybe I'm over looking something.

 

[InTheDrink]

I don't think anyone's arguing that certification level is always a good indicator of a persons abilities. I'm only AOW for example, and I'm amazing

PADI training can certainly be something of a joke (although I have heard that the rescue diver course is fairly energetic) but this misses the point somewhat; being that in this case there were so many inconsistencies in the person's version of events that it's fairly difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt, of any doubt. If the case simply revolved around a rescue diver not being able to rescue his wife, I think you're points would be absoltely valid. However, it's all the other details and inconsistencies taken together, that really damn this chap.

 

[InTheDrink]

Boxcar says: "Then again, I haven't been following it too closely, so maybe I'm over looking something."

Jeez, boxcar, I can't believe you're speculating about the speculation without even havingt read the speculated facts

 

[SPG3K]

Attorney: "Mr. SoandSo, is it true that you achieved a level of diving certification known in the industry as 'Rescue Diver'?"

Husband: "Yes, that is true....but..."

Attorney: "Just answer the questions please. Is it true that during the certification to become a 'Rescue Diver', that you were taught procedures and techniques for assisting another diver during an underwater emergency?"

Husband: "Yes, But..."

Attorney: "Ok, so just to be clear, you took a course, and passed, and recieved a certification for skills demonstrated that are used to 'rescue' another dive underwater."

Husband: "Yes, but... PADI doesn't really TEACH you how to be a rescue diver, they just let you breeze through the class trying to make you a better diver, you don't really LEARN how to rescue anyone, it's kinda of a joke."

*ENTER* PADI Certified Rescue Dive Instructor, 19 years of Instruction time, etc, etc, etc. (AKA Credible Testimony)

Now imagine the testimony he will give as to the training received during Rescue class and how it will differ from that of "it's just to make you a better diver."

While that may certainly be the case - if PADI were put on the stand to tell a jury what the point of Rescue class is - I assure you.. RESCUING someone would be part of the description.

Perception IS reality, whether it's real or not.

A jury will not understand the nuances of "Rescue" C-Card holders not REALLY being rescue divers because PADI does/does not really make you a rescue diver when the class is over. The prosecution will go on and on about the hours of classroom time and in-the-water training during rescue, etc, etc, etc.

All they have to do is convince the jury he WAS capable. Carrying a C-Card that required time/effort/money/training that says "Rescue" on it is the last thing they will hear.

(ALL I'm saying is that whether or not he was a "RESCUE" diver. He will be seen as such because if it becomes relevant to the case the prosecution only has to convince the jury his training included skills necessary to save her life.)

And, I would bet, they will find the actual instructor that certified HIM in rescue if it got to that point, and my guess is his testimony would be very CYA-ish in the nature of what was trained/taught.

 

[InTheDrink]

I don't think that his certification level is what's going to send him to the gallows (ok, jail). It may play a part, but it's all the other parts of the story that add up to murder.

 

[SPG3K]

I don't think that his certification level is what's going to send him to the gallows (ok, jail). It may play a part, but it's all the other parts of the story that add up to murder.

I 100% agree.

But everyone seems to want to argue that "He's not really a rescue diver" as if that somehow changes anything.

You know that. I know that. We are divers. We understand that training doesn't make the diver.

12 random people who may/may not (most likely not) divers, will they have the same insight as to PADI/NAUI/SSI etc, and their quality/lack thereof of training?

If I go through 60 hours of Firearms qualification and shoot some little kid, can I argue that "Firearms Training" doesn't make me a good shooter? Please.

All the jury needs to hear is that I was trained for 48 grueling hours of Firearms.

I'm over-simplifying, I realize that. But it's just to make a point.

 

[InTheDrink]

Surely a defence lawyer could as easily call their own expert witness to cast doubt on the PADI certification? They'd probably call MikeF from here as he doesn't rate any training ever