Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[Crimson Ghost]

too many posts for me to stay current ! I read the few about equalization, I am not sure that was even the case.....never the less, you take the pain in my opinion. I perforated an ear-drum going after an expensive camera, I think if my wife was drowning I just might be inclined to do the same.

I am not sure what the talk is about the legal systems, and I don't care. This guy is going to rot in hell regardless of the amount of time it takes to get him to rot behind bars.

I did read the link above to the article. If they are telling people not to discuss "possible motives" to me that means we don;t know everything and we will need to wait for the other shoe to sink...err, drop.

 

[DEEPLOU]

Negligence is a civil cause of action, not criminal - unless you mean negligent homicide in which case he still must be the actual cause of the death, and not just negligently allowed her to die. Unless things are different in Austalia.

My perspective, having practiced law in 2 different common law countries, (though never in Australia) and currently being a prosecuting attorney, formerly a defense attorney: According to the publicly available evidence, I think a reasonably good defense attorney would get a not guilty verdict.

A defendant who is able to look the jury in the eye and say "I didn't do it" has a good chance of getting an acquital when there is no direct evidence to establish his guilt. So why, you may ask, don't defense attorney's always have their clients testify?

Because there is a funny little rule of procedure that allows the prosecution to discredit the defendant's testimony by brining up all of the past crimes the defendant has committed if he testifies. Many juries will think the defendant guilty of the current alleged crime if he's done enough bad stuff in the past. So the defense attorney advises against testifying if the defendant has a lengthy criminal record.

Conversely, without a lengthy criminal background, a defendant is free to get up before the jury and proclaim his innocence. And it only takes one to find he doesn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So in a case that doesn't involve damning direct evidence, and a defendant who can testify, I think the defense has an advantage.

That being said, Australia may have a whole different scheme that makes the above irrelevant. If so, sorry for waisting your time with the above. Maybe there's a member of the Australian bar here who could clarify.

Doesn't a charge of murder indicate a planned act?

In charging him with murder, it seems they are going for the jugular. Perhaps they have other evidence that has not been made public.

 

[peterbj7]

Perhaps they have other evidence that has not been made public.

PRECISELY! Just why this whole discussion, trial by media, makes me uncomfortable. There is undoubtedly pertinent information that has not been released, and there is likely to be a lot of mis-information generated by journalists and others. Mob lynchings generally in the cold light of day turn out to have been mis-guided.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Murder doesn't have to be planned, only first degree murder. Murder implies committing an act with the intent to kill...the intent can be formulated instantaneously or with planning, it is doing an act that the perpetrator knows and intends will likely cause death that counts.

As for "trial by media", this board and other "media" have no power to fine, imprison or lynch any one. We can't try people here, only talk. People in this forum have a right to comment, speculate and ruminate on whatever information is in the public doman and about any individual in the public domain. What makes me "uncormfortable" are people who would restrict this right or compare such fair comment to "public lynchings".

 

[Scared Silly]

Doesn't a charge of murder indicate a planned act?

In charging him with murder, it seems they are going for the jugular. Perhaps they have other evidence that has not been made public.

In most cases, the prosecution goes for the most damning charge first. So for instance, someone may be charged with murder. However, the defense lawyer may be able to convince the prosecution to accept a guilty plea of a lesser charge say manslaughter cause it was a crime of that was in the heat of passion. It all depends on how each want to roll the dice.

 

[jviehe]

I think its pretty funny all the Scuba experts they are getting on TV. Last night was one guy saying you could easily turn off a scuba tank in 2 turns. No big deal.

 

[Gussy]

*sigh* Fire in the house...wife in second floor in trouble. Do you (a) go get a fireman or (b) go into the house anyway? I guess it depends on (a) how much you care, (b) you are afraid or not, (c) maybe you wish her to burn so you can get something.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mike the legal speak is quite tedious, but back there somewhere is a link to the official Coroner’s Report. He was considering if embolism, among the various ways a death can result from diving. His finding was drowning.

I read the report. I thought it was mentioned that evidence of an embolism was found but I'm not a doc and I didn't see why it wasn't suspected as the cause...though I do understand the it could occure when surfacing the body. An emboloism wouldn't be at all unheard of especially in the case of an inexperienced diver and it could explain alot. I think it would explain more than a bear-hug.

I can think of quite a few cases over the last couple of years of divers just losing consiousness either during or immediately after a dive. At least two of the cases that come to mind were scubaboard members and there are write-ups here on the board.

One was himself a doctor that use to frequent the board...sorry don't remember his name off hand. As I recall he spent several minutes out on the bottom before he was recovered. He lived and did a lot of posting about it...so with a little luck we can find the details...but if I remember right his buddy wasn't the one to recover him either.

 

[MikeFerrara]

too many posts for me to stay current ! I read the few about equalization, I am not sure that was even the case.....never the less, you take the pain in my opinion. I perforated an ear-drum going after an expensive camera, I think if my wife was drowning I just might be inclined to do the same.

It isn't just a matter of taking the pain. You were lucky. Along with a ruptured ear drum could be vertigo, a complete loss of control, vomiting and the works.

You should be able to see why descending when unable to equalize for a camera probably wasn't wise?

Tough talk aside, I've had enough ear trouble and seen enough ear trouble that I don't think you or anyone else will likely descend very far if unable to equalize and I wouldn't be surprised if you were completely useless after doing so.

 

[Annemf]

Ah good. So I wasn't the only one yelling at my TV screen lol. I woulda thrown a shoe....but it's a damn nice TV

I saw Nancy Grace too. It wasn't just her, she had a geltleman claiming to be a SCUBA instructor. Both of them kept talking about the oxygen tank and the "buoyancy control button". They had an air tank and a BC and they showed how to turn "oxygen" on and off. They demonstrated the buoyancy control switch, stating over and over that if you run into trouble underwater, you just press this button to surface. If she is certified, her card should be revoked until she takes a refresher and the instructor / expert [I am sorry I didn't get a name] should never be teaching SCUBA.