Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[MikeFerrara]

MikeF - I appreciate that you're trying to play Devil's Advocate - but won't you at least admit that you're near impossible to be correct? If this guy's ears were in such blinding pain, and let's say I agree with you and he was having the works, vomit, etc. and his wife was dying - do you imagine he just ascended to 10 metres, everything was fine (all that pain and panic) and then decided to proceed leisurely to the surface over the next 2 minutes? Come on man, this does not add up, not even close to being close - and you should be graceful enough to admit so. Can you not admit you are wrong?

I don't know what he did for two minutes. Do you? Maybe he was lost or looking for her or...who knows? If he wanted to kill her and make it look convincing he would have got himself to the surface quick and maybe even brought her with him. No? In any case, I see that two minutes as being pretty slim evidence for a murder charge.

What am I missing? We have a new diver die on a dive. There is a buddy seperation. Her husband (the accused) was seen hugging her...and hubby gives some confusing accounts.

 

[MikeFerrara]

And, whilst obivous, how the hell do you think people get to be good divers? It's called experience. Training is part of that but it's dives that does it.

Demonstrably not. Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

So get off your high and mighty chair for a little bit while we underlings just try to learn.

I don't think you're not trying to learn.

 

[MikeFerrara]

On CNN yesterday, they had another coroner commenting on the case. He said that in an autopsy, asphyxiation and drowning look the same, so they cannot differentiate. That is why the official cause of death is drowning.

It was mentioned early on that there was no water in her lungs and the reg was in her mouth, so the cause of death being drowning doesn't seem to make sense.

But then, the official coroner originally ruled this death an accident before it was investigated further.

I don't know about there, but here in the US there is a difference between a coroner and a medical examiner. The later is a doctor and the former is sometimes just a politician.

Also, the coroner interviewed on CNN said that when a dead body has accumulated nitrogen bubbles, it will often embolize as it is brought to the surface. This is because breathing allows the escape of gases, so if the person is not breathing, the bubbles expand and have nowhere to go. The result is an embolism.

Maybe you misunderstood? It doesn't have anything to do with having accumulated N2. If the airway is closed, as air (or other breathing gas) in the lungs expands during ascent it can cause an embolism.

But, I didn't see where the report said what type of embolism it was or what made them think it occured post-mortum.

 

[MikeFerrara]

also: this constant digging at PADI, or more importantly PADI qualified divers is simply annoying and doesn't cast you in a great light. Sure, PADI qualifications/certifications leave things to be desired but you seem to live in a parallel world where only divers personally given the thumbs up by MikeF have any ability to dive. Sorry mate - get real.

What digging at PADI? In the last few posts, I think I referenced PADI standards in one post and that's because I was a PADI instructor for quite a while and I'm familiar with the standards.

I have made several references to problems that are common to novice divers but that seem relevant considering that it was a novice who died.

If you want to disput or debate anything I've written, feel free and have at it.

beyond that...get real. LOL

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

Maybe a confused and panicked diver swam diagonally instead of straight up. It might have taken him longer to get to the surface because he wasn't heading the right direction. But I think I read in the corner's report that the defense is claiming the police are misinterpreting the dive computer read out.

At any rate, the defense will probably have an alternative theory if they go to trial. You've read what the Government's interpretation of the facts are. The defense expert probably won't be so wishy-washy. He'll probably be a doctor with a string of letters behind his name, and he'll tell the jury that from the evidence it's clear that she died of an embolism or something like that.

And the Jury will be left with two conflicting theories on the cause of death, no direct evidence, several witnesses who testified in error, and a defendant who tells them he didn't do it.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I repeat

yes I think this is a bit of chicken and egg. Large bubbles in the tissue rupture cells, cause localized bleeding, which cause florid or red colouration. Everyone is saying the same thing just saying it differently! Non of it is inconsistent with fact already reported.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Hey guys I support the open discussion here... I am part of it but making assumptions about the legal system in Australia based on knowledge in another country really does seem a waste of time. I've been here nearly 10 year and have become a citizen but I am still more familiar with the Canadian System which I know is different from here.... probably in less ways than it is different from the US system.

I think taking pot shots at the system is inappropriate. The Australian system insisted on a through investigation and worked with the US Police. That shows they wanted to be sure they had a good case before trying to extradite/arrest a citizen of the UNITED STATES. It shows respect for the USA that should be appreciated rather than disparaged. I know there are often bits of information withheld to try to ensure a fair trial in any country. Remember fair should be fair for not just GABE but also TINA. I think he has a lot to answer for and I hope all the chickens come home to roost. I trust the Australian system to give him a fair trial and his lawyers will use all they can to get him off. In the end I hope he pays for everything he did and nothing more. At least he doesn't have to face the death penalty.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

Who took pot shots at the system? (Although to be fair, I think a good pot shot at the system now and again is healthy for a democracy.) I think you are misreading some post -either that or your referring to post that I simply haven't read yet.

 

[Crimson Ghost]

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.

Hi Mike, right on. I happen to agree with you, as I did after my sudden and foolish rush for my equipment. But in the moment my body reacted quicker than my brain - if it were my wife my point is that I would do the same (even if the brain caught up to me). But to your point of potentially too much pain or being incapacitated - I would like to think that every dive buddy would come up, equalize than go after your partner. Certainly never abandon them for one of the most relaxed ascent's of one's diving history - especially when you know there is a floor max of 100'.

Anyone else enjoy this thread as much as I do ? It amazes me how we all can make a judgment and be so different from another's. I still say he's guilty as sin - no way anyone would ascend at the rate this guy did in an emergency situation....right there I hang the guy.

 

[Tricia]

Folks,

I've been following this for some time and just today I finally got the chance to read the coroner's report (thanks to Saspotato for posting the link). The coroner identified four possible reasons why the death could be an accident:

- An arrhythmia,
- Obstruction caused by vomiting,
- Laryngospasm; and
- Anxiety and panic.

and then he discounted them, based on the autopsy (there's a reference to the exhibit of the autopsy evidence/conclusions, but we don't have it). Then the coroner states that:

"I understand Dr Griffith’s evidence to be that he:
a. Excludes Tina’s pre-existing heart condition as a possible cause,
b. Views vomiting was unlikely as a preliminary event,
c. Accepts unconsciousness was possible following a Laryngospasm, but discounted
this as the cause of death, and
d. Whilst accepting anxiety and panic could have been a factor in a death by
drowning, did not accept the postulation of such being the cause of Tina’s death."

The coroner next notes that:
"It was submitted that none of the four explanations can ever be capable of detection in an autopsy examination. I understand that to be true in a case such as Tina’s as there was delay in the examination caused by the necessity of transporting her body from the site of her death to the city of Townsville. I understand the medical evidence to be that detection is possible in some instances, but much depends on the nature and extent of attempts at resuscitation and any delay in an examination."

The coroner then goes on to say it's his conclusion that an accident CAN be ruled out. (Note that this is HIS conclusion - a jury will consider it, but doesn't have to follow it.)

You with me so far?

Now, this is the first time in all the posts here or on the internet that I saw that Tina had an arrhythmia. As someone who dives with one (a supraventricular tacchycardia), I can tell you that there have been plenty of times when I've been caught in a strong current and I know that - despite taking my meds - my heart is flying along and I'm getting breathless and I start getting a little worried about having an "attack" (fibrulation).

I'm not saying that this is the true cause of this death - I'm not qualified to do that. But I can assure you that Gabe's lawyers (if they're smart) are going to leap on this and use it in his defense. They will bring on doctors who will testify that it's likely that Tina had an attack underwater and her heart started fibrulating. Again, I'm not a medical expert, but given the time it took to get her body to shore, the conditions of the autopsy, etc., they're going to have an argument that it was an accident.

Of course, even if this could be an accident, it doesn't excuse his unbelievable behaviour, both under and above water. (And I still personally think he did it.) But this trial should be very interesting to watch - I wonder if they will televise it? Can any of our Aussie members tell us if they allow that in Australia?

And lastly, I would LOVE to see the voir dire (jury selection). Question: do you pick divers who know what's going on? Or do you let on non-divers who will have to try to understand it all? Very interesting...

Trish