Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[Crimson Ghost]

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

Hey Trish - nice post and insights into the arrhythmia. Jury selection would have to be general public. The task of the trial liar's, err lawyers would be to educate the jurors. This is sounding more and more like the OJ case.

 

[livinoz]

Televising of court proceedings in these criminal cases is not allowed in Australia, and our jury members are chosen randomly from electoral rolls. The participation of any given member can be challenged by the prosecution or the defence during the selection process. Any specialised knowledge must be presented to the jury by expert witnesses for them to consider.

The points you make about her heart condition are very interesting, but yes, it doesn't excuse or explain his behaviour.

 

[Crimson Ghost]

I should qualify that last statement likening it to OJ. In that I mean that the majority seem to see guilt but proving it will prove to be difficult (that whole, eyewitness / smoking gun thing )

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

Televising of court proceedings in these criminal cases is not allowed in Australia, and our jury members are chosen randomly from electoral rolls. The participation of any given member can be challenged by the prosecution or the defence during the selection process. Any specialised knowledge must be presented to the jury by expert witnesses for them to consider.

The points you make about her heart condition are very interesting, but yes, it doesn't excuse or explain his behaviour.

Those are the same rules as exist in the U.S., except there are a few courts that allow television.

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

That is a good question! I'm not sure in the Aussie system if you'd be allowed to ask if they were divers. They have peremptory challenges, and challenges for cause. But I think they have to sort of guess on the peremptory challenges.

But assuming you could, my initial impression is that the defense doesn't want divers, and especially not really experienced divers. I base that on the fact that confusion works in the defenses favor, so the more confused the jury is, the better off the defense is.

 

[livinoz]

That is a good question! I'm not sure in the Aussie system if you'd be allowed to ask if they were divers. They have peremptory challenges, and challenges for cause. But I think they have to sort of guess on the peremptory challenges.

But assuming you could, my initial impression is that the defense doesn't want divers, and especially not really experienced divers. I base that on the fact that confusion works in the defenses favor, so the more confused the jury is, the better off the defense is.

Yes, it's the same here; a juror here can stood side for either cause or preremptory challenges. I'm beginning to think this case will be very difficult as he most likely will fight any extradition orders (if he has a decent lawyer) and it's going to be difficult to find 12 or 15 "unbiased" people to serve on the jury with the rampant publicity this has had here. Not to mention the length of time it's been since all this occurred.

 

[peterbj7]

If he and his presumed victim are both American, can he be charged and tried in America for an offence committed elsewhere? There is a strong move in the EU towards this, and I believe it's already internationally agreed for certain offences (eg. an Englishman can be tried in England for a rape committed in another country, regardless of the nationality of the victim).

Even if it's not so in this case, this is the way the world is moving. It's probably a good thing, but I'm not sure.....

 

[Tricia]

Boxcar Overkill (what a name!), correct me if I'm wrong, but Australia would have first "rights" to try this guy in a criminal case because the crime happened there.

On the other hand, if her family wanted to bring a civil suit for loss of consortium, they would probably be able to get it heard in Alabama. Frankly, for me, it's been one of the curious things about this. This all happened five years ago and there should be a statute of limitations on the family bringing the civil suit (of course, they could file and get it postponed until the criminal trial had finished). But I would have thought the family would have at least filed by now. Yet, I haven't seen it mentioned in any news reports.

Any thoughts on this?

Trish

 

[peterbj7]

And lastly, I would LOVE to see the voir dire (jury selection)

As you're in Paris, are you French? Is this the term used internationally, or just in France? If it's used internationally is it modern French or descended from Norman French (like so much else in the English language)?

I've just answered my own question! Wonderful thing, Wikipedia. Seems it's middle French, which postdates the Norman era and probably owes nothing to Norman. Certainly not modern French.

Sorry , not relevant. I just find language and its origins fascinating.

 

[K_girl]

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.

Mr. Watson told the police investigators in his interview that he shot to the surface so fast that he was surprised he did not get DCI. I think you can assume that he meant he went straight up to the surface, not diagonally. It took him exactly 2 minutes and 45 seconds to get to the surface when he started his ascent according to his dive computer. He later tried to explain the lengthy delay in getting to the surface by saying that he tried to get some other diver's attention by actually going up to the diver, but this is also in direct contradiction to to his original claim that he shot straight to the surface. In addition, the police interviewed all the divers on both boats and no one could corroborate this part of his story. Also, the trouble started early in the dive, they had only reached 45 feet, so why would he be worried about DCI? This guy has lied his way into a corner and I don't think a defense attorney is going to have an easy time explaining it.

 

[K_girl]

From my previous post: Also, the trouble started early in the dive, they had only reached 45 feet, so why would he be worried about DCI?

I suppose the defense could say that at the time of the incident he might have thought he might be in trouble of DCI, given the extreme circumstances, but this was something he said after-the-fact in the police interview where he said he was surprised he didn't get DCI. He was trying to convince police that he was in danger himself, when that just was not true. His actual ascent rate was 3.6 seconds per foot. That is only 16.6 feet per minute. Sorry, but no matter how you slice it - that is not a rush straight to the surface as Mr. Watson stated.

If I were the prosecution - I would have an animated graphic that depicted the ascent rate. Diver or no diver, the jury would have a good visual of what that is and they can make the decision whether or not he told the truth when he said that he shot to the surface.