Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[Crimson Ghost]

I imagine it stands for unintelligble, i.e. the person writing the transcript can't make it what was said on the tape.

that's right. I was trying to think of what it could stand for knowing far well it was inaudible speech, but I couldn;t for the like of me think of UI ! Oh well.....I this morning I am a little UI !

 

[SCUBAJENNIFER]

Everything in that transcript was UI...Good lord, they should prosecute him for just for the "You knows"

That was painful to read.

 

[InTheDrink]

It's not just a question of accuracy. It's one of intent. Netwerks tend to have agendas and they seem to report the news in such a way as to promote their views.

Promote their shows/channels/papers; obviously it's mostly about selling, as always. Which means the tendency is always to dramatise or sensationalise. Which is why the few official documents, e.g. Gabe/Police interview transcript and coroner's report are probably best basis for discussion at this point. The quote re about Tina diving in the quarry was also illuminating. Someone that nervous in ten foot of water could easily spaz out completely in a current. Died of fright, who knows? Doesn't sound like she should've been there.

The battery issue is still puzzling although in the transcript he doesn't appear to place much emphasis on explaining the apparent contradiction of the computer working with the battery in wrong. If that was a lie you'd expect more explanation/contortion/over explanation. Then, he could just be very stupid.

Odds are he did it, but doubt has certainly crept into my mind. And I guess that's all the defence needs...

Waiting for the smokung gun...

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

He talks about the receiver (computer) having the incorrect battery, and refers to the transponder as a separate device. Given that he is talking about screwing the transponder into the first stage he is clearly referring to the transmitter.

I disagree. It appears to me that he calls the thing on his wrist a "computer" and the other thing a receiver (at one point) and a transponder (at another point.) What he calls the transponder and the receiver are the same thing - the transmitter, as opposed to his computer.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

The battery issue is still puzzling although in the transcript he doesn't appear to place much emphasis on explaining the apparent contradiction of the computer working with the battery in wrong. If that was a lie you'd expect more explanation/contortion/over explanation. Then, he could just be very stupid.

Mike solved the computer/battery puzzle.

Gabe had an air integrated computer. The transmitter had the battery in upside down. This allowed his computer to keep depth, but it started beeping to indicate it wasn't getting a signal. So they went back to the boat and put the battery back in the right way and continued the dive.

That doesn't make him innocent. But that more than adequately explains why his computer beeped even though a battery was in upside down. He was talking about the transmitter battery.

 

[livinoz]

I disagree with your logic here. World wide, most dives do not result in injury or fatality regardless of any regulation or the skill level of the divers. The fact is that someone who doesn't know much at all about diving (no training at all)can drop to the bottom, breath for a while and come back up without injury. As long as nothing goes wrong there isn't much to breathing underwater. IME what is more telling is how divers perform when there is a problem. They don't seem to do so well then.

As far as the oporators doing a good job...I've not dived that wreck but based on what I've read about the victim and the dive site, I don't get the impression that it was an appropriate dive for her.

I don’t disagree with you at all there, but that wasn’t my point. My previous reply was directed at your post where you were making assumptions not only about the Australian dive industry and operators but the Australian legal system. As bowlofpetunias stated in this thread, "Please do not give Australian Diving and The Australian legal system a black eye unless you have been here to get appropriate information to come to that conclusion."

 

[bubba105]

Well, I do know something about how electronic devices work and have 17 years experience as an engineer primarily designing electronic/automated controls and I didn't get enough information from what I've read to conclude that he is intentionally lying.

Didn't he make reference in the transcripts to holding the computer behind his head to see if it would register? I got the impression that he was using a hoseless AI computer.

Was he? Has it been said what model computer he was using? I've never used a hoseless AI computer but knowing what I do about electronic devices I would assume the transmitter must have a battery too. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions because of a lack of information but I assumed that it was the transmitter battery that he changed.

Since you are an engineer maybe you can clarify the battery issue for us. Have any of these electronic devices you've design worked with reversed DC polarity? I mean the guy reads 3500 psi on his computer before he gets in the water so both transmitter & receiver are working properly & the short first dive is logged on the computer, again, proper working order, yet he gets out of the water, reverses polarity & the thing still works. My computer, though not AI, works the same with the battery in backwards as when the battery is still in the package. I've never had any DC powered device work with the batteries installed improperly. If your answer is "no", then, we have the first of what appears to be many inconsistencies in his story.

I'm not saying he's guilty, but, his story seems very inconsistent with the facts. I can see why they investigated further.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

"Please do not give Australian Diving and The Australian legal system a black eye unless you have been here to get appropriate information to come to that conclusion."

Man, I wish we could have that rule for the U.S., too.

 

[Geoff_H]

What he calls the transponder and the receiver are the same thing - the transmitter, as opposed to his computer.

Well your English comprehension skills are certainly different to mine, Mr Boxcar Overkill.

There are plenty of inconsistencies even if you allow him the luxury of not understanding the difference between a transmitter and receiver - at one point he states the AI function of the computer can only be checked underwater, and then he says he succesfully sync'ed it on the boat deck after changing the battery.

Clearly the police officers also understood it the same way as me since they checked the computer did not work as Watson stated.

They were also unable to verify the part about him alerting others divers on the rope (not a single person backed up Watson's story).

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

Well your English comprehension skills are certainly different to mine, Mr Boxcar Overkill.

There are plenty of inconsistencies even if you allow him the luxury of not understanding the difference between a transmitter and receiver - at one point he states the AI function of the computer can only be checked underwater, and then he says he succesfully sync'ed it on the boat deck after changing the battery.

Clearly the police officers also understood it the same way as me since they checked the computer did not work as Watson stated.

They were also unable to verify the part about him alerting others divers on the rope (not a single person backed up Watson's story).

In context, looks to me like he was fumbling around looking for the word "transmitter". In extemporaneous speech, people often temporarily lose the exact word they are looking for, but carry on talking as if they had it.

In this case, there is no transponder, although he used that word anyway. While technically there is a receiver inside the computer, people rarely call their dive computer a receiver. Whether or not it's true, I think he can adequately explain his dive computer comments by saying, "sorry, I meant transmitter instead of receiver."

I think too much is being made of this inconsistency, especially since the police are parading their case out in the open while the defense is holding their cards close to their vest. We don't know what exactly the defense is going to have to say about all of this, but this I don't think it is not as damning as people are making it out to be.
It is very hard to get a conviction for murder based exclusively on inconsistent testimony of the defendant. Especially when he gets a chance to clear it up.

In the grand scheme of things, this is pretty thin evidence to hand a murder charge on. There's no direct witnesses or evidence. The evidence is five years old. A corner's report is not only fairly tepid, it also sets up an alternative theory of an embolism. The victim is a known to be a new diver, unsafe, and prone to panic. The defendant can testify in his own behalf and claim he didn't do it.

And that's the starting point. It only gets better for the defense from there when they start putting on their witnesses and evidence.