Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[bubba105]

I'd like to hear from some of the other divers who were on the dive to find out about viz & current speed. In the transcript he states that his wife is below him on the 2nd dive & he has to move to the other side of the anchor line because her bubbles were blocking his view. Anyone who's been in a ripping current, as he describes, knows her bubbles would be pulled with the current, not straight up & you're being pulled like a pennant on a flagpole. He wouldn't be able to stay on the other side of the line. He then mentions not being able to see the wreck from the surface. He states they were at 20 feet when they were able to see the top of the wreck, at 45 feet ( I don't know if the top of the wreck is at 45 feet, just what I read). If the wreck is at 45 feet & they didn't see it until 20 feet of depth, viz is 25 feet or thereabouts. Now they go to 45 feet, presumably the top of the wreck, let go of the line, go through the many activities, including attempting to put air in her BC & readjusting his mask & reg, yet the anchor line is still visible throughout the entire ordeal. Either the current is less or the viz is much greater than what I've read, or both. The infamous photo doesn't give much in the way of distance but the viz looks better than 25 feet. Also, if they're that close to the line, with the wreck below them, why did she not hit the top of the wreck as she sunk.

I have to admit, after reading the transcript, things like his mention of the drift not being directly over the wreck & not being able to see the line at the other end, this guy may have realized he was in over his head & freaked out. He may have mistakenly thought the best way to end this dive was back to the line, against the current. While dragging his wife, not making any progress due to the extreme weight carried by both divers &, then, his mask being knocked off, his fight or flight mechanism takes over & he leaves her. He makes it back to the anchor line & ascends, slowly, to the surface. None of the divers on the line remember anyone grabbing them, which is not something you're going to forget. Being a control freak, he makes up stories & the many inconsistencies come home to roost. Either that or he killed her & deserves to go to jail forever. I just don't know but I will consider all sides.

There must be other facts the police are not divulging because this thing, with the facts present, is going to be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I have a feeling the 16 different stories are going to loom large.

 

[Crimson Ghost]

There must be other facts the police are not divulging because this thing, with the facts present, is going to be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I have a feeling the 16 different stories are going to loom large.

Bingo. I look forward to hearing what her dive computer had to say (of course there is an assumption that she had one, nothing has been said). Do we know what kind of hoseless computer he was diving with ?

 

[bubba105]

From the transcript:
he said you know there not, he said that um, the people that are doing ‘Natrox’ after we ate to meet him on the diving deck and the people using their computers to hang around and meet in the, in the room where we were eating breakfast. Ah, so probably I don’t know ten fifteen minutes till around eight o’clock I believe ah we went, we went back downstairs um, think we went back down to the room maybe for a few minutes, I’m not really sure, oh and then probably cause we we, we weren’t using either onewe were using all our stuff so, you know we weren’t meeting at either place ah so I think. You know we may have gone back down to the room or something or we may have gone out on the dive deck and you know started, finished getting our stuff ready.

I took this to mean they both had their own computers. Apparently, the boat loans computers to those who do not have computers.

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

My understanding is that the police were hesitant to bring the charges, but the father of the victim kept putting pressure on them to keep the case from going cold.

It looks like most of the police evidence is public. The defense evidence is better hidden. For example, how will the defense medical expert interpret the cause of death?

 

[MikeFerrara]

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.

I don't think it's a question of whether or not the computer will work with the battery backwards but rather which battery was it that he was claiming to have the problem with.

I have never used a hoseless AI computer but the most common failure I've seen is people forgetting to turn the transmitter/transducer on. They are often embarassed.

I still have the same question. Did his computer log any warnings or errors on that first dive attempt?

If not, we still only have a diver calling a dive. That happens all the time (maybe not as often as it should) and remember anyone can call a dive at any time for any reason?

 

[MikeFerrara]

My understanding is that the police were hesitant to bring the charges, but the father of the victim kept putting pressure on them to keep the case from going cold.

It looks like most of the police evidence is public. The defense evidence is better hidden. For example, how will the defense medical expert interpret the cause of death?

I'm not a trial lawyer but I doubt any new evidence has surfaced recently. The whole thing smells of politics. I don't know if politics prevented them from charging him sooner or finally forced them to charge him but I'd make a small wager that politics enters in here someplace.

BTW combine "poly" meaning many and "tics" refering to blood sucking insects and you get "politics" meaning many blood sucking insects.

For the record, I'm not picking on the Autralian legal system and I could be happy for the rest of my life without even knowing anything about it. However, we see the effects of politics on our own courts and law enforcement every single day.

 

[Sas]

For the record, I'm not picking on the Autralian legal system and I could be happy for the rest of my life without even knowing anything about it. However, we see the effects of politics on our own courts and law enforcement every single day.

Wow, then why bother posting here if you aren't even going to make an attempt to understand the legal system in which this case will be heard?

As far as your theories Mike, and the same with the theories other people have posted on the opposing side to you, you really have *no idea* so why not sit back and relax until the court case is heard?

I've posted this previously but I will say it again, I am not going to decide one way or another until the evidence has come out. From what I have seen it does not indicate to me conclusively guilt or innocence other than Gabe Watson does not behave like most other human beings and he has lied. But big deal, everyone responds to stress differently and lots of people freak out and make up a whole bunch of stuff when they think they are going to look bad. But yea, who knows really? He is the only person who does.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'd like to hear from some of the other divers who were on the dive to find out about viz & current speed. In the transcript he states that his wife is below him on the 2nd dive & he has to move to the other side of the anchor line because her bubbles were blocking his view. Anyone who's been in a ripping current, as he describes, knows her bubbles would be pulled with the current, not straight up & you're being pulled like a pennant on a flagpole. He wouldn't be able to stay on the other side of the line.

I've never dived there but current is often different at different depths. I've seen it not only be different speeds at different depths but different directions.

He then mentions not being able to see the wreck from the surface. He states they were at 20 feet when they were able to see the top of the wreck, at 45 feet ( I don't know if the top of the wreck is at 45 feet, just what I read). If the wreck is at 45 feet & they didn't see it until 20 feet of depth, viz is 25 feet or thereabouts.

Vis can also be very different at different depths and I don't think vertically is the way to measure it.

Now they go to 45 feet, presumably the top of the wreck, let go of the line, go through the many activities, including attempting to put air in her BC & readjusting his mask & reg, yet the anchor line is still visible throughout the entire ordeal. Either the current is less or the viz is much greater than what I've read, or both. The infamous photo doesn't give much in the way of distance but the viz looks better than 25 feet. Also, if they're that close to the line, with the wreck below them, why did she not hit the top of the wreck as she sunk.

I got the impression the the current was coming across the wreck at an angle...though that's just an impression.

The current doesn't necessarily have to be strong to make trouble for divers who aren't used to it.

I have to admit, after reading the transcript, things like his mention of the drift not being directly over the wreck & not being able to see the line at the other end, this guy may have realized he was in over his head & freaked out. He may have mistakenly thought the best way to end this dive was back to the line, against the current. While dragging his wife, not making any progress due to the extreme weight carried by both divers &, then, his mask being knocked off, his fight or flight mechanism takes over & he leaves her. He makes it back to the anchor line & ascends, slowly, to the surface.

I don't know. I've seen plenty of really screwed up dives and have even been involved in my share of them. Fortunately nobody died but I can think of several instances where that was probably just dumb luck.

 

[bubba105]

I don't think it's a question of whether or not the computer will work with the battery backwards but rather which battery was it that he was claiming to have the problem with.

For the transmitter to send info to the receiving module, the battery CAN NOT be in backwards. For the receiving module to receive info from the transmitter, that battery CAN NOT be in backwards either. For this guy to look at his module, say to himself "wow, I got a really good fill, 3500 psi", as he said in the transcript, two things have to be happening. The transmitter needs to transmit & the receiver module needs to receive. Either battery is in backwards, you get no reading. In which case he would have gotten NO pressure reading & he would have reversed the battery, at that time. The battery on your TV remote transmitter goes dead so you change the battery but it still doesn't work, would you try reversing the battery or would you just get up every time you wanted to change the channel?


I have never used a hoseless AI computer but the most common failure I've seen is people forgetting to turn the transmitter/transducer on. They are often embarassed.

And the battery being backwards would give the same results as not turning the transmitter on.

I still have the same question. Did his computer log any warnings or errors on that first dive attempt?

For this info, we will have to wait.

If not, we still only have a diver calling a dive. That happens all the time (maybe not as often as it should) and remember anyone can call a dive at any time for any reason?

Nice try, but, no, we have a guy who admitted to the police, on tape, that he went back to the boat to fix his computer battery, the fix being reversing the polarity. This statement was made after he had stated that his computer read 3500 psi, both halves working to give him this reading. No one made him say this. The police tested & found the computer did not operate with the battery backwards.

BTW, how does the multi-quote function work?

 

[Sas]

Press 'M-Quote' if you want to quote more than one post at a time and then select 'Reply' when you are ready to make your post. Your reply screen will be populated by all the posts you selected with 'M-Quote'. If you want to quote the one person multiple times just type (quote="Saspotato") text of quote (/quote) but use brackets like this [ ] instead of (). And put that around each bit of text you want to use.

There is also a button on the text box you type your reply in that looks like a speech bubble with text on it. You can press that then put the quote in between the (quote) and (/quote). If you want to add the person's name to it, just modify the first bit to (quote="Saspotato").

Hope that makes sense!