Shoredivr
Again, I wasn't trying to be over sweeping in claiming that everyone has this particular setup with a redundancy in air reading; I mean only that people who do have these computers that give them psi and bar readings ALSO have an SPG, or at least those I have dived with do. I dive with a similar setup to you, so I also have only one source for bar reading.
The important point is that there is typically a redundancy where bar or psi readings are concerned for people with these types of computers, and our defendant is ostensibly a person who had some type of psi reading computer.
Admittedly, I don't know what the setup was for this guy, but assuming he also had a redundancy of some kind, he could have known his psi reading and then "accidentally" said computer when he meant gauge or something else, especially in a murder interrogation over several hours. That being the case, the discrepancy is less of a smoking gun than it appears at first glance, at least in isolation.
I’m not swayed one way or the other based on the crumbs we are getting at this juncture. And this is the rub of the issue. Many people are focused on how Australia is going to prove their case against him without looking at the case that comes before it, the extradition hearing. Though Australia and the US have a treaty, there is still the burden of proof that needs to be met before a citizen gets sent overseas to face a trial in another country.
The poignancy is that this hearing becomes an issue of strategy as much as it is a cog in the process of a murder trial down under. The prosecution will want to give the minimum requirement of evidence they have in their arsenal to get the extradition (thus shielding whatever smoking guns they may have to trip up our defendant), and the defense will of course try to force the prosecution to tip their hand as much as possible before allowing him to be extradited in the first place, thus giving the defense loads of time to fill in these gaps with any number of explanations to limit his liability in circumstantial terms. This is a circumstantial case as it is being presented at this point, which means that the prosecution is in a much tougher position than the defense, as they should be frankly.
I for one would not be willing to put a person away for a very long period of time based on speculation about nitpicks such as these, even if there were more than one, given that these issues are not related to how, why, or even if he killed her (supposedly). As so many divers here with far more experience than me have already said, the landlubber prejudice toward rational behavior becomes something altogether different in an underwater environment. There are reams and reams of cases like this one where inexperienced divers and experienced divers have made utterly stupid calls while under duress. The defense will look for parallels and parade them one after the other to show that anyone can panic when they are stressed, over weighted, poorly trained, etc, etc, etc.
Showing that this guy is capable of such behavior should not be much of a problem given his teenage-like lexicon with English. Conversely, the prosecution is going to be hard-pressed in showing him as the Yank version of Jacque Cousteau, so polished in his skills that he would have… SHOULD HAVE… done thus and thus.
The real case as I see it will be this extradition hearing where this defense strategy will more than likely get a test run. It is probably the first and most important line of defense to force the evidence out in the open. We will more than likely have much more on which to pontificate when that ball gets rolling.
Cheers!
Again, I wasn't trying to be over sweeping in claiming that everyone has this particular setup with a redundancy in air reading; I mean only that people who do have these computers that give them psi and bar readings ALSO have an SPG, or at least those I have dived with do. I dive with a similar setup to you, so I also have only one source for bar reading.
The important point is that there is typically a redundancy where bar or psi readings are concerned for people with these types of computers, and our defendant is ostensibly a person who had some type of psi reading computer.
Admittedly, I don't know what the setup was for this guy, but assuming he also had a redundancy of some kind, he could have known his psi reading and then "accidentally" said computer when he meant gauge or something else, especially in a murder interrogation over several hours. That being the case, the discrepancy is less of a smoking gun than it appears at first glance, at least in isolation.
I’m not swayed one way or the other based on the crumbs we are getting at this juncture. And this is the rub of the issue. Many people are focused on how Australia is going to prove their case against him without looking at the case that comes before it, the extradition hearing. Though Australia and the US have a treaty, there is still the burden of proof that needs to be met before a citizen gets sent overseas to face a trial in another country.
The poignancy is that this hearing becomes an issue of strategy as much as it is a cog in the process of a murder trial down under. The prosecution will want to give the minimum requirement of evidence they have in their arsenal to get the extradition (thus shielding whatever smoking guns they may have to trip up our defendant), and the defense will of course try to force the prosecution to tip their hand as much as possible before allowing him to be extradited in the first place, thus giving the defense loads of time to fill in these gaps with any number of explanations to limit his liability in circumstantial terms. This is a circumstantial case as it is being presented at this point, which means that the prosecution is in a much tougher position than the defense, as they should be frankly.
I for one would not be willing to put a person away for a very long period of time based on speculation about nitpicks such as these, even if there were more than one, given that these issues are not related to how, why, or even if he killed her (supposedly). As so many divers here with far more experience than me have already said, the landlubber prejudice toward rational behavior becomes something altogether different in an underwater environment. There are reams and reams of cases like this one where inexperienced divers and experienced divers have made utterly stupid calls while under duress. The defense will look for parallels and parade them one after the other to show that anyone can panic when they are stressed, over weighted, poorly trained, etc, etc, etc.
Showing that this guy is capable of such behavior should not be much of a problem given his teenage-like lexicon with English. Conversely, the prosecution is going to be hard-pressed in showing him as the Yank version of Jacque Cousteau, so polished in his skills that he would have… SHOULD HAVE… done thus and thus.
The real case as I see it will be this extradition hearing where this defense strategy will more than likely get a test run. It is probably the first and most important line of defense to force the evidence out in the open. We will more than likely have much more on which to pontificate when that ball gets rolling.
Cheers!
