Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[Crimson Ghost]

Page 3 Tape 2
but I didn’t you know, we didn’t watch each other do it, the only thing I can remember was you know after she turned it on um you know I had I think I asked her how much air she had or something like that um I know you know she had her you know computer in her hand

She had her own computer. I get the impression it was AI because this conversation is about how much air they had & she looked at her computer to get this info instead of looking to an SPG. Her having an AI computer gives them a point of comparison for the two computer profiles. This could be damning evidence. Also, if she were AI would they be able to tell if her air had been turned off at some point???

I dunno if any AI can record air being turned off ? (I can test my Uwatec tonight and check if no one knows off hand) But you can be sure that it would record her breathing heavily in a panick situation as described by Gabe.

 

[Twistedarts]

I dunno maybe I'm just a romantic (or a noob) but, I would risk life and limb to rescue my Mrs. or kill to protect her. The fact that he did not makes me wonder why he married her and more than makes him suspect. I thought your spouse is supposed to be your best friend. Bring on the flames.....

 

[Dadvocate]

Bowlo

No one I know dives with a redundant system as a standard practice they get all their information via their computer. That said, I do dive with a second computer because I never got around to taking it off when I got my UATEC and my BC has an online occy so the extra hose doesn't worry me. I am keeping the computer as a spare and it may as well dive as sit in the cupboard.

I find it interesting that your dive mates don’t have a backup of some kind, something you seem to think is a poor practice based on you having a redundancy yourself, not to mention your earlier point that Australia should promote higher safety in requiring all divers to have computers. A better safety margin is always good. To be fair I need improvement in this area as well, so who am I to judge?

Regardless, that is neither here nor there.

I accept that the divers you dive with don’t have redundant systems and those I dive with do. I wonder, though, if our defendant’s setup was his own or if it was rented.
If he rented his kit from the dive shop, he would have had a standard reg, which tend to automatically come with an SPG. I am sorry for not remembering this detail. Did they hire their kit or bring their own?

Bubba

…she had her you know computer in her hand.

I think it safe to say that Trish is right; this guy couldn’t talk his way out of a paper bag. As an English teacher, I can tell you his choice of terminology is quite interesting. Look at the above. I assert again that he is leaving himself a lot of wiggle room, or better his attorney’s a lot of wiggle room.

Who has their dive computers “in hand”? Computers are attached to your wrist in most cases or they could be part of the gauge system. If Bubba is right and she had an A1 as others have asserted, this type of computer is a wrist mount, is it not (so that you can hold it near the first stage to test it)?

I know these “ifs” are pancaked , but I’m enjoying the banter.

If she had her computer in her hand, is this not yet another case of nerves creating the same morphological blunder as the other utterances he has made, namely the transponder-transmitter-receiver do-see-do (sp?) from earlier?

One does, quite commonly, grab one’s SPG in hand to check information. Trish, you would certainly know better than I would here given your profession. Noting that our defendant has made so many of these terminological blunders on tape, could it be that his relative stupidity is actually working in his favor? If the defense can show him as the diving equivalent of the village idiot, they could kill two birds with one stone: attack his actual ability as a rescue diver and his status as a human being capable of fining and breathing at the same time. Since he can’t use the terms he needs to in order to explain what happened, that demonstrates that he is a poor diver (and thus a terribly trained rescue diver) on top of showing that he isn’t going to be winning any Rhodes scholarships in the near future. I’m not saying it will work, but it seems pretty viable as a course in defending this guy.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as can plainly be seen, the defendant is simply too stupid to have pulled off this crime. The prosecution’s model for this crime requires an able-bodied perpetrator, something my client clearly doesn’t measure up to. That coupled with the fact that no one actually saw him do this crime provides ample reasonable doubt…”

As others have pointed out, there is also the fact that this was his wife who was having problems. The guilt over not being able to do something might be causing him to weave a tale of wishful heroics, peppered with a chronology that shows his equipment wasn’t working, anything that mitigates his culpability in this case. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that one has tried to concoct a story with a self aggrandizing version of one as the caring protagonist.

Cheers!

 

[bubba105]

Who has their dive computers “in hand”? Computers are attached to your wrist in most cases or they could be part of the gauge system.
If she had her computer in her hand, is this not yet another case of nerves creating the same morphological blunder as the other utterances he has made, namely the transponder-transmitter-receiver do-see-do (sp?) from earlier?

I think you may be misunderstanding when exactly she had her computer in her hand. They were on the dive boat, before any dives, turning on their tanks & checking their air supply. She may not have put her computer on her wrist yet. BTW, I don't see how people are having problems with the transmitter/computer thing. The transmitter sends a signal from the tank giving air pressure. The computer part does everything else, just like a non AI computer.

If the defense can show him as the diving equivalent of the village idiot, they could kill two birds with one stone: attack his actual ability as a rescue diver and his status as a human being capable of fining and breathing at the same time. Since he can’t use the terms he needs to in order to explain what happened, that demonstrates that he is a poor diver (and thus a terribly trained rescue diver)

I'd hate to be the guy who passed Gabe on his rescue course because if there is a trial, that's coming out.

 

[Walter]

I'd hate to be the guy who passed Gabe on his rescue course because if there is a trial, that's coming out.

It should come out. There are a number of possibilities. 1st, he may actually be a real rescue diver, in which case, it appears he did murder his wife. 2nd, he may have been passed even though he didn't qualify according to standards. In this case, the instructor needs to be sued. The 3rd possibility is he did qualify according to standards and is still incompetent. If that's the case, the agency needs to be sued.

 

[Tigerman]

It should come out. There are a number of possibilities. 1st, he may actually be a real rescue diver, in which case, it appears he did murder his wife. 2nd, he may have been passed even though he didn't qualify according to standards. In this case, the instructor needs to be sued. The 3rd possibility is he did qualify according to standards and is still incompetent. If that's the case, the agency needs to be sued.

Your solution is to sue someone regardless which option it is, huh?
What if he was passed according to standards, but simply freaked out when he realized his wife was in life threatening problems? Did they actually try drowning your wife so you could rescue her in your rescue class? Theres only so much you can practice in a safe enviroment and drowning somoene for practice isnt exactly whats called "safe". Regardless how far you pus training, ITS STILL TRAINING.

 

[Walter]

Your solution is to sue someone regardless which option it is, huh?

Nope. OTOH, poor classes need to end and if that was, in fact, the case in this situation, the folks responsible need to be held accountable. It could be the individual instructor, it could be the agency or it could be the diver. I don't have the facts and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if criminal charges can actually be brought against the instructor (if he is at fault) or the aqgency (if they are at fault), but criminal charges would be a better solution (assuming they are possible) than a law suit, IMO. If this guy is a competent diver and a competent rescue diver (should be easy enough to determine from talking with folks who've dived with him), then he is at fault in his wife's death. He either killed her or let her die when any competent entry level diver could have saved her.

What if he was passed according to standards, but simply freaked out when he realized his wife was in life threatening problems?

Then he's an incompetent diver who put his wife in a life threatening situation. Assuming he's telling the complete truth as he remembers it, there was no danger to his wife until he let go of her to recover his regulator and clear his mask. If his class was any good at all, he's had to deal with a regulator recovery with a flooded mask while making a rescue. It's not all that difficult a task.

 

[bubba105]

Your solution is to sue someone regardless which option it is, huh?
What if he was passed according to standards, but simply freaked out when he realized his wife was in life threatening problems? Did they actually try drowning your wife so you could rescue her in your rescue class? Theres only so much you can practice in a safe enviroment and drowning somoene for practice isnt exactly whats called "safe". Regardless how far you pus training, ITS STILL TRAINING.

The BS flag has to come out on this one. The situation the two divers were in was OW-101 problem solving. She was sinking so he shows her to put air in her BC. That doesn't work so instead of grabbing ahold of her & getting air in her BC, either through the inflator or orally, he attempts to drag her, against the current that was so strong they were aborting the dive, back to the line. The BC which, BTW, was working fine. If he's on the up & up & didn't kill her, putting air in her BC & taking a leisurely ascent to the surface negates everything that happened after. So, although I'm not a big believer in lawsuits, if the rescue instructor passed this guy with ZERO skills, he should lose his teaching credentials.

 

[Tigerman]

The BS flag has to come out on this one. The situation the two divers were in was OW-101 problem solving. She was sinking so he shows her to put air in her BC. That doesn't work so instead of grabbing ahold of her & getting air in her BC, either through the inflator or orally, he attempts to drag her, against the current that was so strong they were aborting the dive, back to the line. The BC which, BTW, was working fine. If he's on the up & up & didn't kill her, putting air in her BC & taking a leisurely ascent to the surface negates everything that happened after. So, although I'm not a big believer in lawsuits, if the rescue instructor passed this guy with ZERO skills, he should lose his teaching credentials.

The situation as far as we know..
There could be other circumstances and he could very well deliberately have murdered his wife. I guess thats what they are trying to get to the bottomn of with the investigation?

 

[PalatkaBoy]

If Bubba is right and she had an A1 as others have asserted, this type of computer is a wrist mount, is it not

My AI computer (Uwatec SmartCOM) is a console (there is a wrist mount version, though) that displays an alarm when breathing hard. This alarm and its duration is also shown in my PC dive log (Diving Log 4.0).