Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Were they using computers that had time-of-day clocks? None of the computers that I've owned gave time-of-day.

The Sherwood Wisdom also gives the dive date and the time-of-day the dive began and ended.

This exact time info would help to figure out if there were other divers in the water when/after the incident occurred, but I guess it wouldn't necessarily be reliable because the clocks may not have been synchronized or correct.
 
tonight one of our crap-o-la "news" tv show (a current affair) tonight has "explosive new evidence"

quote: "it was the dive mystery that created headlines... now explosive new evidence, dive rescue or elaberate hoax?"

heheheh - they have a reporter in the water doing a senario

i might have to get hubby to tape it for me but i doubt any actual investigative journalism content is involved
 
tonight one of our crap-o-la "news" tv show (a current affair) tonight has "explosive new evidence"

quote: "it was the dive mystery that created headlines... now explosive new evidence, dive rescue or elaberate hoax?"

heheheh - they have a reporter in the water doing a senario

i might have to get hubby to tape it for me but i doubt any actual investigative journalism content is involved

They would not be able to spell it let alone know what investigative or journalism mean.


I have a uwatec smart com and it logs both entry and exit time.
 
This whole thing seems to be pushing the envelope on the "smell test." However, I should note a few things:

1. Hindsight is 20/20. When things are going wrong, one does not necessarily make the best choices. Thus the fact he may have made bad choices while under pressure is not unexpected.

2. I've always learned that while its heroic to be a hero, one should not make oneself a second victim. (It just complicates the job for other rescuers.)

3. Let's look at the logic of his making claims and of how that tends to incriminate him: Money is a motive, making a claim tends to incriminate him. However, he would realize this and if he were guilty, he would not make any claims. Therefore, if he did not make a claim, that would tend incriminate him. Therefore, if he were smart, he would make a claim. Of course, he would realize we would think exactly this way and to throw us off, he would not make a claim. But, we are smarter than that and would realize that ....
 
3. Let's look at the logic of his making claims and of how that tends to incriminate him: Money is a motive, making a claim tends to incriminate him. However, he would realize this and if he were guilty, he would not make any claims. Therefore, if he did not make a claim, that would tend incriminate him. Therefore, if he were smart, he would make a claim. Of course, he would realize we would think exactly this way and to throw us off, he would not make a claim. But, we are smarter than that and would realize that ....

Are you through?
 
Are you through?

No! I'm just getting started. ...

Whether he made a claim or didn't, whether he lived in the house or didn't, whether he sold the house or didn't, tends to show both that he killed her and didn't kill her.
 
Based on my experience dealing with an actual scuba fatality, the facts rarely all add up nicely.

The woman's buddy in my case swore that she had released the victim's weightbelt. I know for a fact that her weight belt was still around here and I released it when they were attempting to pull her up onto the dock. I don't know why the buddy swore she had done that, but she might have pulled out a BCD strap and thought that was the victim's weightbelt.

On the other hand I thought there was no blood at all, but multiple of my buddies have mentioned a whole lot of blood. I'm probably misremembering there based on the M.E.s result that death was due to lung barotrauma and probably just because blood doesn't freak me out at all, so I probably just never noticed it (odd that I was right in front of her, unclipping her drysuit hose and releasing her weightbelt as she was dragged out of the water and I don't recall a spot of blood and other people describe the front of her drysuit as being bloody at that time).

I also had the buddy tell me that the accident occured at 10 feet of depth and that they had made a safe ascent up to that point. I heard the buddy repeat that over and over to multiple different rescuers. The buddy still wound up being put on O2 with several people flat-out assuming that the buddy was going to be bent and not bothering to listen what was clearly stated over and over that the accident occured at a depth of 10 feet. People's preconcieved notions of the accident, however, led them to not listen to that and assume the accident occurred at more significant depth and that the dive buddy could be bent.

So you are all trying to take media reports and court documents and try to make 2+2 add up to 4 when I don't think that is remotely possible.
 
Originally Posted by ItsBruce

3. Let's look at the logic of his making claims and of how that tends to incriminate him: Money is a motive, making a claim tends to incriminate him. However, he would realize this and if he were guilty, he would not make any claims. Therefore, if he did not make a claim, that would tend incriminate him. Therefore, if he were smart, he would make a claim. Of course, he would realize we would think exactly this way and to throw us off, he would not make a claim. But, we are smarter than that and would realize that ....
Are you through?

No! I'm just getting started. ...

Whether he made a claim or didn't, whether he lived in the house or didn't, whether he sold the house or didn't, tends to show both that he killed her and didn't kill her.
ummmm - are you having a conversation with yourself Bruce??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom