Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[Epinephelus]

How is this scenario "consistent" with his dive computer, which showed a slow controlled ascent, or with his unusual interest in her life insurance even before they were married, or with the body being found in a place inconsistent with his story?

'Cause the slow controlled ascent occured before the emergency near the surface. He jettisoned her just a couple of feet below the surface and she sank. He never went back down.
As for "unusual" interest, I'm not saying he's not weird. I just don't think he's a murderer. Egregiously selfish? Probably. Grossly negligent? Probably. Would I want to do business with him? Nope!
But a murderer? I don't think so.
'Twill be ineteresting to see what comes out at the trial.
E

 

[><)))'>]

Egregiously selfish? Probably. Grossly negligent? Probably. Would I want to do business with him? Nope!
But a murderer? I don't think so.

And liar.
Don't forget liar.

><)))'>

 

[Epinephelus]

And liar.
Don't forget liar.

><)))'>

Yes. That too.
E

 

[NudeDiver]

Thanks Kgirl for pointing out that the interview was on tape and there was no yelling or intimidation involved.

FWIW, I never said there was. My statement was merely indicated to explain, in a general sense, how someone could defend against steve's statements in the previous post.

But - since you mention it - if you don't think that being questioned by the police about your wife's death, regardless of of how "nicely" the questions are asked, is intimidating, then you are one cool cucumber

And liar.Don't forget liar.

...which is a long way from being a murderer.

 

[Gdog]

The emotional side is what doesnt fit for me. If my wife and I were close to the surface, she indicated trouble to me, would I push her off and head for the surface? Would anybody who was in love with their spouse? NO, just the opposite. Most likely you would have to pry me away from her. I realize this guy is extremely selfish, but if he is what he claims, especially a newer marriage, he would not have reacted in this manner.

 

[InTheDrink]

TWould anybody who was in love with their spouse? NO, just the opposite. Most likely you would have to pry me away from her. I realize t

a: who said he was in love with his spouse? He was on his honeymoon. Not the same thing.

b: not being in love with your spouse is not a crime. He may or may not have been but this seems fairly irrelevant to me.

c: even if someone is in love with a person, does not reacting in the 'appropriate' way in an emergency equate to murder? Not where I come from, unless possibly we're talking about professional negligence, but Gabe was not a pro, he was a rescue diver.

d: a lot people on this thread are very sure of how perfectly they would react in an emergency. Nuff said.

Gabe may well be guilty, but people seem to be making some very spurious arguments to somehow point towards murder, e.g. someone in love would react better in an emergency. This is clearly tosh. They may or they may not.

There do appear to be lots of conflicts in Gabe's statements, and some of the aspects, like his apparently leisurely ascent rate and msyteriously beeping dive computer that had the battery inserted back to front don't paint a pretty picture. But many of the published facts in this case so far could fit easily in your common or garden diving accident that arises no suspicion.

Anyone out there any idea what it was that aroused suspicion in this case, right from the outset? Was it his conflicting statements/lies with the police?

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I've read every link and post on this, watched the interviews I am not prepared to go back through all that looking.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong here (and surely will). I believe it was the inconsistencies.
Gabe presented himself to the police station and requested an interview after the first one (sorry Nude that doesn't indicate a terribly intimidating atmosphere to me). Police say THAT got their attention when his second statements conflicted with the statements in his first interview. The references to the current were minimal on the first interview but on the second it was a major focus and it appeared he had bought a book on the dive site AFTER the death which he referred to.
I think his slow ascent rate compared to his statement and failure to locate the person he said he approached for help underwater cinched it.
It also seems to me the American couple onboard were suspicious of his behavior from the start and it was their meeting with Tina's folks that created the drive from that end. That is just my impression.
I must say that after listening to that interview I felt sorry for his Dive Instructor dealing with him. If stupidity can be used as a legal defense he has nothing to worry about. He is certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed!

 

[K_girl]

FWIW, I never said there was. My statement was merely indicated to explain, in a general sense, how someone could defend against steve's statements in the previous post.

But - since you mention it - if you don't think that being questioned by the police about your wife's death, regardless of of how "nicely" the questions are asked, is intimidating, then you are one cool cucumber

...which is a long way from being a murderer.

With regard to any scuba accident or death, there will be questioning by the police and in 99.9% of those cases, there is not an immediate suspicion of murder. In a scuba-related death, this questioning by the police is routine because of its very nature, it is a death of unknown cause. Investigators should be on the scene almost immediately after any scuba-related death. There was no reason for Gabe to believe that he was a suspect in this questioning. The only reason for him to be leary of the police was - if he was guilty.

 

[NudeDiver]

The only reason for him to be leary of the police was - if he was guilty.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - right?

Sorry - but I am leery of the police under all circumstances. Any reasonable person would be. They have the power to shoot you legally. They have the power to detain you legally. They are allowed to lie to you when questioning you. They have the power to fabricate and/or plant "evidence" - and even just make **** up when it suits them. There is NO WAY I am going to willingly talk to the police, under any circumstances - ESPECIALLY if I am innocent of whatever they are questioning me about. If you really need the full explanation why, watch these two videos:

Law prof and cop agree: never ever ever ever ever ever ever talk to the cops about a crime, even if you're innocent - Boing Boing

About 45 minutes, but maybe it will open your eyes.

Cheers!
nd

 

[K_girl]

a: who said he was in love with his spouse? He was on his honeymoon. Not the same thing.

b: not being in love with your spouse is not a crime. He may or may not have been but this seems fairly irrelevant to me.

c: even if someone is in love with a person, does not reacting in the 'appropriate' way in an emergency equate to murder? Not where I come from, unless possibly we're talking about professional negligence, but Gabe was not a pro, he was a rescue diver.

d: a lot people on this thread are very sure of how perfectly they would react in an emergency. Nuff said.

Gabe may well be guilty, but people seem to be making some very spurious arguments to somehow point towards murder, e.g. someone in love would react better in an emergency. This is clearly tosh. They may or they may not.

There do appear to be lots of conflicts in Gabe's statements, and some of the aspects, like his apparently leisurely ascent rate and msyteriously beeping dive computer that had the battery inserted back to front don't paint a pretty picture. But many of the published facts in this case so far could fit easily in your common or garden diving accident that arises no suspicion.

Anyone out there any idea what it was that aroused suspicion in this case, right from the outset? Was it his conflicting statements/lies with the police?

Totally agree, this case cannot be tried on the basis of what you think Gabe should have done during this "emergency."

I think suspicions began to arise during the first interview. The police officer made it sound like he knew nothing about diving and got Gabe to relax and "explain" things to him. When, in reality, the police officer knew quite a lot about diving. If you haven't read the full transcript of the interview, you should. It will give you a sense of how well they questioned him. They would jump around and come back to a subject sometime later and get more elaboration and that's when the conflicting statements start coming to light. It was quite the opposite that another posted try to state a defense could be that he felt intimidated. Actually, Gabe seemed to be quite eager to educate the police interviewer about his knowledge of diving.