Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[Zinc]

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.

Would you please provide a link to the interview referenced above, Thanks

 

[K_girl]

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

Cheers!
nd

Working in the criminal defense field, I would say, yes, this does happen, although it is not the "norm." Where investigators tend to make mistakes is they investigate by statistics. For instance, if a woman is murdered, the most likely suspect is a boyfriend or a husband because more than 90% of the time, that is who it is. They get so focused on any minor detail that may lead them in that direction, they see nothing else.

However, in this case, an investigation has to be initiated in a scuba-related death and the first initial response is not to treat it as a crime, or even to think of it as a crime. In these cases, the statistics will cause them to focus on the potential negligence of the operator. Tina's parents will want to know what happened and if an investigation was not done - that would have been criminal. The murder of a newly-wed wife by the husband while they are on fun-filled honeymoon - the statistics for that have got to be more than a million-to-one.

 

[K_girl]

Would you please provide a link to the interview referenced above, Thanks

This link will get you to everything on this case:
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...on-murder-case-issues-statements-sources.html

 

[K_girl]

K GIRL Hi,,,I see in your profile you have a Rescue certification. I believe you would be a good one for me to ask this question - Do you believe a diver going through the same rescue class as your did, could later say he/she did not learn about anything other than self rescue? In your rescue class did they teach bringing up a distressed diver? If so, could you honestly say they did not teach that in your class?

I believe in his statements to the police about NOT learning how and only learning self rescue, would be the sames as any Open Water diver saying he did not learn about clearing his mask in an OW class.

Although a small part of the Rescue cert involved self-rescue, the biggest part focused on the rescue of another person. The word "victim" is used thousands of times during this course.

First - you have to get certified in First Aid and CPR (including use of defibrillator).

Second, you practive these individual skills: 1) spotting a diver in trouble in the water; 2) methods for retrieving the diver if close-by or further away; 3) knowing when to call for help, different kinds of help and keeping your eye on the diver at the same time; 4) if the diver goes down - keeping your eye on the spot where the diver went down; 5) getting others involved in the rescue; 6) putting together a search plan for a downed diver (search patterns); 6) conducting the search for the diver; 7) approaching a diver who may be panicking, either active or passive; 8) bringing the diver to the surface by placing your right arm under their right arm from behind, holding the reg in place with your right hand and using your left hand to control your BC and the victim's BC; 9) inflating the victim's BC on the surface; 10) protecting the victims airway; 11) rescue breathing in the water 12) rescue breathing and removing your equipment and victim's equipment in the water; 13) rescue breathing and towing the victim (rescue breathing in the water requires practice on how to hold the head, holding the nose and protecting the airway from water getting in, counting to 3 between each of your movements. That is the most difficult part of the course and the skill you will practice the most - like mask clearning in OW); 14) use of a mask breathing device that can be used in the water; 15) different methods for getting the victim out of the water; 16) the amount of time you have to get the victim out of the water and you need to resume rescue breathing and CPR (30 seconds); 17) administering oxygen; 18) asking the diver questions to acess their level of injury to communicate back to emergency personnel.

I took the course over 4 years ago and this is all from memory. It is very well ingrained because you do all of the water-related individual skills twice, once in the pool and again in open water. Then you put them all together as a full rescue scenario and you do that twice - once in the pool, and then again in open water.

This is the best course you will ever take and if you haven't done it yet, you should. You will learn a tremendous amount that will stay with you a long, long time. No matter what Gabe Watson says.

 

[NudeDiver]

Working in the criminal defense field, I would say, yes, this does happen, although it is not the "norm."

Go watch those videos and tell me if you disagree with what they say.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

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

Sobering video all right. I would like to point out that the methods that can be used in the States are not necessarily allowed elsewhere (Australia and Canada). Next time I have a chance I will have to talk to some of my friends who are RCMP Members and Police Officers here. The videos raise some interesting questions I would like answered. I will see if I can find my notes on the training sessions I got the RCMP to conduct for my ambulance station crew on crime scene preservation etc.

I must say my opinion of lawyers isn't very high based on being called on to testify in court cases as part of my job.

The cynic in me says the judicial system is nothing more than a game of mental chess with people as pawns. Everyone is trying to get you to say things that support their chosen version of truth. The longer the process takes the more money they earn. Justice is just as elusive as truth.

 

[InTheDrink]

I'm enjoying the video. However, it's nearly 2am and I have a 2 and 5 year old to deal with by myself in 4 - 5 hours time. I'm going to need therapy for this damn board.

 

[Geoff_H]

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.

I couldn't disagree more with your premise. You can't extrapolate a single example and apply it to the whole profession across the world. There are examples of people in every single profession in the world who abuse their position - doctors, teachers, clergy, even lawyers.

Using your premise you couldn't visit a doctor (he has the power to kill you), send your kids to school or church (the teachers or priest could molest them) or divulge any information to a lawyer (who could use it for any nefarious purposes).

The part in bold is the point I have most contention with - in most of the developed world we don't have systemically corrupt police forces any more than we have systemically corrupt or perverted hospitals, schools or churches.

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.

I suggest it is attitudes like that which makes policing a much harder job than it should be, and our society as a whole suffers as a result. Unless you live in a country like Iran then the innocent have no reason to hide or withhold information from the police going about their lawful duty.

 

[InTheDrink]

I couldn't disagree more with your premise. You can't extrapolate a single example and apply it to the whole profession across the world. There are examples of people in every single profession in the world who abuse their position - doctors, teachers, clergy, even lawyers.

Using your premise you couldn't visit a doctor (he has the power to kill you), send your kids to school or church (the teachers or priest could molest them) or divulge any information to a lawyer (who could use it for any nefarious purposes).

The part in bold is the point I have most contention with - in most of the developed world we don't have systemically corrupt police forces any more than we have systemically corrupt or perverted hospitals, schools or churches.

I suggest it is attitudes like that which makes policing a much harder job than it should be, and our society as a whole suffers as a result. Unless you live in a country like Iran then the innocent have no reason to hide or withhold information from the police going about their lawful duty.

I had a guy in a van nearly cream me on my bike. To the extent that we made contact and his wing mirror got broken. I was inches from going under his wheels. I found the police, told them what happened and they chased down the guy. I told the police my story. The guy in van said nothing. I had no witnesses. Result: Because his mirror was broken I got done for criminal damage (a caution, which isn't a criminal record but sticks on your record). I told my cop friend about this about this and she said "Don't ever talk to the police before talking to your solicitor or at the very least me'

So I second NudeDiver, say NADA.

And I'm very much against the litigation culture, but if you speak to the police when you are involved with a potentially criminal act - including one you're not even AWARE of - you do so at your peril.

 

[InTheDrink]

The other point you're missing Geoff is motive. Doctors and teachers don't have any inherent motive to damage the people under their care, unless they're freaks. The police do. If you talk, you may admit an infraction without even knowing it and there are lots of cops out there happy to take you up on your offer.