Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[K_girl]

It is obvious that the prosecution will have to make sure that the jury understands these things:

1) It is NOT about what you or anyone else would have done in those moments underwater because you loved someone enough.

2) It is NOT about prosecuting someone for not remembering what you were taught in a rescue class and following those procedures in a panicked emergency situation.

3) It IS about Gabe reassuring Tina and her parents that he was a rescue diver capable of taking care of Tina and then telling police he was never taught how to rescue another person - ever.

For the defense - it will be the opposite. They need to try to make the prosecution to seem unfair for prosecuting Gabe Watson under 1 and 2 above and try to make the jury forget about number 3.

This is going to be a key issue in the case, because the points in 1 and 2 keep coming up over and over again in the discussion on this forum because for some reason, they seem to be what most people focus on.

 

[NudeDiver]

This is contradictory. You apparently think we should be able to provide justice, but you'll be damned if you are going to participate to get there.

If I see evidence of any justice actually being provided, maybe I'll be inclined to participate.

Remember, "accidents" are also investigated by the police.

And why? Because they are looking to point blame at someone. They're not doing it "just because" - the purpose is to see if they can find someone to blame.

For him to immediately refuse to speak to them without representation would send an indication that Gabe would have classified this as a "crime" in his own mind - which would automatically raise suspicion that maybe it is a crime.

Or merely that, as tragic as Tina's death may have been, there is nothing he can do about it once it is happened, ergo, he must now protect his own interests.

I don't disagree with the basics of what you are saying as we have seen plenty of instances of unjust pressure applied to both our clients and our witnesses. So, thank you, and thank you for playing the defense devil's advocate. Much appreciated.

You're welcome. I'm not willing to cooperate with the police, but I'm always happy to cooperate with the devil

 

[NudeDiver]

3) It IS about Gabe reassuring Tina and her parents that he was a rescue diver capable of taking care of Tina and then telling police he were never taught how to rescue another person - ever.

Sorry - but if this is the case that someone has committed murder, there is no way it meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (I realize that this may not be the standard in Oz).

 

[Gdog]

JClynes, you are reading something into what I 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.

I did not say if you were in love you would react better. I said you would react differently. Whether or not that reaction would be better or worse isnt the point.

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

A very true statement. Usually in emergency, you will either freeze and become a spectator, or instinct takes over and you react. Again, whether or not you react in a helpful manner or not is underminable. And as much as you would like to think you would do things right, it just doesnt always go that way. The only way one can try to make sure the reaction is appropriate, is to have the proper training, so that when instinct takes over, so does the training. Perhaps a rescue course..........?!!

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

Again, true statement. So...if you are on your honeymoon, married to someone you dont even have an emotional attatchment with, what is your motivation if not for love? Money? Insurance settlement? Hmmm
Way way too many pieces that do not fit. Someone who desecrates a burial site also does not sound like someone remorseful over the fact that they did not react properly in that moment. IF you were really married for the right reason, the remorse over letting your spouse die due to your inaction, even though you were trained for that event, would be unbearable. If you were in it for alterior motives, then.....if the shoe fits......
None of us were there, and even if we were, we dont know what he was thinking. I guess we will have to wait for the jury's verdict.
Ok...flame on.

 

[InTheDrink]

No flames, GDog

The problem I've had on this thread are the continual fallacious logical connections:

1. He was in love/honeymooning/married
=> people in love try harder => he didn't try hard enough => ergo his not saving her meant there was something darker at play
2. He was Rescue trained => he didn't rescue her => guilt/suspicion
A good course, with a good instructor and a good student can and indeed should create someone that would hopefully, note hopefully, react well in an emergency. But let's switch it a little
A bad course, with a bad instructor and a bad student would create what kind of diver?
And of course there's every combination in between (e.g. ok course, good instructor, bad student). The fact he was rescue trained is a red herring and practically irrelevant (unless of course the Jury are erroneously persuaded otherwise)
3. He lied about one/some things => he murdered her (i.e. people that lie about one thing are guilty of another)

The (SB?) jury certainly is out, and but for some of the 'facts' such as the leisurely ascent and funny computer issue (which could also be circumstantial) this really could just be another accident, not helped by this person being a vacation diver where the cards could well count for nothing. I posted another thread where my new buddy, and friend, an AOW diver with 45 dives (or so he told me) simply didn't have the faintest idea how to dive. I've no doubt that he could get a rescue card too. And still not have the foggiest. Anyway, I'm drifting again.

He may guilty but some of the arguments put forward on this thread are false logic and it probably is important for people to understand as such. Who knows, they may need to forgive themselves one day when they don't react the way they hoped and someone met their maker.

 

[InTheDrink]

Sorry - but if this is the case that someone has committed murder, there is no way it meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (I realize that this may not be the standard in Oz).

NudeDiver - just as an FYI, in criminal cases, the burden of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required in practically all developed democracies that I am aware of. Totally off-topic but U.S. citizens should realise that most developed democracies view the U.S. as the exception rather than the civilised rule in it's non-standard adherence to received democratic rights, notably extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, death penalty, etc. so before questioning whether other countries have these rights, you should look closer to home first.

 

[Aardvark]

NudeDiver - just as an FYI, in criminal cases, the burden of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required in practically all developed democracies that I am aware of. Totally off-topic but U.S. citizens should realise that most developed democracies view the U.S. as the exception rather than the civilised rule in it's non-standard adherence to received democratic rights, notably extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, death penalty, etc. so before questioning whether other countries have these rights, you should look closer to home first.

In Queensland we have "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal matters and "on the balance of probabilities" in civil matters. The exception is if you're dealing the the Tax Office then it's "you're guilty, unless you can prove otherwise".

I'm not going to form a view on Gabe Watson but it would annoy me if QLD DPP wanted him to have a day (or several) in court and wasn't able to extradite him.

 

[InTheDrink]

... and "on the balance of probabilities" in civil matters.

I believe this is fairly universal in most mature democracies also.

 

[NudeDiver]

NudeDiver - just as an FYI, in criminal cases, the burden of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required in practically all developed democracies that I am aware of. Totally off-topic but U.S. citizens should realise that most developed democracies view the U.S. as the exception rather than the civilised rule in it's non-standard adherence to received democratic rights, notably extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, death penalty, etc.

The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy - although it has, unfortunately, strayed from its roots. That's the great irony of its politicians constantly spouting off about how great democracy is....and I am quite aware of how the rest of the world views certain aspects of American society. Although, I have to tell you, one of the strangest conversations I had was out near Ayers Rock, with an Aussie lad who seemed to be George Bush's #1 fan. Despite any negative things I had to say about him, this guy just kept on praising Bush. I can only hope it was the beer talking and that he would change his view once he sobered up

FWIW, I'm not a big believer in democracy anyway. I think our "founding fathers" had it right - democracy is just mob rule with voting and needs to be strongly guarded against.

... so before questioning whether other countries have these rights, you should look closer to home first.

Now, now, now - don't go and get testy on me. I didn't question anyone's rights in Australia - I merely admitted my ignorance of its legal proceedings. I was TRYING to avoid the classic arrogant Americanism of assuming that everyone does (and should do) things the way we do them, rather than some different way. You'd think admitting that one doesn't know something would be a GOOD thing

 

[NudeDiver]

I'm not going to form a view on Gabe Watson but it would annoy me if QLD DPP wanted him to have a day (or several) in court and wasn't able to extradite him.

Frankly, they should not have let him leave in the first place, until the matter was settled one way or another. That seems kind of foolish to me.