Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[K_girl]

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.

The purpose of accident investigation is to discover if there were any actions or lack of actions that caused the accident for one purpose: to identify the causes to a regulating agency to adjust rules so the same type of accident can be prevented in the future. It is possible that the causes (or as you obviously like to say, "blame") as identified could become actionable in a law suit against a person, supplier or operator. However, unless the investigation identifies there at least some kind of negligence was involved in the accident, then a civil law suit would have no standing.

You cannot say that a husband did not love his wife enough to go after her is negligence. You cannot say that someone who is trained as a recreational rescue diver and panicked themselves and went for help is negligent. The people with the most exposure in a "blame" or "negligent" type of law suit would be the professional operator.

If you are talking about the police personally or socially blaming Gabe Watson - you are barking up the wrong tree. This is not the purpose of any police investigation and a law suit would be pending against the police if they made any such statements.

********

Quote:
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.

Yes, there is something he can do about it. He can participate in the accident investigation to help determine the cause so that it can be prevented in the future, which is the whole purpose for this particular forum. This accident forum created for many of us who really want to understand as much as we can about each dive accident we hear about so that we can learn from them and become better divers. And to help bring closure to the family. I have no doubt that Tina's family, who knew nothing about scuba diving before Tina's death, know a lot more about it now because they want to know what happened to their daughter.

 

[lamont]

I've been in a few sticky situations where I had to make some quick decisions that involved another diver. So here they are:

...snip...

I have never been in a full-board rescue operation with a lost diver. So you're right - I don't have the experience you do and I do hope that the woman involved in the situation you mentioned came out OK.

I've been in a bunch of typical screwups underwater like that. Actually dealing with an unconscious body is a quantum leap up -- my brain, at least, didn't want to deal with that, and judging by the responses of everyone else, they had their moments of brilliant insight, but were running on 1/4 IQ the majority of the time....

I read a write-up of another accident (not a fatality, just type 2 DCS) involving a bunch of very experienced divers and one EMT/Paramedic -- and he was the only guy who was able to deal with a real medical crisis without being affected by stress and shock.

But I do know that you are right about one thing - people's perception of the incident can be different, most especially when it comes to underwater communication.

But really - you make the point I have been talking about in this case which is NOT whether or not someone does actually follow protocol in an emergency. So, would you say that in "Basic Rescue 101" - like you said - that you were ever taught how to "get someone" in an emergency? Would you ever say, like Gabe Watson did, that you were never taught to bring up a diver from the bottom? I keep making this point over and over again - it is getting boring.

So, he lied about that. He lied about a lot of things. Doesn't prove murder.

My point about the Rescue course, however, is that just because he was trained doesn't mean that he was competent at doing it, particularly in a real life situation as opposed to the scenarios in a course. There is a point which has been made that because he had a rescue certification that he should have been able to save her, so the logical assumption is that he must have killed her. Actually, the Rescue course teaches you about as much about Rescuing divers underwater as the OW course teaches you how to dive -- its just an intro to some of the basics and maybe a confidence builder. Its no guarantee that you'll be able to Rescue someone.

Given his contradictory statements, they should definitely investigate him. And if he did kill her, hopefully they will find corroborating evidence (computer files, web search records, etc) along with developing a plausible motive. Right now based on what information is publicly accessible, however, all you can do is convict him of being a lying creep, and depending on the level of proof required could argue negligence.

 

[NudeDiver]

The purpose of accident investigation is to discover if there were any actions or lack of actions that caused the accident for one purpose: to identify the causes to a regulating agency to adjust rules so the same type of accident can be prevented in the future.

..and the police are completely uninterested in looking for any evidence of a crime that can be prosecuted....

You cannot say that a husband did not love his wife enough to go after her is negligence. You cannot say that someone who is trained as a recreational rescue diver and panicked themselves and went for help is negligent.

I never said these things...

If you are talking about the police personally or socially blaming Gabe Watson - you are barking up the wrong tree. This is not the purpose of any police investigation and a law suit would be pending against the police if they made any such statements.

No - not related to any point I was making at all.

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.

No, not necessarily. He could be completely convinced he did nothing wrong, but others may not see it that way, and therefore, had better protect his own interests.

Yes, there is something he can do about it. He can participate in the accident investigation to help determine the cause so that it can be prevented in the future

This has nothing to do with doing something ABOUT her death. It's just a reaction to it. Frankly, although it may be a selfish point of view, if my wife just died in a diving (or any other kind of) accident, I would be so overcome with grief - and perhaps guilt that maybe I could have done something to prevent it, that the very last thing on my mind would be worrying about preventing it from happening to someone else in the future. My wife just died!! I'm not going to be in the mindset to be real concerned with others - esp. while I am being investigated/interrogated/questioned/or otherwise by the police. It's just the reality of the situation.

 

[Aardvark]

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.

The coroner brought charges only a few months ago. Would have been a miscariage of justice to hold him without charge for five years. Even with our new "anti-terror" laws we can't hold people that long. I expect extradition will drag on while it's fought in the USA but once he exhausts his options there I expect he'll be brought back to face the music.

 

[Sas]

I have recently done a Rescue course, in Australia. In this course we were taught about our legal responsibility regarding rescuing other divers (whether we are Rescue certified or otherwise). I cannot find any information other than what my instructor taught to verify this however, and have no idea even how to find this in legislation. Anyway, I thought it is interesting in light of the fact that Gabe's story is that he attempted to rescue his wife but found it too dangerous to continue. If there are other people who have done or taught Rescue class in Australia I would be interested to know what they were taught about the legal responsibilities regarding rescuing other divers.

What I was told is this: if you see someone in trouble and in need of being rescued, you can ignore them completely and thereby you have no legal responsibility to help them out and can not be charged with anything. Or you can attempt to rescue them. If you make an attempt to rescue a person you must not give up half way through because if you do, i.e. you find it too hard or you think your life is in danger, then you can be prosecuted for manslaughter regardless as to the danger to your own life. I said in class this seemed a bit harsh (especially if you have to give up because your own life is in danger) and I was told if someone brings charges it is pretty much up to a court to decide if your life was in danger and if you performed the rescue properly so the court's view may not align with your own.

This has not been tested in court yet so I am not sure how successful a case would be. It appears Gabe could have been charged with manslaughter under Australian law regardless of his intentions - but I guess cops/lawyers/etc may not want to have the risk of a trial that has no precedent and therefore a very uncertain result.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

popcorn anyone?

It isn't hard to point to many cases where someone has had training and forgotten or failed to use it. I think the Rescue card is a red herring. Showing a series of lies and inconsistencies casts suspicion on all of his statements this is just one people are fixating on for some reason.

Emotions aside you can't convict someone because they are an @#$hole or an idiot. You need facts, dispassionate facts. The slow ascent it going to be damning evidence recorded on his computer.

Motive I wonder if there is anything but the parents word about the request to increase Tina's insurance. He did get the house. In an interview he stated he ceased his action against the travel insurance company because "it made him look bad" He also dropped another suit. He tried to get the money from the insurance very quickly after the event. Motive or just a &*^% who knows.

The interviews of other witnesses and people who where there will reveal a lot. Time dulls the memory tho.....

ND do you really think Australia or any other country would dare detain an American Citizen unless they had everything necessary to go to trial? Not many countries would dare that kind of action..... nuff said there...

Is the guy a low life.... INHO yes but a murderer

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Sas I have to teach this stuff in my job. In OZ the Civil Liability Act protects someone acting to help in an emergency. In order to be proven negligent and therefore liable the court has to prove:

You had a duty of care. ( May exist as a parent and child, teacher and student, employed first aider and workmate) or you have assumed a duty of care by starting to take care of someone.

Your action wasn't what you were trained to do or what a reasonable and prudent person with similar training would do ie pen in throat for choking not taught but saw it on TV/Movie so gave it a try

The person suffered additional damage

The damage was a result of your action

They have to prove all four points to find negligence

A Duty of care is extinguished by danger to the rescuer.

Once you begin you must continue until you transfer the person to someone else qualified or you are in too much danger to continue.

I teach for a major organization who have their legal eagles make sure our lesson plans are not putting the organization at risk so I am confident this info is accurate.

I think it could be argued that Gabe had a Duty of Care for Tina and vice versa but I am not qualified to state that part as fact. I know a husband can deny a first aider access to his wife even if her life is in danger and vice versa. A question that came up in one of my classes and was researched by the legal dept before I answered it.

The thing is anyone can be sued by anyone for anything which results in legal fees and stress as long as you can find a lawyer prepared to present the case... how hard would that be?? The intent is to reduce the chance of people being too afraid to help and reduce the chance of a suit being presented in the first place.

My personal position I will help but will not give my name unless the police ask in which case I am required to give it. If I can turn the person over to an Ambo or Dr and leave before then.... I'm happy as Larry!

oh and The Civil Liability Act expressly excludes anyone under the influence of drugs (including prescription) or alcohol. You have no protection under the act in that case.

 

[Sas]

Thanks a lot for that explanation petunia!

It is not 100% along the lines of what I was taught in Rescue so I might ask about it if I see my instructor again... Basically by starting a rescue I was told that shows that you have decided you have a duty of care, have to continue the rescue and therefore all the other stuff follows from that so you are liable. I am glad to hear that one needs to fulfill those four requirements in order to be prosecuted properly as I didn't think it was right that someone could be charged for a rescue that they failed at because they decided their life was in danger.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Thank you bowlofpetunias. Those were great posts and a breath of fresh air after the past couple of pages. My understanding (extremely limited at that even) of Duty of Care is that this is different depending on where you are. So what you have just described reflects accurately of Australia and someone in Canada or the USA may be held to slightly different regulations. Is this your understanding (if you know that is)? And since Gabe was in Australia when the incident happened, he would have to meet the local laws/regulations even if they differed from where he certified....this is half a question and half a statement because what I think may not be right. You may not know these answers (outside of Oz because of your location) but it is worth asking. I would expect that the answers should be understood by any travelling diver with certain certifications (just in case).

 

[peterbj7]

do you really think Australia or any other country would dare detain an American Citizen unless they had everything necessary to go to trial? Not many countries would dare that kind of action

America does that with non-Americans with impunity. I was once arrested at gunpoint in what was clearly (and this was subsequently admitted) a case of a strong bias in favour of an American against a visitor (I'm stopping short of using the word "corruption", though that and attempted theft were behind this). Their action was ruled illegal, yet the actual arrest was deemed legal per se. Did you know that if you resist an illegal arrest you are automatically committing an offence? At least in Arizona.

Back on the main subject. Is it really the case in Australia that if you commence caring for someone that constitutes legal assumption of responsibility that you then cannot voluntarily renounce? Sounds extraordinary to me. Do you know the strict legal position in the USA and the UK?