Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[ItsBruce]

Another point: "Proximate cause" is an essential element in any liability founded on negligence. That means that the negligent act must be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Thus, if you come upon a "person" lying on the ground with no pulse and you try CPR and your CPR is below the standard of care, you can be liable only if your poor CPR actually caused harm of some sort. Since the lack of a pulse meant the "person" was already dead, it would be only a rarity that you would be held liable. If, however, for example, your CPR efforts prevented someone else from administering CPR and if that person's CPR would have done some good, you would be liable. Of course, showing another person's CPR would have done some good is not really likely.

 

[ItsBruce]

Yet another point relative to the authorities holding Gabe. I do not know about Australian law, but I expect it is not too different from US law...and US law guarantees one charged with a crime a speedy trial. One charged with a crime, i.e. a defendant, can waive the speedy trial and often does. However, if the authorities file charges too quickly, the defendant can push them into a trial for which they are not ready and the prosecution may lose. I suspect that that is why Gabe was not charged and held or simply held.

 

[ItsBruce]

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.

1. The video is, IMHO, a must see and follow.

2. Note: having a lawyer with you does not negate the necessity of keeping your mouth shut. Having your lawyer present does not keep you from screwing yourself unless your lawyer keeps you from speaking at all. The only reasons to have a lawyer present are (1) to remind you to keep your mouth shut, (2) to tell the police you are exercising your right to remain silent, and (3) to ask questions of the police and make demands upon them so you do not need to open your mouth to do so.

3. It is not really a matter of what "methods" are allowed in different jurisdictions. Other than possibly "persuading" a suspect to admit to a crime, most of the other vices are present in any interview.

For example, inconsistencies due to varying recollection could make one out to be a liar and thus raise suspicions. So could misspeaking one's self. Or being inarticulate.

(Recall the scene in the movie "My Cousin Vinny," where one of the young men is being questioned by the police. He thinks he was arrested for stealing a can of tuna fish, when in fact, he was arrested on suspicion of having shot and killed the storekeeper. The officer asked why he did it. Thinking he was being asked about taking the can, the young man said it was an accident. Sure, he could explain it, but had he kept his mouth shut, there would be nothing to explain. And, he spoke the following words: "I," "shot," "the" and "shopkeeper." While his emphasis made it clear he meant "Are you saying that I shot the shopkeeper," the emphasis was not recounted on the written transcript of the interview. Again, he could explain it, but had he kept his mouth shut..)

Since you cannot anticipate what snippet of a conversation might catch the interest of a prosecutor, you are almost always best to minimize the chances of anything catching the prosecutor's interest. And, since you cannot anticipate what snippets of a conversation might be of interest to a judge or jury, you are almost always best to minimize the chances of anything being of interest.

Sorry, but that's how it is ... or at least how I see it.

[Mount Soapbox]
4. I agree that "[T]he 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." I disagree that it is because lengthening the process earns the lawyers more money. Rather, I think, it is because getting you to say things that support their chosen version of truth helps them win.

Subject to the foregoing, keep in mind that society sets the rules for how a case proceeds. Society says the lawyer's job is to represent the client, whether it is the State, an individual or business entity. Don't blame the lawyers. They are doing their job and doing it within the scope of the rules society has set. If society does not like it, let society decree that the lawyer's job is to seek truth.

Society has said that the best way of getting to the truth is to let the lawyers do battle in an adversary system, with all of its challenges and maneuvering and then to let a jury sift through everything and make a decision. Don't blame the lawyers. They are doing their job and doing it within the scope of the rules society has set. If society does not like it, let society mandate some other system.

Society has said it is permissible to attack a witness' credibility so the jury will disbelieve an otherwise true statement. Don't blame the lawyers. They are doing their job and doing it within the scope of the rules society has set.
[/Dismount Soapbox]

 

[ItsBruce]

OMG: I've been sucked into this thread. Its like the Borg!!!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

popcorn get your popcorn here
soapboxes for hire get your soapbox here

Bad girl:bonk:sorry... couldn't resist

I agree lawyers play the role society sets for them. I have known some good lawyers and been honored that they called me friend. The system too often tends to leach away the fresh faced idealists and and turn them into well......

Most countries have advisories to remind their citizens that when they travel they will be under the laws of the country they are in. We all know that but we tend to think the laws will be at least similar to the one of our origin. That is relative only in as much as Gabe would interpret and interact consistent with his perception of US laws during interviews and with regards to likely charges etc. Pretty standard legal position is.... Ignorance is no defense under the law.... so his perceptions may have impacted his behavior but will not be useful in his defense.

I find it interesting that he had his Mom with him for the police interview.... that she was on her way to the airport to fly out when Tina's family found out about the incident and phoned to tell her about it. If I had been her folks I would have been VERY angry about the delay in letting me know my child was dead!

I just can't figure out if Gabe is as dumb as he appears or if he is cunning enough to present himself that way. A very clever person told me one of the smartest things you can do is convince your enemy/adversary you are so dumb they underestimate you.

Some people here don't see motive.... I think the insurance angle is motive enough for some people.

Obviously the police and coroner felt the facts warranted charges. They wouldn't press charges unless they felt they had enough to convict. This is too high profile and expensive a case to pursue without some awful strong evidence. I am inclined to put a lot of weight on that when I form my opinion of how likely Gabe played a criminal role in Tina's death. Not being party to all the evidence means I can not come to a conclusion about his guilt or innocence.

 

[peterbj7]

Bruce - you're missing a fundamental point. What if it is claimed, after the victim has definitively died, that in fact he did have a pulse but you failed to detect it, so by performing heart massage you did in fact kill him? How do you defend yourself against that?

 

[ScubaSteve]

What if monkey trunks were purple? Sorry, this just seemed to fit. Now to get serious, maybe I am too black and white, but how in anybody's name could this ever get through a court system? Unless a coroner could prove it, then I see no way that this sort of speculation could do anything other than lead a jury to a decision. Or am I too black and white? I am not a lawyer so I do ask top those with more knowledge.

Bruce - you're missing a fundamental point. What if it is claimed, after the victim has definitively died, that in fact he did have a pulse but you failed to detect it, so by performing heart massage you did in fact kill him? How do you defend yourself against that?

 

[I Dive]

Bruce - you're missing a fundamental point. What if it is claimed, after the victim has definitively died, that in fact he did have a pulse but you failed to detect it, so by performing heart massage you did in fact kill him? How do you defend yourself against that?

If the person has "definitively died" how is there a pulse for anyone to detect?

 

[ScubaSteve]

JUST A MOOD LIGHTENER but sadly enough it seems relevant.


ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

 

[Dadvocate]

I think the suggestion is that the victim has been attended to by some EFR person. This person has made a mistake in missing a pulse in his initial assessment. Then this person begins chest compressions thus killing the victim.

Would a coroner actually be able to see evidence of this after the fact?

Cheers!