Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[Ayisha]

...the defense is not going to put out that theory.

If the defence is doing a thorough job, they are probably trying to review every scuba board, chat line and any info that pops up on the case to gauge public reaction, what the theories are, and what defences are plausible. Just in this thread alone, cases have been made and broken for both sides, and even weak defences have been given merit by some. Very thorough reasoning and counter-reasoning abound, and can help both the prosecution and defence to make the best possible case - if they do their research.

If Gabe uses a munchausen-by-proxy defence, we'll know to thank that shakeybrainsurgeon! Just kidding! :blinking:

 

[bowlofpetunias]

If the defence is doing a thorough job, they are probably trying to review every scuba board, chat line and any info that pops up on the case to gauge public reaction, what the theories are, and what defences are plausible. Just in this thread alone, cases have been made and broken for both sides, and even weak defences have been given merit by some. Very thorough reasoning and counter-reasoning abound, and can help both the prosecution and defence to make the best possible case - if they do their research.

If Gabe uses a munchausen-by-proxy defence, we'll know to thank that shakeybrainsurgeon! Just kidding! :blinking:

:blinking:been comments about that here before... wouldn't be surprised if many people related to this case are watching this forum. Would be a pretty poor lawyer that relied on info from a bunch of people speculating without access to all the information and evidence on the case.

They may give some weight to the forums when considering divers on the jury. Seems we are all over the map on the question of certification but mostly agree on not leaving your buddy....

I think if I was Gabe I would retreat from the threads with my ears burning considering the generally low opinion most people have expressed

 

[NudeDiver]

If Australia operates anything like America, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will not be any divers, dive operators, dive shop owners, or anyone with a diver as a relative on that jury.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

If Australia operates anything like America, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will not be any divers, dive operators, dive shop owners, or anyone with a diver as a relative on that jury.

Messes up the "Jury of their Peers" theory doesn't it!

 

[ItsBruce]

If the defence is doing a thorough job, they are probably trying to review every scuba board, chat line and any info that pops up on the case to gauge public reaction, what the theories are, and what defences are plausible. Just in this thread alone, cases have been made and broken for both sides, and even weak defences have been given merit by some. Very thorough reasoning and counter-reasoning abound, and can help both the prosecution and defence to make the best possible case - if they do their research.

If Gabe uses a munchausen-by-proxy defence, we'll know to thank that shakeybrainsurgeon! Just kidding! :blinking:

I wanted to respond to this post before any of the others. I will get to them shortly.

I am afraid to say that it is unlikely that the defense is checking the boards. Except when you have a very wealthy defendant who is willing to spend tons of money for a team of lawyers who will do nothing but work on one case, defense lawyers rarely have the time or resources to be that thorough.

 

[peterbj7]

... or interest!

 

[ItsBruce]

Now to address some of the other posts ...

Is there anyone on the boards here who will say that there is no possibility that Tina's death was an accident and that Gabe's bizarre conduct afterwards was just a manifestation of a combination of bad manners, bad judgment and grief, amplified by peoples' desires to blame him for Tina's death?

To me, the single most damning evidence against Gabe is the slow ascent. I consider myself a decent diver. I think I can follow my training. Even so, if my new bride, who took up scuba diving at my behest, got in trouble on a dive and I needed to get help, I expect I would handle it as a CESA rather than as Gabe seems to have done. Under the circumstances, the slow ascent gives me a lot of trouble.

A comment about what Gabe allegedly said at the mortuary ("I'm so sorry, I never meant to hurt you. I shouldn't have kept taking you down. I'm sorry, I couldn't stop.''): Is this wholly inconsistent with what a grieving husband might say if his new bride drowned after taking up diving so she could enjoy diving with him? Should he have had the presence of mind and been articulate enough to say: "I'm so sorry I encouraged you to dive. I never meant for you to take up a sport where you could get hurt. I should never have taken you diving with me. I so enjoy diving and enjoyed having you enjoy it with me that I just could not bring myself to tell you to stop diving."? Is the latter a lot different from the former?

As far as the card he purportedly sent to Tina's friend: The wording was probably tacky to most readers. But, maybe it was a poor attempt at opening a dialog. Just think of all of the tacky "pick-up" lines one hears at bars or other social gatherings. Some people can't come up with anything better.

As far as whether Gabe was "hitting" on Tina's friend or looked for subsequent relationships, if he was truly fond of Tina and of being married to her and her death was an unfortunate accident, is it utterly inconceivable that he might want to replace that feeling as quickly as possible? Before answering, consider how many people jump into new relationships as soon as they break up from an old one. Why do they do this? Answer: Because they want the good feelings that supposedly come from being in a relationship. Why shouldn't Gabe have sought to replace the feelings if he truly loved Tina, etc. If he was unhappy being in a relationship with her, I could see him avoiding another relationship, not trying to get into another one.

Finally (for now): In a criminal trial, the defense generally does not need to announce its theory of the case until after the prosecution has completed the presentation of its case. As a result, the defense can adjust its theory to account for what it learns during the prosecution's presentation of its case. Thus, depending on what the prosecution presents and how the defense perceives the jury's reaction to the prosecution's evidence, the defense can decide whether to frame its case as "Scuba diving can be dangerous and Tina's death was just an unfortunate accident;" or "Gabe and Tina planned on scamming their insurance company and their plan went awry." (Note: The second may expose Gabe to jail time, but not necessarily for murder.)

 

[redrover]

I'm sorry if I came across as asking you to defend a position. I am, however, curious why you you would not take each instance in and of itself as evidence of guilt, but would find motive by putting them all together. (I am curious because the answer may help me better understand issues with which I am faced in my cases.) Aren't the different things just cumulative evidence of financial gain?

It seems to me that if there was evidence of possible financial gain AND evidence of a specific need for money, that would make the motive for murder stronger than if there was simply a lot of evidence of possible financial gain.

GTG

Respectfully
Bruce

Not sure I understand your question, if this is what you ask and I realize you weren't asking me. If I had the gonads I would have been a criminal attorney. The interpretation and manipulating of law is fascinating.

I do look at the big picture. In fact although Gabe looks to me to be guilty of something IÃÎ not comfortable as a juror I would be able to find him guilty of murder from what I know here. One of my biggest problems is that financial gain aspect. I am someone who 1,000 + $ and/or a home would be a true blessing or it could be shown I would have definite need.
Yet what gives me the most trouble is risking the penalty for such a crime for so little financial gain. I have to say tho, thanks to K-Girl extensive attention to this case, I am beginning to think he may well be incredibly stupid and naý×e (among other things) to not expect an insurance company was not going to do their own investigation whether any one else suspected foul play or not.

And a side note, hope this wonÃÕ be blown out of proportion, but I am also really wondering about Tina. In light of the ludicrous depiction of him we have here; that she chose to marry him. Not bumbling or ignorant or not the sharpest tool in the drawer or cleverly deceptive. But is coming across as dumber than a box of rocks.
So that too is my view point, I canÃÕ seem to grasp any reasonably intelligent person choosing to spend the rest of their life with a box of rocks (that is not filthy rich J.) I do not intend to be cruel but Tina does seem to not be the sharpest tool on the box and possible she killed herself, with or without GabeÃÔ help.

 

[M.HARDY]

I remember that....I seen that segment on 20/20..seemed to me the guy did it. I take it they never charged him,

 

[redrover]

...or "Gabe and Tina planned on scamming their insurance company and their plan went awry." (Note: The second may expose Gabe to jail time, but not necessarily for murder.)

I am not wound up in the happy couple thing, I have seen too many people just marry, and stay married for all sorts of reasons, bliss is not mandatory or universal.

I did not think of the scam direction©Øow. 'TinaÃÔ father ÀûI>Mr Thomas, an insurance management consultant for more than 30 years, confirmed that several weeks before the wedding, Tina had told him Gabe had asked her to increase her work life insurance from the basic level of $34,000 to the maximum level of five times its value, to $170,000.'
</I>Could there be some conspiracy? Innocent dissemination of information? I do not recall seeing he was in the insurance business before. Hmmmm.

'Mr Thomas said he had told his daughter there was plenty of time to do that after they returned from their honeymoon, and to tell Mr Watson it had been taken care of.'
So©¥addy tells his beloved daughter to lie to the new life long companion? That statement keeps nagging at me, something is wrong.

There complexities are mind boggling.