LobstaMan
Guest
"By the way, it's my understanding that the reason why the scuba gear was handled by a civilian, was due to the defendant trying to make it look like a scuba accident."
I had no idea this happened. I thought as I read that diver went down afterwards and retrieved the gear an brought to the authorities attention who were not interested. I didn't read anything about the defendent having someone do this intentionally.
I think you misundertsood what I was trying to say about the dive gear. The defendant didn't send someone down there to retrieve the gear intentionally. I read the story exactly as you did. I was trying to say that the evidence should not be excluded because it was handled by a civilian as opposed to a CSI type. The reason it was handled like this was because the defendant tricked(supposedly) the authorities and some others into thinking it was an accident. This forced an interested civilian to go back and get the rest of the woman's gear. The defendant should not be rewarded due to his alleged trickery. Hopefully that cleared up my point. If you want to call that scenario neglect on the part of the BVI investigators, I guess you could.
LobstaMan