Ocean State Scuba

[Thalassamania]

In a civil trial he was found culpable for his wife's death.

 

[all4scuba05]

Last I heard it doesn't take as much to find a person guilty in a civil trial as it does in the "regular" trial. Yet plenty of people have been wrongly convicted. I don't have the facts of the civil trial, I just hope he isn't another one of those wrongly convicted.

 

[Thalassamania]

In a civil trial, the burden of proof is less than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal cases. A civil jury only has to prove that the defendant is liable by a "preponderance of the evidence" or, in other words, is more likely than not to have done what is alleged.​

 

[Carribeandiver]

I don't think the BVI government is going to waste time dragging this guy back to Tortola if they think that they don't have a case. Remember, most murder investigations and subsequent trials are based in large part on circumstantial evidence. Not many murderers want to get caught, so they tend not to murder someone in front of a large contingent of eyewitnesses. Therefore, most evidence tends to circumstantial as opposed to direct. LobstaMan

perhaps it is that way in Massachusetts but I doubt it.
most murder cases are based on direct evidence, including witnesses, tangible evidence and forensics. The United States Constitution provides and the Supreme Court has held that "probably" guilty is not enough for a conviction. The presumption of innocence afforded the accused is rarely evident today as most think as you do, Lobster man, "if he didnt do it, we wouldnt try him for it". Maybe he did it, maybe he didnt, but one thing is for sure, if the only evidence against him is what was used in a civil trial, he should be acquitted.
Preponderance of evidence is vastly different than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

 

[ScubaSarus]

Exactly as I thought CarribeanDiver; and thats why I posted the article about that girl from CT as there was a criminal conviction without hard evidence in Tortola. Thus things are not looking up for the defendent in this case.

 

[LobstaMan]

perhaps it is that way in Massachusetts but I doubt it.
most murder cases are based on direct evidence, including witnesses, tangible evidence and forensics. The United States Constitution provides and the Supreme Court has held that "probably" guilty is not enough for a conviction. The presumption of innocence afforded the accused is rarely evident today as most think as you do, Lobster man, "if he didnt do it, we wouldnt try him for it". Maybe he did it, maybe he didnt, but one thing is for sure, if the only evidence against him is what was used in a civil trial, he should be acquitted.
Preponderance of evidence is vastly different than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

You're right...most cases use a mixure of direct and circumstantial evidence. I was just giving an example of a case that was almost completely circumstantial just to let people know that it was possible to convict in such a circumstance. Not the norm though, but neither is a case that is 100% direct, scientific, factual evidence.

Dead on about the standard of proof, as well. It's like the difference between being 51% sure and almost 100% sure.

Also, you got me on the 'guilty until proven inocent' mentality. I guess I can't help myself. Maybe it's my reaction to living in such a liberal state!

I see you're from NO. How's the legal system in Louisiana? I heard it's an odd mix of English common law and French codified law? That's what they told us in law school anyway.

LobstaMan

 

[SDE Dennis]

I'm sorry to here this news, I never heard anything about it before. I've been to his shop many times and seen him at DEMA 06. He was going to be an Authorized dealer for us. I don't know what to think or say I just feel bad for him.

Dennis

 

[SadiesMom]

I've known Dave since shortly after I started diving 5 years ago. Although we're definitely more acquaintances than friends, he assisted me during a dive injury incident a few years ago (broke my foot and tore ligaments on an exit) and I worked for him guiding dives one summer. Frankly, I like the guy and have a hard time believing that he did it. (Although, yes, I know that friends/family/neighbors of some mass murderers are *always* saying - "Man, I *never* thought s/he'd do something like that!!!" ).

In any case, I sure hate to see so many people here assuming that simply because Tortola wants to extradite him, he's guilty. Let's wait and see how things turn out before we convict him here....

 

[SDE Dennis]

In any case, I sure hate to see so many people here assuming that simply because Tortola wants to extradite him, he's guilty. Let's wait and see how things turn out before we convict him here....

Thats one reason why I don't know what to say. I to have a hard time believing it.
Dennis

 

[RIOceanographer]

I've known Dave since shortly after I started diving 5 years ago. Although we're definitely more acquaintances than friends, he assisted me during a dive injury incident a few years ago (broke my foot and tore ligaments on an exit) and I worked for him guiding dives one summer. Frankly, I like the guy and have a hard time believing that he did it.

Same here. I was a regular at Dave's shop and I've played in the same underwater hockey league for a couple of years, so feel like I know him fairly well even if I wouldn't call him a close friend of mine. He's always been very friendly to me, even when he had nothing to gain from it.

I don't know what really happened down in BVI, but it is hard for me to imagine Dave being a person capable of not only committing murder, but doing it in a premeditated fashion for money to fund the expansion of his dive shop as the plantiffs alleged in the civil case.