Sandra Stewart sues a whole lot more folks

[Ayisha]

Wasn’t that a hypoxic certification that they wanted retracted?

Yes it was.

 

[Alan Browne]

Finally watched the CBC doc "The Third Dive: The Death of Rob Stewart" which I'm sure many of you have.

Hackles up preventative statement: 1) I have no dog in this hunt. 2) Just commenting on the things that stuck out to me.

A few things stick out (which have likely been stated here before).

1. During the body recovery the divers 'moved the body' rather than simply attach it to a float. (Forensic examiner believes this to have been a wrong thing to do).

2. The medical examiner notes that an insurance co. investigator (a lawyer for the dive shop/boat operator) was on the boat that made the recovery (same dive shop operator (I think)).

3. This really stuck out: phone call to (the sheriff?) from the boat after Rob's body was pulled onto the boat: "... as soon as we do some forensics." Recorded. Nobody on the boat had legal authority to do "forensics". (or skills for that matter - I assume).

4. Sotis' symptoms were likely similar to what affected Rob.

5. Forensics examiner gets fired under specious circumstances. (Specious being "political" in this case).

6. Sotis says at some point that in his opinion there's no issue in making 3 deep dives in 1 day. (Really?). Canadian marine biologist's opinion is 1/day max. (I have no idea. Further the durations of these dives was not clearly stated in the video that I heard).

7. Sotis says at some point, "Rob would do what Rob wanted to do regardless of what you told him." (or words to that effect). IOW Rob was 'strong willed'. I don't have much problem believing that. His past activism is witness to it...

I'm no expert at all in this, but it's those sorts of things that do make for a court case...

And of course I'm sure there are oodles of things that were not included in that doc...

And finally, all accidents have a lot of things in the chain of events.

 

[lv2dive]

Have you read this thread which puts the “documentary” in context?

Finally watched the CBC doc "The Third Dive: The Death of Rob Stewart" which I'm sure many of you have.

Hackles up preventative statement: 1) I have no dog in this hunt. 2) Just commenting on the things that stuck out to me.

A few things stick out (which have likely been stated here before).

1. During the body recovery the divers 'moved the body' rather than simply attach it to a float. (Forensic examiner believes this to have been a wrong thing to do).

2. The medical examiner notes that an insurance co. investigator (a lawyer for the dive shop/boat operator) was on the boat that made the recovery (same dive shop operator (I think)).

3. This really stuck out: phone call to (the sheriff?) from the boat after Rob's body was pulled onto the boat: "... as soon as we do some forensics." Recorded. Nobody on the boat had legal authority to do "forensics". (or skills for that matter - I assume).

4. Sotis' symptoms were likely similar to what affected Rob.

5. Forensics examiner gets fired under specious circumstances. (Specious being "political" in this case).

6. Sotis says at some point that in his opinion there's no issue in making 3 deep dives in 1 day. (Really?). Canadian marine biologist's opinion is 1/day max. (I have no idea. Further the durations of these dives was not clearly stated in the video that I heard).

7. Sotis says at some point, "Rob would do what Rob wanted to do regardless of what you told him." (or words to that effect). IOW Rob was 'strong willed'. I don't have much problem believing that. His past activism is witness to it...

I'm no expert at all in this, but it's those sorts of things that do make for a court case...

And of course I'm sure there are oodles of things that were not included in that doc...

And finally, all accidents have a lot of things in the chain of events.

 

[Alan Browne]

If you would only implement a system in which a side that looses in court is mandated to pay all costs of other side/s, you would have a way less sue happy people.

That would truly favour the 1%er who would white-paper the plaintiff into the poor house.

 

[Alan Browne]

Have you read this thread which puts the “documentary” in context?

Many parts - thread is long.

First off I wanted to give my opinion of the documentary. On the positive side the doc makers did not seem to interject or interpret much. (OTOH, I have no idea about what got left on the cutting room floor or what was not even explored).

Do note that I have little doubt that Rob was pushing limits. OTOH, the points I note above stand for themselves - such as the on-the-boat-forensics where no forensics qualified or authorized person was present. There is no interpreting that other than what the call recorded... why was the forensics M.D. fired? ( Really).

Rob Stewart was an experienced diver.
Rob Stewart was a new re-breather diver.

Sotis came across to me as very competent. For that matter any criminal past he had has absolutely nothing to do with this. He served his time and seems to have been doing well for himself in the meantime. Edit: I've been reading more in another thread about Sotis/AH v. the cert agency, and that adds a lot of dimensions to it - not in Sotis' favour to be sure. Still doesn't clarify very well the following question:

But - much ambiguity over their "mode" of diving that day (training? Completing training? Neither?)

Anyone pulling this rope in any direction only wants a particular outcome. That is the gist of all of it and the courts will sort it out to no one's complete or partial satisfaction.

 

[Lizzardia]

Not for the first time, someone manipulates the court in favor of a particular decision.