Scuba diver dies after being found floating at Kurnell, NSW, Australia

[boulderjohn]

I am always amazed that police (at least here in NSW) do not consult with experts when investigating scuba diving deaths.

"Experts' can also give contrasting opinions on the same topic.

clownfishsidney, I wonder what you would consider to be required to achieve expert status. I believe that in the Tina Watson case you cited, the problems started when two experienced divers, experts in most people's opinions, offered their expert testimony that challenged Gabe Watson's eye witness story. If it were not for their "expert" analysis, there never would have been a trial. Of course, they turned out to be totally wrong, and the police should never have listened to them.

Research has consistently shown that people who are not experts cannot tell the difference between true experts and pretenders.

 

[clownfishsydney]

Boulderjohn, yes, hard to work that one out. There are a number of people in Australia who could be called on to investigate/assist such incidents, but they do not get asked to help. In the case of a recent death in Vanuatu that I was asked to look into by the family, the Vanuatu Government has now asked an Australian expert to investigate on their behalf. The trouble is that in some cases the people consulted have a vested interest (eg the head of a dive agency who was also head of dive tourism association is not going to give frank advice) and others just do not have the knowledge.

Yes, in Tina Watson's case, two US divers who originally raised no matters of concern, and one who actually complained to the dive operator about the poor way Gabe was treated, later complained to Tina's Dad about what happened. They testified in court as experts but what they claimed Gabe could have done was so much rubbish it was unbelieveable.

The problem remains that in most cases, the truth is unlikely to ever come out and be told to family, friends and the public.

 

[Phil_C]

Having worked in the investigation field for a long time I have to say that there is often a misunderstanding of the roles of various parties involved. I have variously (in 32 years of police service) been part of a police underwater search and rescue team, a criminal detective (for several years), and acted as a coroners officer investigating deaths. I have been directly involved in the investigation of probably in excess of 50 deaths, ranging from homicide, homicide/suicide pacts, industrial accidents, light aircraft and helicopter crashes and sudden unexplained infant deaths.

Certainly in the UK it is the role of the investigator to put together a file of all the evidence - the facts - NOT the investigators INTERPRETATION of those facts.

The role of an expert witness differs considerably - an expert witness DOES NOT investigate anything. An expert witness provides an OPINION based on their professional experience, (which usually has to be evidenced to the court), in order to allow the court, whether it is a criminal court or a coroners inquest, to interpret the evidence an facts recorded by the investigator .

This is why you will often get expert witnesses with different opinions and explanations. They give their OPINION it is for the court to decide how they will interpret the evidence.

So in effect an investigator does not need expert knowledge himself, he needs an open mind, the ability to gather and present, in a logical and cogent form, all the FACTS, together with expert comment on those facts.

In many cases it is bad for a so called expert to conduct the investigation - they fall into the trap of what is often referred to as the self fulfilling prophesy - they form an initial view of what they think has happened, then subconsciously notice and record, and add weight to the evidence they find which TENDS TO SUPPORT their initial assumption, and they ignore or give no weight to evidence WHICH TENDS TO NEGATE their initial view.

A properly trained criminal or coroners investigator does not need to have specialised knowledge, they will automatically secure and record all evidence such as dive computers and so on, and will get those analysed by a specialist, the investigator will then record and present the outcomes from the analysis which if necessary they will get an expert interpretation of which in turn will then become part of the evidence.

It strikes me that the criticisms I am seeing are not because the investigator has no diving knowledge, but because the investigator isn't very well trained in making a full an impartial investigation full stop, if they were, and were thorough in their investigation, then they don't need any expert knowledge.

Regards - Phil.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

In many cases it is bad for a so called expert to conduct the investigation - they fall into the trap of what is often referred to as the self fulfilling prophesy - they form an initial view of what they think has happened, then subconsciously notice and record, and add weight to the evidence they find which TENDS TO SUPPORT their initial assumption, and they ignore or give no weight to evidence WHICH TENDS TO NEGATE their initial view.

This is a great point to make, interpretation causes one to ignore facts and implant suposition to create a predetermined outcome.

Having worked in the Emergency Medical field I have been close to many investigations as well. Many of my friends who are investigators including Fire Dept, RCMP, and even a Lawyer I know all said the same thing to me. Eye witness accounts were among some of the worst evidence they collected. They Commented that Depending on whom they spoke too and how often, thier view of the events changed. Even the way you asked questions could lead them to provide information which could Contradict themselves or be Disproven.

What would your take on that be Phil? Are eye witness interviews equal to Collected evidence in accuracy during the process? (I guess the question may be moot because its left to the interpretation of those reviewing the evidence, but I'm curious of your opinion on it as all any of us have at this point is based off the Dive Buddies info)

And Thanks for that Post Phil it was very informative.

 

[clownfishsydney]

Phil, I agree that an expert does not need to do the investigation if they seek the views and assistance of someone who is an expert at whatever is at the core of what happened, be it scuba diving or sky diving. Most people would not even think that a dive couputer could be downloaded and the information contained in it being of great use in trying to see what happened. In addition, even if an expert is brought in, they must be given access to each and every bit of information that has been collected, no matter how irrelevant it may seem to the investigator.

I hate to hark back to the Tina Watson case again, but it is the perfect example of bad investigation. In that case, there were numerous statements by witnesses that corroborated a lot of what Gabe had said happened. However, this evidence was never presented to the Coroner's Inquest, presumably because it backed up what Gabe said happened. There were also statements by people who tested his dive computer which also confirmed that the computer behaved as he reported it did but which was ridiculed by police. In addition, things he said in his first and second interviews (albeit not really clear - understandable considering what had happened) were not understood by the police, but an experienced diver would have picked up what was meant. I did the first time I read what he had said and it was this that led me to change my mind about what I thought had happened and to decide that he was undoubtedly not guilty.

Back in the early 1990s I attended an inquest into two divers who died inside a wreck off Sydney. In that case no evidence was presented at all from experts. People diving on the same boat as the deceased were asked for expert opinions about nitrogen narcosis and how that affected divers. They stated that they were not affected at all even though the dive was to almost 50 metres. The inquest actually closed without some real experts giving their views as the coroner decided that there was nothing else to be gained by questioning any more people. A chance was lost to get proper information so that the coroner could make an informed judgement and perhaps make recommendations that would assist people.

Anyway, back to the matter of this thread. It is unlikely that any official statement or report will ever be released about what happened. I will again approach the people involved in the accident and seek their approval to provide a full report (using the information known to them and me) on what happened, both factual and with some assumptions. If I get that approval, I will post the report either on my own web site or here.

 

[Phil_C]

I could write a thesis on eye-witness evidence I'm afraid.

My initial detective training course (a specialist three month course run after I was already a fully qualified police officer) ran an exercise which was unknown to all the course participants.

Basically no one was there who was not already a very experienced police officer, we were all expert "witnesses" in the sense that we were supposed to be able to see and record facts - you had to be to get a detective recommendation and sent on the course, I already had two or three years full time investigation experience.

We were out of class on a what turned out to be a fictitious visit to a local TV studio to talk about handling the media. Whilst we were outside just getting off the bus an assault and robbery took place immediately in front of us (but in an area where we could not intervene so we had to stand and watch).

Immediately we were separated and isolated and told to write our witness statements and our account of what had happened. We were then taken into a lecture theatre where we discussed what we had seen - you would be surprised how many differing accounts there were. Right from the descriptions of people, events and so on.

We were then encouraged to discuss and "decide" who was right and what had actually happened. An agreed version of events was arrived at, which looking back at it was most influenced by whoever was most vocal and forceful in putting forward their account of the events. Most people changed, modified or added to their accounts to some extent.

Then came the crippler - the so called robbery had been filmed by the TV station, and so were our discussions on the events - we were shown the playback - the agreed version, decided upon by a room full of experienced and expert detectives did not match the real event ! In some cases the agreed version - which a bunch of hard nosed detectives would ague vehemently was right - was in some cases a far cry from what we had all seen.

We then spent two days analysing the films, the process we had gone through, and discussing why witnesses change their accounts depending on who they are spoken to by, how questions are put, and whether they have discussed the events with other people, whether involved or not. I can say it was a real eye opener, and I learnt a lot about witness behaviour and psychology.

I have always tried to live up to the high ideal of a completely impartial investigation - but human nature often precludes this. When it comes to an investigation give me hard factual physical evidence, whether it is blood stains, equipment, dive computers and so on, over an eye witness any day. What any eye witness has to say needs to be considered, the circumstances of the witness, their proximity to events and their personal emotions all need to be considered, then the account they give needs to be verified wherever possible by hard physical evidence if at all possible.

Otherwise I always think back to that room full of hard nosed detectives - every one of us KNEW WE WERE RIGHT and would have sworn it on the Bible if asked to, when we saw the playbacks - the reality was very different. Regards - Phil.

---------- Post added November 11th, 2013 at 09:43 PM ----------

I hate to hark back to the Tina Watson case again, but it is the perfect example of bad investigation.

And that sadly is the bottom-line, nothing to do with expert witnesses, diving knowledge or anything else. Bad investigation procedures and techniques and evidence gathering protocols.

When it comes to crime scene preservation the bottom line has to be Locard's Principal - that is every contact leaves a trace, therefore anything, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant may be crucial to what happened, which is why in all thorough investigations everything is seized and locked down. The investigator doesn't need to know that a dive computer can be downloaded when the scene is preserved, if the computer is secured, and no-one fiddles with it, then the evidence is safe, and when the evidence is gone through someone looks at it - says "what is this?" and then researches it and contacts the company involved.

We routinely do it with phones, computers, cameras GPS devices - basically everything and anything. A scene of crimes officer (UK equivalent of a CSI) goes through every items of evidence seized and finds out what is, what it does, was it working right, and what can it tell me, not just does it have fingerprints on it and so on. This is the stage at which expert opinion is sought of the facts and evidence.

 

[gypsyjim]

Phil, a question from a complete novice: how thorough would such an investigation of all of that physical evidence be, if there was a early determination that a death was more than likely an accident?

It seems to me that locally, some deqths seem to be quickly called accidental, while with others the determination takes far longer.

I am just curious.

 

[Phil_C]

. I did the first time I read what he had said and it was this that led me to change my mind about what I thought had happened and to decide that he was undoubtedly not guilty.

My emphasis - and exactly why from that point onwards you would not have been an impartial and effective investigator - from that moment you have developed a bias and a prejudice.

This is exactly the sort of fallacious thought processes on behalf on investigators that leads to the self fulfilling prophesy I was referring to. Also as an aside it is not for the investigator to decide anything - that is for a judge and jury, the investigator just presents the facts - all of them - not just those he likes or that support his opinion of what he thinks is right. Anything less is just bad investigation - I'm not having a personal pop at you but it illustrates my point precisely about investigations - regards Phil.

---------- Post added November 11th, 2013 at 10:33 PM ----------

Phil, a question from a complete novice: how thorough would such an investigation of all of that physical evidence be, if there was a early determination that a death was more than likely an accident?

It seems to me that locally, some deqths seem to be quickly called accidental, while with others the determination takes far longer.

I am just curious.

Jim, a difficult one to give you an exact answer - and partially it depends where you are. In the Tina Watson case it seems early on someone decided there had been foul play, so in this case it was in effect a homicide investigation and should have been belt and braces. That said standards in homicide investigations range from perfect to very poor, and a homicide investigation is no guarantee that things get done right, if I had been supervising it I would not have been happy with what I read of the Watson investigation. On the face of it there appears to have been a biassed investigation, but note I say there appears to have been, I do not know.

One of the roles I had for several years was to assess and decide the level of investigation required at the scene of a death. Before I would agree to a coroners investigation (in a case of natural causes or accident) - rather than a homicide investigation I had to be satisfied beyond doubt that there was no evidence that could not be explained by the hypothesis of an accident etc. If I could not be sure then it was treated as homicide until such time as it was ruled out.

You can scale back the effort later, but you cannot recover lost evidence or opportunities to preserve evidence if you don't do it from the outset. So I would regularly lock down a scene until I was happy it wasn't needed.

But there was often a lot of pressure to close things down quickly, especially if there was high profile people or places involved, or if a scene lockdown was causing commercial loss.

Also it has to be recognised that in small police units there are often not the experienced or trained officers to deal with these types of incidents, and unless there is something really high profile about the case they do not get outside help. Sometimes they do not know what a good investigation looks like themselves.

I spent a few years towards the end of my service where I regularly worked abroad, providing training and consultancy advice on investigations, I worked in many countries including former Soviet states, and several African countries. Standards of investigation in many of them was very poor for general incidents, let alone for properly dealing with fatalities of any sort, a situation that I think you would find replicated worldwide - Phil

---------- Post added November 11th, 2013 at 10:53 PM ----------

Phil, a question from a complete novice: how thorough would such an investigation of all of that physical evidence be, if there was a early determination that a death was more than likely an accident?

Sorry Jim - missed this part when I responded - I can only speak for the UK, but even in a coroners investigation the coroner has to rule on cause and mechanism of death, so for example in a scuba diving death cause might be drowning as a result of accident, misadventure, negligence and so on. This cause of death is important when it comes to life insurance claims and so on, some policies might cover accident but not misadventure, so there has to be an investigation that gives enough evidence to allow that cause and mechanism to be decided by the coroner.

To that effect the investigation of the physical evidence in any death in the UK will be as thorough as for a homicide to decide the causation. The difference will be that in a homicide once cause and mechanism has been determined then the investigation goes further to find evidence of who and why. In investigation terms it is called 5WH.

What, where, when, how, who and why.

For a coroners investigation we want absolute answers to numbers 1 to 4 - if it is a homicide you go onto answer 5 and 6 as well.

P

 

[boulderjohn]

In many cases it is bad for a so called expert to conduct the investigation - they fall into the trap of what is often referred to as the self fulfilling prophesy - they form an initial view of what they think has happened, then subconsciously notice and record, and add weight to the evidence they find which TENDS TO SUPPORT their initial assumption, and they ignore or give no weight to evidence WHICH TENDS TO NEGATE their initial view.

Earlier this year, the person who ran the primary crime lab for the state of Colorado was fired, and it eventually came out that it was determined that she was far too actively "rooting" for convictions of people already determined to be suspects. In the aftermath, it was revealed that our local police department and district attorney had realized that some time ago and had turned to private labs for all their work, fearing that eventually cases would be overturned because of blatant lab bias.

I recently met someone who works in the crime lab for another state. He has been doing it for a little over a year after earning his degree. I told him that story, and he was a bit surprised in a way that puzzled me. I pressed him on it, asking him if it isn't true that the lab is supposed to maintain 100% objectivity in analyzing evidence. He hemmed and hawed, and then said that, no, they pretty much see their job as confirming the prosecutor's theory of who is guilty.

 

[Phil_C]

John - Sadly yes, and police officers often act the same way as well. They are sure they know who is guilty and look to prove guilt rather than investigate openly. There was a (im)famous case in the UK in the late 1980's involving a specialist police unit called the West Midlands Crime Squad.

They were so certain they knew who the baddies were that they went a step further and started to fabricate evidence as well.

The case led to a lot of convictions being overturned, and one of the most radical changes in investigation and rules of evidence for 100 years in the UK. Including a law which says the prosecution HAS to disclose to the defence team every single piece of information, communication and evidence, whether they think it relevant of not. And that is a lot of information in a homicide case !

Human nature comes in and the need to be the cop or prosecutor who gets the conviction starts to blur real professionalism and judgement. But that is a whole different can of worms.

P