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

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

They were so certain they knew who the baddies were that they went a step further and started to fabricate evidence as well.
Everyone in America knows about the O. J. Simpson case, but most do not know that this was a factor in his original acquittal. When the jury was interviewed afterward, they said that some of the evidence presented was clearly planted by the police, and one of the policemen who testified came across as blatantly biased. Once they felt they could not trust SOME of the evidence the police presented, they wondered how they could trust ANY of the evidence presented. In the follow up trial, the evidence that was supposed to have been planted was not presented, and the clearly biased policeman did not testify.
 
uhm forgive me for saying this but.... Somehow we took this thread WAY into left Feild. I'm as Guilty as the next guy for taking this off track by asking questions about investigative processes. But now that OJ has come up; as well as a Multitude of other cases.... perhaps its worth starting another thread for this discussion as it now has little if even anything to do with Marcia.

As many people keep asking about a summary I'll Repost....

We have had many comments on how long this thread has become. We have seen tangents taken down roads of quite possibly wild speculations. I'm not saying that this is bad, I think the fact that this tragedy has made divers think and re-think their own dive practices was the spirit in which these kinds of threads are intended to be useful

As we see in the post from scubadada the facts have been clouded in the mire of speculation and theorising so I will summarize

Prior to the events of that Day Posts and coments were made by Quero regarding
1) Dificulties experianced arround the new Drysuit (However its worth noting She had dived sucessfully while wearing this suit prior to the dive in question.
2) How to tweak her set up because of point #1 (Yes the new tweaks "may" have had somthing to do with the incident but there is no evidence it did)
3) She complained of leg pains (Again it "may" be related to some medical cause but there is no evidence it did)

On the dive in question..... I am combinding the info from posts # 83, 104, 113, 114, 120, 123

The dive site was fairly benign – with good conditions and good viz.
There were four divers in the water on Monday. One chose to move away from the group at various times (Presumably Quero)
Near the end of the dive, the group surfaced, presumably to get a bearing on the exact exit point.
On the surface, the group was somewhat separated, but communicating. (Quero Said she had 50 Bar)
One of the divers told Quero to come close to the group while on the surface. The response was she was fine and will meet them on the sand
The group descended, presumably because the swim to the exit point was easier underwater.
eventually seperating herself from the group of two she was with and Quero swam past the third diver
At some point during the swim in, Quero got further separated from the group.
Shortly after becoming separated, the group of 2 surfaced #1 & 2 began looking for bubbles when they first exited the water-this is the norm for them. They could not locate bubbles. When diver #3 surfaced (rebreather diver) he was immediately asked if he saw/knew where Quero was.
Searching for Quero Immediatly started once the seperation was recognised (While still in the water).
Two members of the group immediately started a search, a third went to shore for help.
One of the group found her shortly after, motionless on the bottom. Time lapse between separation was approximately 10-15 minutes.
Quero was found near the dive exit. Im taking 2mtr to 5mtrs of water, depending on where you are. Ordinarily its a easy incline along a sandy bottom with sea grass towards a rocky shore. Depending on tide you can swim to the shore or flat rock hop to get to land.
She was brought to the surface, and In Water Rescue Breaths were given.
With the assistance of people from the boat, she was brought to shore.
CPR was being performed when Ambulance arrived and took over.


All gear appeared to have been functioning properly during the dive.
She did not show signs of distress or physical ailment during the dive, up until the point of separation.
There were no known medical issues.
It appears that she swam away from the group, for unknown reasons.
Upon realization, the group immediately started a search and found her relatively quickly.
All attempts at resuscitation failed.


All other information as I have been able to understand in this thread has been the matter of Speculation

The amount of weight was stated as fact but latter found to be an estimate (anyone who has lifted an unconcious or dead body knows they feel heavier than normal) Actual weight requires the Police to reliquish her equipment and Autopsy Report

The Tank was empty when Quero was found may be a fact but the theory she ran out of air is not we have no way of knowing if she died or had problems before or after the tank emptied (purged) or in fact how it came to be empty.

The Readings said 10 Bar, the asumption the readings are/were incorect would require the Police to release the Dive Gear.

ClownfishSydney has had the oportunity to look at two dive computers, but I for one don't think he has seen the ONLY computer which has any Factual bearing on what hapned to Quero (Hers) because the Police are still in control of it.

Pictures of her in her gear are all Prior to the incident in question. As no one saw what hapned no one took the only picture which would tell us what hapned. The closest thing we have is her dive computer which the Police yet retain.

Until the Police release an official report we will likely get no more pertinant Facts than those already given.

No ofence to anyone who wrote a theory, I found them enlightning "Posabilities" but not factual. I was amazed people would go so far as to atempt a theoretical calculation as to amout of air ect. However I feel it important (for the clarity of the thread) to point out that using somone elses dive computer and somone elses breathing rates to calcculate Queros exact situation is imposible. It is Theory only, and anyone trying to pass it off as factual is in actuality misrepresenting the facts. I thank those who theorised in this thread for clearly pointing out what was theory... it helped me a lot to seperate them from the actual events that day

Jax said it best

"Jax # 113

Who is to say that whatever happened in the moments of separation could have been prevented?

It's really important to not go down the "if only" ramp, because it leads to "should've, could've, ought to've" that no one could forsee."


I myself am now waiting to hear either directly from the dive buddies or from the police investigative report.... anyything else is speculation. I dont think I missed anything, but I didnt have time to re-read 76 Pages.

Ultimately the last couple Pages have been regarding the Investigative Process so a basic Recap of the High Points that were concerning so many....


From Phil_C an Investigator with 32 Years Police Experiance in the UK Post # 803

"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."

"an expert witness DOES NOT investigate anything. An expert witness provides an OPINION based on their professional experience,"

" 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."

"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."

Phil_C also explained in Post # 806

In an investigation the Witnesses are seperated, and questioned. Thier interpretation of the facts may differ at that time. However once allowed to discuss the incident amongst themselves and other people the facts can be greatly distorted. (He had a wonderful example of this)


I know it may seem silly to re-post this info from Phil_C so closely to when he posted originally, but this is the information that didnt refer to other diving deaths ect. And it may go a long way to explaining why so many people are grasping at straws right now and going over the same theories again and again.

All we have are the (Second Hand) Accounts of the Three Dive Buddies. The Summary above was all collected Early on in the thread. As far as I can summise all three dive buddies agree to those facts. And there are so few that we are left to wonder. All we can do is come up with theories as to what hapned, and with so little evidence it is easy to use it to support whatever theory we are trying to prove (Self Fulfilling Prophesy).

I would love to know how far into the Investigative process the Police are. All we know is the Police Divers recovered the Camera. Other gear was taken by the police including her Dive computer. I beleive there was mention that the Autopsy was done. Without these things at our disposal we will be left with the only four things we can do.

1) Guess and make things up
2) Critique the Police Investigation
3) Discuss other Deaths and Investigations hoping for some clue (Even OJ Simpson?)
4) Wait for some statement or report

I hope this post helps put us back on Topic and saves new readers 82 Pages and 813 Posts worth of time.
 
I think the point of the diversion was understanding how investigations work so that information can be applied to this specific case.

To get back to this specific case, I can tell you on very good authority that police divers are participating in the investigation of the incident, and it is ongoing as I write.
 
Boulderjohn, I am aware that one of the divers is today meeting with police divers. However, as I have previously stated, they do not investigate diving deaths. The only involvement I have ever heard in NSW of is to test regulators and tanks (perhaps) to advise if they are working okay. I will know later today if this case is different to the norm.
 
Just a minor point, but I shudder when I see things like "you should take a download of the computer to see what happened".

Phil has it right - lock down the evidence first - then get a computer forensic expert to examine the computer - not a dive expert.

In the case of a dive computer you might not be destroying evidence by downloading it, but you likely would be contaminating it - and for clarity in almost any other kind of computer downloading the data (without knowing exactly what you are doing) WILL destroy evidence.

One of the things I did before retiring was to do forensic computer work with a team of experts investigating lawyers when things went wrong. No criminal experience, but the principles are the same.
 
Just a minor point, but I shudder when I see things like "you should take a download of the computer to see what happened".

Phil has it right - lock down the evidence first - then get a computer forensic expert to examine the computer - not a dive expert.

In the case of a dive computer you might not be destroying evidence by downloading it, but you likely would be contaminating it - and for clarity in almost any other kind of computer downloading the data (without knowing exactly what you are doing) WILL destroy evidence.

One of the things I did before retiring was to do forensic computer work with a team of experts investigating lawyers when things went wrong. No criminal experience, but the principles are the same.

There is not a lot of data in the computer, and the forensic expert could download the data and give it to a dive expert or even just a bunch of divers for opinions. I don't see any reason to think that this is a criminal investigation, so sharing the data should not compromise the investigation. Keep in mind this is only my opinion, I have seen a few episodes of CSI, but I am far from a forensic expert :)

Ultimately, the computer probably won't give up much in terms of definitive reasons for the incident. It would probably show whether or not Quero surfaced once more after the buddy discussion, but it won't give any reason as to why she either surfaced and went back down, or didn't surface at all. If it were air integrated, it would also show when she ran out of gas, and any changes in depth after that (e.g. attempt to surface).
 
To get back to this specific case, I can tell you on very good authority that police divers are participating in the investigation of the incident, and it is ongoing as I write.

I have been authorized to be a little more specific. The police divers will be interviewing the rest of the divers who were there over the next few weeks.
 
I have been authorized to be a little more specific. The police divers will be interviewing the rest of the divers who were there over the next few weeks.

So long as they do not try to impose their 'impression' of what happened on the witnesses then this will be a good thing. There is something called the 'PEACE" interview model - it is mandatory in the UK, from my own knowledge widely taught and adopted in many other European countries and also widely used in Canada and New Zealand. I'm not sure about Australia but I would expect that it is also considered best practice there.

Essentially it is a process to be followed and applied which allows the witness to give their account, with clarification and understanding of what the witness is saying being tested and confirmed, but without the interviewer superimposing any of their own prejudices or assumptions on the witness.

So long as this sort of model is followed then the common vocabulary and understanding of someone who understands the context (diving) that the witness is talking about will be a good thing. - Phil.
 
More information:

The Police divers advised the people who dived with Marcia that they had already downloaded Marcia's computer before starting the re-interviewing of the witnesses.

Marcia's dive companions did not find the Police who interviewed them originally on the day to be leading anywhere with their questions. They did ask what they thought had caused the event, but the companions were not able to identify anything that would indicate a cause.
 
Just a minor point, but I shudder when I see things like "you should take a download of the computer to see what happened".

Phil has it right - lock down the evidence first - then get a computer forensic expert to examine the computer - not a dive expert.

In the case of a dive computer you might not be destroying evidence by downloading it, but you likely would be contaminating it - and for clarity in almost any other kind of computer downloading the data (without knowing exactly what you are doing) WILL destroy evidence.

One of the things I did before retiring was to do forensic computer work with a team of experts investigating lawyers when things went wrong. No criminal experience, but the principles are the same.

Why would downloading the data contaminate the date on the computer. I have both Oceanic and Shearwater and can download that as many times as I want to any PC and the data is NOT contaminated on the dive computer? I fail to see how this can be done by simply downloading it? perhaps I am missing something??????
 

Back
Top Bottom