Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[Subfiend]

My understanding is that PADI is still in suit and has not settled yet

All parties have settled all claims in the civil lawsuit.

 

[kammel78]

All parties have settled all claims in the civil lawsuit.

Will you continue to push for reexamining the possibility of criminal charges?

 

[Subfiend]

Will you continue to push for reexamining the possibility of criminal charges?

Absolutely. The National Park Service Investigative Service Branch's investigation was purposefully incomplete. The ISB failed to follow their own procedures, failed to involve the NPS DSO, stopped speaking to experts who were advising the first investigator (who was at Glacier National Park), failed to consider critical evidence, and ignored or misinterpreted the evidence they had. The AUSA relied on the ISB's purposefully inept investigation in deciding not to bring charges.

 

[Seaweed Doc]

No. I plan to come back on here in the next few days to clear up some of the misstatements of fact and answer questions if anyone is interested.

David Concannon

That will be much appreciated. Thank you for doing it.

 

[kammel78]

Absolutely. The National Park Service Investigative Service Branch's investigation was purposefully incomplete. The ISB failed to follow their own procedures, failed to involve the NPS DSO, stopped speaking to experts who were advising the first investigator (who was at Glacier National Park), failed to consider critical evidence, and ignored or misinterpreted the evidence they had. The AUSA relied on the ISB's purposefully inept investigation in deciding not to bring charges.

Thank you. I know anyone who believes in justice and accountability appreciates your efforts.

 

[VikingDives]

No. I plan to come back on here in the next few days to clear up some of the misstatements of fact and answer questions if anyone is interested.

David Concannon

I really hope you do this. I'd read every word.

 

[MrVegas]

No. I plan to come back on here in the next few days to clear up some of the misstatements of fact and answer questions if anyone is interested.

David Concannon

Thank you for this offer. I have many questions about this case. I mean no disrespect and I realize that a terrible tragedy occurred and I feel terrible for the family. However, this is the litigation forum, and the discussion on this forum has largely seemed to take the allegations in the Complaint as proven facts. Of course, the Defendants denied liability and even some of the allegations changed as the case proceeded. So here are some questions, and I hope none of these seem harsh -- I have only been trying to follow this through some of the court documents.

1. Were depositions conducted in this case? If so, who was deposed and when?
   
2. In the first Complaint, you alleged that the “Gull Dive Defendants” (defined as the Olsons, Snow, and Liston) placed weights in Ms. Mills' BCD and drysuit pockets. In the Second Amended Complaint, you alleged that Nathan Dudden placed the weights in the BCD, and only indicated that additional weight was later found in the drysuit pockets. Why was this allegation changed and who put the weights in the BCD and drysuit pockets?
   
3. In the first Complaint, you alleged that Kendra Potter sold the drysuit to Ms. Mills. In the Second Amended Complain, you alleged that Heidi Houck sold the drysuit to Ms. Mills. Who sold the drysuit to Ms. Mills?
   
4. Why was Seth Liston dismissed from the case?
   
5. Did Ms. Mills pay for the Advanced Open Water class?
   
6. Did Ms. Mills pay for and complete the online eLearning?
   
7. In the Second Amended Complaint, you allege that “At no time prior to or on November 1, 2020, did Linnea complete or return any form of medical statement, liability release and assumption of risk agreement, non-agency agreement, statement of understanding of safe diving practices, and/or statement of understanding and student learning agreement to the Gull Dive Defendants.” However, some or all of these documents appear to have been attached to Defendant Snow's answer to that Complaint. Why was this allegation made?
   
8. The medical forms attached to Defendant Snow's Answer appear to indicate that Ms. Mills answered “no” to all of the medical questions. Did the Defendants request Ms. Mills' medical records? Were they provided? Did they indicate that any of those answers would have been inaccurate?
   
9. Was the unedited video provided to Defendants during discovery?
   
10. In your Second Amended Complaint, you state: “Debbie Snow, simply advised Linnea that she could enter the water without an operational dry suit and use her BCD as her sole means of buoyancy control.” I believe Defendant Snow denied this allegation. What was the basis for this allegation? What were the exact words that Defendant Snow stated to Ms. Mills? Was there testimony from any of the parties or witnesses concerning this allegation? If Ms. Snow was deposed, what did she say she said?
    
11. In your Second Amended Complaint, you indicated that Ms. Mills “did not join the Dry Suit Diver instructional dive Snow was conducting with Bob and E.G., in the presence of Linnea.” Were you alleging that this dive was an instructional dive or not? Was there any deposition testimony concerning what Snow told the non-joining divers, including Ms. Mills? If the second, fatal, dive was a separate dive, were you alleging that was an instructional dive? If so, where does that appear in the Second Amended Complaint, or what testimony was provided in discovery on that subject?
    
12. The Second Amended Complaint contains a detailed narrative of how the drysuit squeeze allegedly affected Ms. Mills during the dive. These may be a perfectly reasonable assumptions, but what, exactly, was the evidence that you would have introduced in court indicating that the drysuit squeeze was the actual cause of death? I ask for two reasons: first, some people have certainly had drysuit squeezes at depth – e.g., forget to attach inflator, and second, you also allege that cold water was likely flowing through the gap in the zipper of her drysuit. Would this have alleviated the squeeze?
    
13. Finally, while I realize it may not be disclosable, was there a monetary settlement? If so, how much?

 

[PirateFoxy]

No. I plan to come back on here in the next few days to clear up some of the misstatements of fact and answer questions if anyone is interested.

David Concannon

I really look forward to that. I just can't wrap my head around how the entire collection of errors happened. I'm also personally very unimpressed by what I've heard of the handling of the dive computer - it sounds very much like things were not treated properly as evidence? If so, how on earth did that happen and who needs to correct their procedures so it doesn't happen again?

I'd also personally like to do if there is anything we can do as uninvolved parties to encourage the criminal aspect of the case to be revisited. Even if they ultimately decide not to press charges, I would like to know that the potential mishandling (like with the dive computer) has been addressed.

 

[Angelo Farina]

Absolutely. The National Park Service Investigative Service Branch's investigation was purposefully incomplete. The ISB failed to follow their own procedures, failed to involve the NPS DSO, stopped speaking to experts who were advising the first investigator (who was at Glacier National Park), failed to consider critical evidence, and ignored or misinterpreted the evidence they had. The AUSA relied on the ISB's purposefully inept investigation in deciding not to bring charges.

From what I understand, criminal charges can only be "personal", so the criminal action will be focused only on the instructor. Is this correct?
Sorry, but my understanding of US legal system is very limited.

 

[boulderjohn]

I wonder how many people have ever had a serious drysuit squeeze while wearing an unsealed, flooded drysuit.