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

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!

@Wookie and I are participating in the thread, so are generally prohibited from moderating at the same time. I've reported your post, which you should have done yourself, as Mods are only automatically notified when a post is reported. I just saw this by chance.
In any case, have just a little patience, eh? Most holds are automated because of the HUGE amount of spam that gets inputted on our Board. I'm guessing all the numerical fields in the post were what flagged it in the software.
He is hardly being "subjected to the whims of someone with less knowledge, and less experience in the field."
Meanwhile, the Mods are all volunteers and work as quickly as they can. I'm sure you'll be seeing what he wrote shortly.

End minor rant.
Fair enough. Had I been in this situation before, I would have known, but now, consider me notified. It wasn't a knock on the mods - I understand the quantity of cats that must be hearded, and I appreciate the volunteers (may I call you the, "Divemasters of Content") and the work that you all do.
 
Fair enough. Had I been in this situation before, I would have known, but now, consider me notified. It wasn't a knock on the mods - I understand the quantity of cats that must be hearded, and I appreciate the volunteers (may I call you the, "Divemasters of Content") and the work that you all do.
Meh, don’t sweat it. The post got caught, I released it. No harm, no foul.
 
Sorry if things hit a snag. I pulled a section from Debbie Snow's ISB interview transcript but I left the line numbers in for reference. That's the bad news. The good news is I just reread the whole transcript and holy f***ing sh*t! There is plenty here to work with!
 
Let me amend that slightly...
The solution is for training organizations to demand competence when they learn it isn't present.

Oh, nevermind. I forgot that the organization in question here has a superb and active quality assurance program, and demands only the highest quality from its instructors.

Oh, I was referring exclusively to the criminal investigation side of things. On the dive side of things I occasionally wonder how some people can sleep at night with the claims they make about what QA actually means/does. Then I remember that some people have no problem sleeping if they're making enough $$$ so.
 
Some of the gems from Snow's ISB interview:

ISB: "another issue that I found with her dry suit that I was curious about and I wanted to know if you had seen that is so, you know, the - the back zipper of it. So, it’s hung up with a good 3-inch gap. You can’t pull it one way or the other."

Snow: Really?

ISB: "do you remember how she was weighted before she got in the water?"

Snow: "it seems to me because I wear 28 pounds of loose weights. She was real close to me, but I don’t know."

ISB: "so her BC was weighted?"

Snow: "Yes, and they’re all integrated weights, yes."

ISB: "Okay, so she had the pouches snapped in and everything?"

Snow: "Yeah. And I did a doublecheck on her myself."

Note: Actually, as Yogi and BooBoo should have known by now, the removable integrated weight pockets were missing and 22 lbs. of weights were stuffed into two zippered storage pockets in the BCD. Additionally:

ISB: "did you guys [put] weight in her dry suit at all?"

Snow: "Yes."

ISB: "Okay. Do you remember how much weight?"

Snow: "No that's -- that's what I'm guessing.... About the same weight I was."

:oops::oops::oops: -- That would be about 28 pounds. Actually, it was 22 lbs. more pounds in the dry suit thigh pockets but, you know, what's an extra six pounds among friends?

And, one of my personal favorites, repeated often throughout the ISB interview:

ISB: "don’t make fun of me because I don’t know anything about diving,"
 
Then I remember that some people have no problem sleeping if they're making enough $$$ so.

Then shame on them. Unfortunately, some people equate success only
with $$$.
 
Some of the gems from Snow's ISB interview:

And, one of my personal favorites, repeated often throughout out the ISB interview:

ISB: "don’t make fun of me because I don’t know anything about diving,"

I'd have a lot more sympathy for this degree of poor performance if they knew that they were just the first line and actual experts were going to come along and redo everything anyway. (Like if they were the first on scene and needed to take some kind of report just to write down initial responses.) But in this situation they're supposed to *be* the experts who come along and redo everything, right? Why would you even think it was appropriate for you to be investigating a diving incident if you didn't know anything about diving and had no expert help lined up to assist you? It's baffling.
 
Then shame on them. Unfortunately, some people equate success only
with $$$.

Indeed. To be fair, for some people it's things like notoriety and job title rather than $$$ strictly. But the fact remains that clearly some people see the world very differently to the way I do, and are quite content with their version of things. I imagine there's plenty of job satisfaction for the right sort of person in crafting marketing to convey "yes, we exhaustively check up on the quality of everything everyone does" without including anything that would stand up well in a court of law to open the company/entity up to liability when that quality control doesn't really exist. Like a logic puzzle or a word game, only in this case it can end up seriously harming or even killing people.
 
I'd have a lot more sympathy for this degree of poor performance if they knew that they were just the first line and actual experts were going to come along and redo everything anyway. (Like if they were the first on scene and needed to take some kind of report just to write down initial responses.) But in this situation they're supposed to *be* the experts who come along and redo everything, right? Why would you even think it was appropriate for you to be investigating a diving incident if you didn't know anything about diving and had no expert help lined up to assist you? It's baffling.
Hence the Mills' family's deep frustration with the purposefully inept ISB investigation and the stubborn response of the AUSA that she "stands by the quality" of the ISB investigation.
 
Hence the Mills' family's deep frustration with the purposefully inept ISB investigation and the stubborn response of the AUSA that she "stands by the quality" of the ISB investigation.
Does she just not want to deal with this case for some reason? Is it hard to get a jury to understand the details of diving properly to get a conviction? Because standing by the quality of something that has such questionable quality is not a great position to be taking.
 

Back
Top Bottom