The Third Dive: The Death of Rob Stewart

[agilulfo]

If Osbourne hints that there was a criminal conspiracy in Robs fatality, or “foul play” as stated by agilulfo above, that would be cause for real concern, but my feeling (and it’s just my feeling) that Jenni was there to protect his client. Was there a coverup of negligence? Perhaps.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear and you misunderstood my post. Nowhere and by no one in the documentary it is posited that there was a conspiracy to kill Rob Stewart. The suggestion, as you state, is simply that there might have been a coverup of negligence.

 

[Wookie]

I am sorry if I wasn't clear and you misunderstood my post. Nowhere and by no one in the documentary it is posited that there was a conspiracy to kill Rob Stewart. The suggestion, as you state, is simply that there might have been a coverup of negligence.

I did misunderstand. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[runsongas]

couldn't make it through the whole way. felt like i was watching a 9/11 truther movie.

its like they all put their tin foil hats on and decided since it wasn't as neat and tidy as a CSI episode that some sinister conspiracy was going on.

 

[The Chairman]

couldn't make it through the whole way. felt like i was watching a 9/11 truther movie.

The best descriptor thus far.

 

[abnfrog]

I watched it twice , mostly yelling at the tv that they (Osborne) wasn't asking questions he should have I knew that it was hack reporting ,,,had I known it was Osborne I wouldn't have wasted my time , so many red flags in the report and he didn't even ask about most of them ..made it seem like the doc was fired just for asking about the accident ...that's the definition of hack reporting ....trying to add their own opinions in the piece

 

[coolwave3]

You don't know what you don't know.

Having read the conversations when Stewart first died, there is nothing but speculation and conjecture. Only later, with the release of the depositions, did some "first hand" material emerge, but by then people have already been the judge, jury and executioner of the parties involved. Mind you, that depositions are only statements and may not represent was actually occurred due to fading memories, or personal interest. I consider statements "soft" evidence.

So what are some of the "hard evidence"?
- The facts of the autopsy as stated in a report WITHOUT the coroner's assessment (because that is opinion rather than fact)
- The ROV video. Unfortunately, it failed to document the recovery. It did show that the body was disturbed. It did not show by how much the body was disturbed. Whether this was intentional on not videotaping the recovery or not is unclear. However, if an insurance investigator was on the boat when they found the body, I find it odd that he had not stressed to preserve evidence and to video EVERYTHING. Especially since Mr. Jenni is advertising himself as a dive accident investigator. As such, he is very well aware on how to properly go about "investigating" an accident. As a JD, he should also know the laws associated with any body recovery and accident investigation. Again, it is odd that he did not follow protocol and got permission to retrieve the body from the jurisdiction in charge.
- The radio transmission stating that 1. divers are at the surface and 2. that there was forensics on the body to be done. If I remember correctly in the depositions made available, the statement (don't remember from whom) was that the coast guard was already at the dive boat when they surfaced. This radio transmission now calls this into question.
2. again, as an attorney, dive investigator, Mr. Jenni should have exercised good judgment and also advised AGAINST any forensics to be done by parties who are most likely named in a law suit. Again, nobody videotaped and thus could prove that no wrongdoing, or foul-playing (willfully tamper with evidence) occurred during the entire process. In the deposition it was said that the coast guard took possession of the body immediately. That is contradicted by this radio transmission.
- Equipment inspection/gas analysis: again just the facts are hard evidence.
- Physical exam of Sotis. Did he undergo any evaluation after his "event"? If so, what were the findings.

I started this post stating that "we don't know what we don't know", because there are new facts coming to light previously unknown or not available. Until we get the whole picture, I will continue to reserve judgment.

I just watched the documentary and I personally found it informative and thought provoking. People should watch it and decide for themselves.

Here are some issues that I found worth raising in no particular order:

1) From the ROV footage it is obvious that the body was moved and handled as soon as it was found by the rescue divers. Was this necessary? It seems plausible that the rescuers could have attached a lift bag to the rig without need of immediately handling the body. Also, someone on this thread suggested that it would have been advisable to film the recovery. I agree. Why wasn't this done given that the rescuers did not seem to lack availability of high tech equipment?

2) One would think that the very business (Horizon Divers) who may be at fault for such an accident would not be allowed to independently search for the body especially with the lawyer from the business' insurance company on board. David Goodhue, the editor of The Reporter, is quoted saying that the presence of the insurance's forensic investigator Craig S. Jenni on the boat is a red flag.

3) In the documentary there is footage of Rob Stewart saying that on one of the dives, at 215 feet, he had built carbon dioxide and felt that he was getting tunnel vision and like fainting. Beaver, commenting on the footage, said: "That shouldn't happen." Perhaps technical divers could chime in about this but it may be the reason why Beaver leaned toward the possibility of shallow water blackout considering the fact that apparently that's also what happened to Sotis.

4) In the documentary one can hear a radio recording of Bleser saying: "Captain 25 to Central. Divers are up on the surface. We're about a mile west of Islamorada US Coast Guard small boat and we're going to be transferring the victim over to that boat as soon as we do some forensics" (emphasis added). I believe it is legitimate to ask what exactly did Horizon Divers and their insurance lawyer do before handing the body over to the coast guard.

All in all I believe the documentary raises some important questions, which is what an investigative piece of journalism should do. People can then make up their own mind about the credibility of the allegations. Naturally, this is going to be resisted by those who would like for the whole thing to go away. But it is true, at least in my opinion, that it was not ideal that Horizon Divers and their lawyer were able to retrieve the body undisturbed near the dive site while everyone else was told that the body had drifted away and were looking elsewhere.

 

[kelemvor]

I don't think a lawsuit had even been created at the time of the body recovery. Unless I'm wrong, nobody could have been "named" at that point.

I'm surprised anyone is questioning the assistance provided in recovering Stewart's body. At the time, both his family and officials were on tv multiple times asking for assistance in the process. I didn't see any of the broadcasts say "if you find him dead, leave him at the bottom of the ocean."

I'm glad I didn't go help, that's for sure. As is almost always the case, when lawyers get involved in something that something gets ugly. It's one of the greatest failings of our legal system in the US.

 

[coolwave3]

I don't think a lawsuit had even been created at the time of the body recovery. Unless I'm wrong, nobody could have been "named" at that point.

I'm surprised anyone is questioning the assistance provided in recovering Stewart's body. At the time, both his family and officials were on tv multiple times asking for assistance in the process. I didn't see any of the broadcasts say "if you find him dead, leave him at the bottom of the ocean."

I'm glad I didn't go help, that's for sure. As is almost always the case, when lawyers get involved in something that something gets ugly. It's one of the greatest failings of our legal system in the US.

Well then it really sucks for Horizon having answered the family's call! They found their son and get sued by the family! I am thinking that when you have an attorney/accident investigator who also works for the insurance company on your boat, they either got bad or no advice from him how to protect themselves!

I guess another lesson to take away from is that one better be a bit paranoid in a litigious society of ours.

 

[abnfrog]

I have no dog in this race ....but the depth was an issue so divers or rov that could recover the body did , the parents of rob wanted that , have a insurance guy they I don't have a problem with ..IF HE didn't interfear with the recovery if he did hes now a party to it . second they said do some forensics. That's a big problem , (body ? gear? gas ? o2 on ? ) what did they mean ? because OBIOUSLY they have no legal authority to do that , they did have to touch the body to get it up on the surface . I think if they had got word to LE they would have told them to bag him in situ and bring him up .

 

[kelemvor]

Well then it really sucks for Horizon having answered the family's call! They found their son and get sued by the family! I am thinking that when you have an attorney/accident investigator who also works for the insurance company on your boat, they either got bad or no advice from him how to protect themselves!

I guess another lesson to take away from is that one better be a bit paranoid in a litigious society of ours.

It seems like something that should be covered by "Good Samaritan" laws if it isn't already. It's definitely embarrassing to be an American when citizens of other countries find out about lawsuits like this.