Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[boulderjohn]

Boulder John

I understand the point you are trying to make, but there are significant practical differences between Watson's case and the two examples you cite above.

Firstly, the crimes committed in Lockerbie and in NYC were committed on home soil in the countries that were attacked. That means that the true jurisdiction ought to lie in the countries where the crime took place. We know that the alleged crime in Watson’s case took place in Australia, a country that actually has a judicial system not unlike the US. Watson actually served time for his crime and never as far as I know had a tickertape parade in his honor. Other than making sure that Watson would not face a death penalty case in the US, the Australian government was more than willing to hand Watson over at their earliest convenience.

So I suppose using your argument that it would be fine with you that a journalist in say Denmark published images of Mohamed in a comic in a Danish newspaper to subsequently be tried for a hate crime in his own country. After being found innocent and lauded as a hero in the streets of Copenhagen as a defender of free speech he strangely finds himself in a courtroom in Saudi Arabia after a remarkable turn of events facing charges that he defamed Mohamed in publishing these images. I suppose this would work as well with you, would it not?

Secondly, the acts you cite were politically and religiously motivated (not unlike the example above) and thus fall under a completely different context. In at least one case (Libya) we know for sure that the government was behind the attack in question, and an argument could also be made that the Talban had a role to play in September 11 as well. These governments finding the respective culprits innocent would be a travesty of justice on their own. I don’t suppose you are suggesting the Australian government is somehow party to Tina’s death.

Thirdly, it is highly unlikely that either of the accused in these terrorist acts would ever have even faced a trial in their home countries in the first place. They would simply have been paraded out as heroes without the dog and pony show of a trial. The idea that the governments in these cases would have considered going through the expense of a façade trial only to set the accused free is ludicrous to be honest.

Comparing Libya and the Taliban to the Australian government to make your point is really stretching credibility to the limits to be perfectly frank. I'd argue that this is the same type of obfuscation of the tenants of double jeopardy as any of the other justifications we have seen.

Cheers!

First of all, Alabama is claiming jurisdiction by alleging that the crime started in Alabama because it was planned there. As was discussed earlier in the thread, that will have to be a point in the trial. The same thing could be argued in the cases I gave.

As for your other points, how do you put into international law the difference between countries whose governments are friendly to you and those that aren't? Where is the dividing line in clear terms that will hold up in court?

So how do you define the difference in legal terms? How do you say that double jeopardy applies if it is a country whose government we like but doesn't apply if we don't like that government?

 

[K_girl]

When I previously commented on bias, I did so because it is relevant to a witness's credibility. I stated that because of what I perceived as bias in Tina's father's statements, I was concerned about his credibility.

Just to be fail, let me share my thoughts on Watson's credibility. I would not believe anything he said to me.

Also, remember that it was because of the contradictions in what he told authorities and his seemingly bizarre behavior that the authorities started digging deeper and deeper into the matter and ultimately decided to prosecute him. Whether he is guilty of murder or not, he deserves some sort of "punishment" for the things he said and for his bizarre behavior. And, he deserves to be beaten for having pushed Tina into learning to dive and then taking her on a dive that she clearly should not have done. Who is it that said that "stupid should be painful"? It applies here.

However, I personally do give Mr. Thomas credibility (not calling him a liar is actually more appropriate) with regards to his statement about his daughter talking to him about the insurance. That is because he could have taken it much further than he was willing to do. He did not say that his daughter was suspicious of Watson or that even he was suspicious of Watson at the time of his conversation with Tina, because Watson asked Tina to change her insurance before the wedding. He gave it the exact characterization that it was - it sounds as though Tina was stressed about getting it done before the wedding - not that she was stressed about doing it at all.

Mr. Thomas could have made-up other things to try and show abuse. But he didn't. He never claimed that he personally saw it or that Tina reported it to him.

Mr. Thomas did not attempt to embellish or make-up anything when he could have, which is far, far more than you can say for Watson. I truly believe that Mr. Thomas wants Watson to face the "real" evidence, whatever that might be.

I don't know that the insurance matter really matters because it will probably be ruled hearsay anyway.

 

[K_girl]

Dadvocate - to quote you:

"All legal ramblings aside, the fines the dive op paid in no way mitigate Tina’s own decision to dive on a site that was beyond her skills. Watson’s assurances notwithstanding, she still made the decision to go into the water. And as the typical line goes, in a group of mixed-level divers, always dive to the least experienced level. This is stuff we learn in our first certification course!"

In a perfect world, women should be in control of the decisions they make for themselves as individuals. Reality is that many, many men not only control, but verbal and/or physical abuse the women they marry. By our nurturing nature, we want to please men and that can often mean giving up control to them, even to a degree many would find appalling. Watson was displaying this controlling behavior with Tina and had already started down the path of verbal and mental abuse with her, even before their marriage. This element of their relationship may not be discarded as to Tina's diving decision-making if it should come to trial.

I have to agree with Boulderjohn regarding double jeopardy. It would make it very difficult to establish a double jeopardy law to distinguish between foreign governments you like or don't like. There may also be some significant differences between the way the U.S. handles plea agreements and the way another government handles them that is fundamentally different, even though the governments may be friendly.

 

[K_girl]

The cost to Tina's family if they say something the wrong way is negligible compared to Gabe. I can't forget someone's life is on the line here!

Yes, Tina is already dead. She already lost her life. Her family has already paid a very high price and will continue to pay for the rest of their lives. Tina's family say they want closure for Tina by having Watson face the evidence in a trial. They want to know that they did everything they could to get justice for their daughter. Although you evaluate the cost of closure to be neglible to them, I think they would disagree.

I think if there is a trial and no matter the outcome, Tina's family can take solice in the fact that they did the best they could to make sure their daughter's case was heard completely through the process of a trial. Even if there is not a trial and the case is dimissed, I think Tina's family can take some additional solice in the hope that because of their efforts, Watson's new wife may not have to face abuse or death as all eyes will remain on Watson's behavior in the future. And if he is a wife-killer, he should know he won't get away with it again.

 

[Dadvocate]

Boulder John

For starters, we could compile a list of countries that we have extradition agreements with, which suggests that we recognize their system of jurisprudence as at least being fair. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that we don’t have an extradition agreement with Libya or Afghanistan at the moment because they don’t even remotely meet this standard. In fact I don’t think we even have to ask for a hearing in order to take people from the latter country to say Guantanamo Bay for instance. The circumstances are so utterly different that the comparison is really a massive stretch as I already pointed out.

Another consideration could be whether or not we feel the country has a stable enough government in place to ensure that our extradited citizens get a fair shake in a trial, which I think is already part of the conditions in my first point. As even you acknowledge on some level, we could hardly say that either Libya or Afghanistan meet this standard, whereas we can say this about Australia. I could continue with this more if you like, but to be honest I think that trying to say that the circumstances in your examples and those of this case mirror each other is really like trying to shove a cube into a round hole.

We may just have to disagree on this point. It isn’t going to be the only one from the looks of it.

My central premise here is that arguing jurisdiction based on this flimsy point is only applicable if you are willing to bend the true implications of what double jeopardy really means in order to get what you want. In order to understand this point, all you have to do is substitute California for Australia in this case to see that an injustice is being done, an injustice in the sense that we all have lesser protection as a result in allowing lawyers to bend credibility to get what they want. Whether or not Gabe Watson is ultimately convicted, people have already turned a blind eye in a sense to what the implications are for allowing Watson to be extradited on this point in the first place.

The prosecution should not only have to prove Watson’s planning in Alabama as an aspect of this case. Since the entire jurisdictional question falls on this very point, it should be a separate trial altogether because then if they don’t win on this point the jury won’t be tempted to overlook this and convict him based on other considerations anyway. If Alabama cannot not establish a planning motive as a point in and of itself, then the rest of the case is kind of moot, or should be. And this before we even bring up the very real challenges this places on what double jeopardy means (or ought to mean) in the real world.

The fact is the prosecution don’t have those limitations set on them and at this point in time there is no way of insuring that any jury pool put together in Alabama will not have heard about or read about Watson’s previous conviction. That the jury could completely overlook how Watson was brought to this trial establishes that Alabama has already been given a defacto victory. This is a major problem if you care anything about what double jeopardy means ethically speaking in my opinion. Again I understand that you and I may not agree on this point. And lets face it, you can cite the counter point that lawyers in both Australia and the US accepted this status quo for whatever reasons. I still think they did so at the cost to a higher principle regardless of what their justifications are and regardless of what the outcome of this trial ultimately is. Even if he is convicted, the damage will have already been done. As I have said earlier, I am not the kind of person who is willing to trample on these principles in order to achieve a desired outcome, this even if Gabe Watson is truly guilty. I know that this is a controversial position that is not going to win me a lot of support. On the flip side, I wonder if anyone who is in favor of this trial is concerned at all about what has been done to see “justice” carried out in this case. Do the ends really justify the means that clearly for you?

Going back to my Australia-California swap scenario, would any of this even be remotely considered fair or justifiable when discussing both jurisdiction and double jeopardy if the origins of the extradition changed? I would hope the answer to that question is no. Again, I accept that I may be the only person concerned about this.

And this is beside the point anyway. I am not claiming that the wrangling and contortions that Alabama has been successful in pulling off here are not going to work or that influential people in both the US and Australia are not going to let these paltry arguments pass as a means to achieving “justice”. I am arguing that doing so comes at a very high cost to people because the whole process is ethically bankrupt from the start. What this does establish is that police and investigators in the US and other countries now have as a precedence setting case a situation where the investigators can completely screwed up with impunity. The handling of evidence was terrible, the interrogation was terrible, the whole process was utterly blown. Because of this the prosecution missed their chance to corner Watson when they could have and this has lead to a very unfortunate outcome for Tina’s family and for Gabe Watson.

Though I completely sympathize with Tina’s family for being unhappy with this process, the man served time for his crime in that country under the rules of the system he was tried in, one that the US recognizes in large part as being a fair one. Clearly the notion of jurisdictional issues was not even a consideration at the time when the first instance took place. Are you seriously suggesting that jurisdiction in the first trial would have been in question at all if people had thought he was going to get convicted there in a way that meant more jail time? That is wasn’t questioned at all at that time is very relevant to the arguments being made now where double jeopardy is concerned. This is as clear as day in my opinion. I am open to hearing arguments for how this is not the case, however.

The only reason that we are having this discussion at all is because powerful people are not happy with the outcome of that case and want a do-over and want to pretend that there wasn’t already a case concluded using post hoc arguments with little real validity. The time to determine jurisdiction is before the trail, not after an outcome has been rendered. This consideration is also an aspect of double jeopardy that cannot be avoided in this case.

Going back to your earlier suggestion that jurisdiction for the Lockerbie and September 11 attacks could also be questioned using the same logic, we know that this didn’t end up being the case at all. All of the people charged in these two incidents were tried in Scotland and the USA respectively. For the sake of argument, let us say that after the Libyan men were set free in Scotland for their involvement in the Lockerbie tragedy they were then charged for the same crime in Libya because the government wanted to establish better ties with the west. Noting fully that these men are not nice people, would we STILL want them to be punished using your line of argumentation because they had really planned the attacks in Libya? If you say yes to this question, then at least you are being consistent. I for one don’t think that would have been fair or just given the same jurisdictional and double jeopardy considerations. The ethical costs are just too high.

That the DA has been successful in achieving this vendetta is a travesty for all of us in the long run because the police now have another avenue to pursue when they screw up an investigation in the future. That is a sad state of affairs as far as I am concerned. Again, I acknowledge that we may not see eye to eye on this point.
Cheers!

 

[Dadvocate]

Hello, K-Girl!

In a perfect world, women should be in control of the decisions they make for themselves as individuals. Reality is that many, many men not only control, but verbal and/or physical abuse the women they marry. By our nurturing nature, we want to please men and that can often mean giving up control to them, even to a degree many would find appalling. Watson was displaying this controlling behavior with Tina and had already started down the path of verbal and mental abuse with her, even before their marriage. This element of their relationship may not be discarded as to Tina's diving decision-making if it should come to trial.

I definitely do not want to position myself in a place where I am disagreeing with your points here. Having been raised in an all-female home and having been an educator for over 17 years, I understand that there are large social and cultural forces in place that continue to keep women down and continue to marginalize them in ways that disgust me and frighten me. I continue to fret at the trend I see of my grade 8 girls loving and thriving in math and sciences, only to see them give up in large numbers on these pursuits by the time they reach grade 10. I’ve seen in five different countries so far, and I am baffled at the transformation. They literally seem to lose confidence in that short two-year period. Even in an international school environment where everything is supposed to be “better” somehow, so many girls seem to lose this motivation for the sciences, and I suspect that a lot of the reasons why have to do with what you have stated above.

Again, I am no big fan of Gabe Watson. I think he may very well have pressured his wife into these dives. I suspect that he could very easily have played that role. But this is where the legal issues have to come into play. Let us say we were having a discussion on Bonnie and Clyde and let us say that he abused her and created the environment where she was willing to kill innocent people in the course of committing robberies. Though we understand the situation that caused her to do the things she did, does this act as a mitigating factor in holding her accountable for those crimes? The answer could be yes, she is completely innocent, or it could be yes she is less guilty because of it, or we could say no she is ultimately responsible for her own actions because she has made choices along the way to stay with this abusive man and t allow him to influence the terrible decisions that she made.

I’d better qualify this a bit more before Boulder John accuses me of using an extreme example as I have stated about his rebuttal above.

I’m using this extreme example only to make the point that we all have moments in our lives where we have to face up to our abusers and face up to the danger that these abusers put us in. If you are right and Gabe Watson is an abusive person, then he would surely have shown signs of this earlier on. Surely he would have given Tina pause for thought before the wedding, before the honeymoon, before the dive trip. I don’t want overly criticize a dead woman here. I only want to point out that abused women have to at some point stand up for themselves before 1) they get pushed to the point where they can no longer defend themselves or 2) they lash out violently “Burning Bed” style and then ruin the rest of their lives.

As divers we have to own that self-preservation that makes our sport work. As dive op owners, we have to look for and respond to “trust me” dive scenarios in policy and action, especially if there is a hint of abuse taking place.

If in the end Tina’s death is established to be nothing more than a horrible accident come about because Gabe Watson pressured her, this definitely makes him a rotten human being. Even in that scenario, though, he can’t be called a murderer and (I say this with more trepidation) Tina will have to bear some of the responsibility for not taking action to get herself out of that unhealthy relationship before it was too late. Please don’t read that as me suggesting that this is an easy process to undertake.

I have to agree with Boulderjohn regarding double jeopardy. It would make it very difficult to establish a double jeopardy law to distinguish between foreign governments you like or don't like. There may also be some significant differences between the way the U.S. handles plea agreements and the way another government handles them that is fundamentally different, even though the governments may be friendly.

The differences in the nuts and bolts notwithstanding, the real issue is that we can and do build extradition ties with countries based partly on whether or not we “like” them, that and based on other considerations that make the relationship mutually beneficial. I won’t repeat myself, too much here, as I have already stated my case for why I disagree with Boulder John above.

I would only like to add that we do indeed make all kinds of distinctions between countries we like and don’t like and then make a host of policy decisions based on where the apple falls for that particular country. We have the Most Favored Nation Trading Status. We have the Coalition of the Willing. We have various partnerships with international organizations we “like” in order to achieve certain ends. That we are the United States of America affords us a great degree of influence in exactly how we interact with countries we like, especially to the degree that we want to promote democracy.

I am sorry, but I don’t think that either of you have made a good case for why this limitation exists between countries we like and don’t like where legal issues are concerned, certainly where double jeopardy is concerned, certainly using the protracted comparisons that have been offered thus far, and certainly given that these types of distinctions are made and acted upon by the US in many other ways. Why should legal considerations be any less poignant?

Cheers!

 

[Ayisha]

If I understand your wording correctly here, “above the code” implies that their operational procedures surpassed those required in QLD. Am I reading that correctly?

Yes. They were held to their higher standard rather than the government standard, which is why policies and stated procedures should reflect actual practices, all the time. If higher standards are not being met, they should not be stated in the policy. I write the policies for the fleet of schools that I work for and I am very aware of that potential risk.

If so, then I don’t see how this really challenges my premise.

It challenges your premise because you were implying essentially that Tina signed her life away and that it would be clear that she was responsible for herself when in fact, the liveaboard promoted itself as essentially a hand-holding dive op that guaranteed the safety of their divers. As a new diver with 11 dives, some of them traumatic, it is arguable that most divers even without Tina's experiences would not be self-reliant at this stage.

BTW, the right to sue in case of neglect is regularly waived away by divers, but negligence cannot be waived away everywhere. For example, you cannot waive negligence in Canada - not sure about Queensland.

Additionally, I think your choice of wording in “opposite” doesn’t quite work.

I believe it does work. Your entire premise can be summed up in your statement:

This connects well with the ethos of self-responsibility in Oz.

You are applying your experiences with dive ops that require you to be responsible for yourself and generalizing them to the liveaboard's OPPOSITE approach to diving. You even mention that a dive guide costs extra while this liveaboard provides one and guests are EXPECTED to use them and do orientation dives. The approaches to diving are completely different and the "you're on your own" dive shop mentality does not apply.

The Yongala does not provide the option for a new diver to dive at her level, thus the trust me dive was undertaken by all parties concerned. Watson was not in a place where he should have made such assurances, the dive op was in no place to allow him to take on that responsibility, and Tina should never have allowed this “trust me” scenario to convince her to do a dive that was beyond her skill level.

The above I agree with.

 

[Dadvocate]

Good points, Ayisha!

Yes. They were held to their higher standard rather than the government standard, which is why policies and stated procedures should reflect actual practices, all the time. If higher standards are not being met, they should not be stated in the policy. I write the policies for the fleet of schools that I work for and I am very aware of that potential risk.

Okay, so on some level the dive op is responsible for this situation. I agree with you here. (Edited as I asked this question twice by accident).

It challenges your premise because you were implying essentially that Tina signed her life away and that it would be clear that she was responsible for herself when in fact, the liveaboard promoted itself as essentially a hand-holding dive op that guaranteed the safety of their divers. As a new diver with 11 dives, some of them traumatic, it is arguable that most divers even without Tina's experiences would not be self-reliant at this stage.

I never stated that she “signed her life away”. I stated that she signed a form acknowledging her own responsibility in participating in the activity of diving. This is an entirely different matter altogether. I do not follow your point on how she was not self reliant here. Could you explain this more? Having a traumatic dive experience only underscores the importance of making sure you are ready to go back in the water under the right circumstances. Yet another reason the Yongala was all wrong.

What I also said is that any diver who signs a typical diving waiver form states that he or she is aware that diving is a dangerous sport and that he or she should participate at his or her own training and comfort level. The forms are also documents that work in conjunction with the documents we all signed as PADI members acknowledging these same points. My experience does play a role here, yes, but I don’t think that makes my position one of special pleading. I’ll ask those that are participating in this discussion the same question. Am I misrepresenting things based on your experiences in signing waiver forms either with land-based shops or on liveaboards?

I still don’t see anything that you have posted yet to suggest that the ethos of self-responsibility in OZ is the “opposite” for this particular dive op. For instance, since it took place in QLD, would Tina still have been required to have and SPG and a whistle on her person while diving with this op? Had the authorities boarded the liveaboard and found that this was not the case, would she have been fined or the dive op? If you are telling me that the dive op would be responsible, then I might have to grant you that the opposite is the case. All you have established is that the dive op was held to the standards they advertised as a handholding operation. Again, I have not disagreed with any of your points in this area. I also stated that one can book a dive guide in QLD ahead of time, so I am at a loss as to why you are calling me on this. Maybe I am missing something. Still, in the end, in QLD as with anywhere I’d say, the ultimate responsibility for going into the water for a dive lies squarely on the shoulders of the diver, this regardless of any “trust me” proclamations to the contrary.

BTW, the right to sue in case of neglect is regularly waived away by divers, but negligence cannot be waived away everywhere. For example, you cannot waive negligence in Canada - not sure about Queensland.

This is an important point. The waiving of the right to sue the op comes directly on the heels of the assumption that the diver is responsible for him or herself. I have never dived in Canada so I don’t know, but what is in place to protect dive ops from frivolous suits if something goes wrong? It seems that this would be a pretty hefty risk to bear given that divers treat the sport with varying degrees of respect.

Not having seen the actual form in question that Tina signed, you are right I suppose that I am relying on my experiences to come to this conclusion, but then I think the logical question that follows since you have accused me of unfairly applying my experiences to this situation is whether or not you have seen the form either. If not and you are basing your understanding on your own experiences, aren’t you guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of? If you have seen it, can you say that I have misrepresented what is on the form?

You imply it above, but I’d like to ask you directly nonetheless. Does Tina bear any responsibility in your opinion (also based on your experience as a diver) for having gone in the water on that day?
If you answer yes to this question, then really the only thing we disagree on at this juncture is the degree to which she is responsible. Since we really haven’t hashed that out, it is hard to say.

If you answer no to this question, then I suppose the sum total of your experiences as a diver and the sum total of mine lead us to different conclusions. The rest of the readers will obviously have to decide for themselves.

Cheers!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Yes, Tina is already dead. She already lost her life. Her family has already paid a very high price and will continue to pay for the rest of their lives. Tina's family say they want closure for Tina by having Watson face the evidence in a trial. They want to know that they did everything they could to get justice for their daughter. Although you evaluate the cost of closure to be neglible to them, I think they would disagree.

I think if there is a trial and no matter the outcome, Tina's family can take solice in the fact that they did the best they could to make sure their daughter's case was heard completely through the process of a trial. Even if there is not a trial and the case is dimissed, I think Tina's family can take some additional solice in the hope that because of their efforts, Watson's new wife may not have to face abuse or death as all eyes will remain on Watson's behavior in the future. And if he is a wife-killer, he should know he won't get away with it again.

*sigh* I have no idea where you get the idea that I evaluate the cost of closure to be neglible to Tina's family. I have said repeatedly that I sympathize with them but I also sympathize with Watson's family.

On one hand you try to call me to task for putting words in their mouths and deliberately misreading what they really mean or is implied in their statements then you make statements about how they will take solace from certain actions. Seems to me you are doing what you accuse me of but since your intent is more sympathetic it is ok?

Yes Tina lost her life and they lost their daughter, Watson's lost their daughter-in-law they cared about and they are in this nightmare that isn't their fault. Gabe lost his wife and just maybe he did love her and just maybe he didn't murder her.

I am not sure why you find it so hard to accept that I am trying to take a balanced approach and consider how the emotional issues impact both sides' interpretations, memories and motives. Perhaps it is because I am not exclusively concerned about one side here?

I agree with Dadvocate that Tina had some degree of responsibility for her actions as an adult. They OPTED OUT of the orientation dive! How would it have gone if the Dive Op said ... nope.. you can't dive if you don't go by our Hand Holding Policy? Who knows .. Tina would possibly have lived.. or possibly passed the orientation dive then had the same thing happen later!

I also think it is an unbelievable leap to compare this incident with terrorist attacks to try to justify revamping the legal definition of Double Jeopardy! As far as I can tell there is no indication of religious, political or revolutionary motives involved in this nor was it directed at a group of innocent people. (please don't jump to the conclusion that I think Tina was guilty and deserved what happened to her) While I am not qualified to judge the system of a country I am not a citizen of I will say that I hope the countries I maintain citizenship in don't follow the example set here! IMHO the potential for abuse alarming.

I do not know if Divers actually can be fined in Queensland for the "infringements" you mention Dadvocate. Certainly when we have dived up there we have not been advised of the potential for fines for not having a whistle!

I believe UnderExposed answered the question about waivers but perhaps he will be willing to give a qualified answer to that question. My answer would be based on hearsay since I have no legal qualifications.

Dadvocate. I am glad you decided to join in again. I enjoy your well presented viewpoints!

 

[Ayisha]

Having a traumatic dive experience only underscores the importance of making sure you are ready to go back in the water under the right circumstances. Yet another reason the Yongala was all wrong.

Agree with that. Based on 11 total dives, a 100 foot dive in a possible current and this dive being the first dive of the trip was not an appropriate choice for Tina and all concerned should have been aware of that.

I still don’t see anything that you have posted yet to suggest that the ethos of self-responsibility in OZ is the “opposite” for this particular dive op... I also stated that one can book a dive guide in QLD ahead of time, so I am at a loss as to why you are calling me on this.

You are trying to confuse the issue in several areas. I did not "call you" on the ability to book a dive guide in Queensland. Re-read the information so you can see the difference in the type of dive op you described to the type of dive op Tina was with.

This is an important point. The waiving of the right to sue the op comes directly on the heels of the assumption that the diver is responsible for him or herself. I have never dived in Canada so I don’t know, but what is in place to protect dive ops from frivolous suits if something goes wrong? It seems that this would be a pretty hefty risk to bear given that divers treat the sport with varying degrees of respect.

I think the statement was pretty clear that the right to sue for NEGLIGENCE cannot be waived, not simply the "right to sue". "Frivolous suits" are not typical in Canada, sorry. What is in place to protect dive shops in Canada is protocols to avoid negligence.

Not having seen the actual form in question that Tina signed, you are right I suppose that I am relying on my experiences to come to this conclusion, but then I think the logical question that follows since you have accused me of unfairly applying my experiences to this situation is whether or not you have seen the form either. If not and you are basing your understanding on your own experiences, aren’t you guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of? If you have seen it, can you say that I have misrepresented what is on the form?

This is another silly statement since I have never talked about seeing any form that Tina may or may not have signed. I said that you are relying on your experiences of dive ops you have used and applying their rules or standards to the liveaboard Tina was diving with - and there is little similarity.

If you look at my posts about my experiences or diving philosophy on this board, you will see they are about taking responsibility as a diver and being self-reliant. I do the majority of my dives in the Great Lakes in extremely cold water and we certainly aren't provided with dive guides around here. Divers learn to be self-reliant very quickly in these conditions. However, I am not applying my experience and situation to the very different situation that Tina was in. This is a case of you applying your personal bias to Tina's situation rather than trying to understand the dynamics of her situation.

You imply it above, but I’d like to ask you directly nonetheless. Does Tina bear any responsibility in your opinion (also based on your experience as a diver) for having gone in the water on that day?

Yes, Tina bears some responsibility for going in the water that day. However, if she was murdered, she certainly does not bear responsibility for that.