32 replies to this topic

[Bubbles]

The incident occurred in 2003.

Now, in 2008, an indictment has been handed down in Australia.

Extradition theater will now be convened in the US over this charge.

Anyone want to start a pool as to if or when this man EVER gets extradited to Oz to face the charge?

PPM

Or if they can find him? They say he is MIA...

He is alive and well here in the Birmingham area. They just gave the latest update here on the local news, and had an interview with his lawyer. Of course the lawyer claims his client is innocent of all charges!

Edited by Bubbles, 20 June 2008 - 04:18 PM.

[Mermaid Lady]

Formal charges have now been filed:

http://hosted.ap.org...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Latitude Adjustment]

Well ABC news gave the cause of death this morning, they said he had turned off her "oxygen tank" so he did learn something in rescue class, we shouldn't be on oxygen at 100"

[peterbj7]

I really think we should be very careful not to believe what is said in the media, as we all know journalists like to sensationalise and even invent facts to make a good story. The only official document I've read on this was the Coroner's report, and IMO he called for a murder trial simply because there was no clear evidence that the guy hadn't done it. Ergo, there was a case to answer.

I believe on the basis of what I've read that he will NOT be found guilty. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, but that it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In Scotland I'd expect a verdict "not proven", but that's not available in most countries and I believe not in Australia.

[WreckWench]

I really think we should be very careful not to believe what is said in the media, as we all know journalists like to sensationalise and even invent facts to make a good story. The only official document I've read on this was the Coroner's report, and IMO he called for a murder trial simply because there was no clear evidence that the guy hadn't done it. Ergo, there was a case to answer.

I believe on the basis of what I've read that he will NOT be found guilty. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, but that it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In Scotland I'd expect a verdict "not proven", but that's not available in most countries and I believe not in Australia.

Thanks for the insight Peter...other judicial systems work differently than ours and our bias is towards our own. Sadly there may be some sensationalism but it does seem fishy...at least what we know anyway.

[peterbj7]

I do agree it looks fishy. But I'm trying not to make assumptions based on journalese.

[shadragon]

Doesn't mean he didn't do it, but that it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Perhaps, but they don't file charges unless they have a fairly solid case. I will bet the first question for prospective jurors will be "Do you have a c-card?" because they will not want divers on that jury.

[WreckWench]

Doesn't mean he didn't do it, but that it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Perhaps, but they don't file charges unless they have a fairly solid case. I will bet the first question for prospective jurors will be "Do you have a c-card?" because they will not want divers on that jury.

That is the sadest part...those most able to judge will be excluded.

OTOH...Australia is a country of divers so the odds of someone KNOWING about diving even if they are not certified hopefully will be higher!

[peterbj7]

I know this has been said elsewhere but to me it's not obvious - why will they not want divers on the jury?

Edited by peterbj7, 22 June 2008 - 10:22 PM.

[georoc01]

I know this has been said elsewhere but to me it's not obvious - why will they not want divers on the jury?

Here is a lawyer's worst nightmare. That lets say on a jury of 12, you have one diver. That diver can then during deliberations would then bring in their own personal experiences that would then influence the votes of the other jurors. The goal of the lawyers is to have the case deliberated strictly on the evidence provided and not based on what biases a diver may bring to this case.

The piece on NBC was interesting in that they said his computer's dive profile was in conflict of his story. If this is truly the case, as a diver it does certainly add doubt to the story told by the husband. Would non divers who have no experience with dive computers view that evidence in the same way? I don't know.

[diverdeb]

They may or may not have a diver on the jury. Attorneys (here anyway) only get so many strikes and sometimes (often) they don't get who they want. But whether there are or not, I can guarantee there will be experts who will testify and educate the jury about diving to such an extent they probably will deserve a c-card at the end of the trial anyway. Almost no one in my office dives but me and they've all asked me about it and just from my simple explanations they understand how many holes there are in his story, like how he supposedly blasted to the surface, but his computer showed a VERY leisurely ascent at about twice the recommended ascent time.

We can only hope that justice prevails. Sometimes the system works.

[shadragon]

I know this has been said elsewhere but to me it's not obvious - why will they not want divers on the jury?

The defence lawyers will want non-diver jurors to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. If you know what methods they teach on a rescue course, then they cannot cast doubt that what he did was the right thing (or not). The prosecution may not want them either for the reasons georoc01 stated. Plus, as diving is such a small community it will be hard to not get someone who has not read one of these threads.

[secretsea18]

Anyone from Australia looking at this thread?

If so, can you post how a trial goes on in Australia... for example do attorneys have the capacity to eliminate potential jurors based upon their knowledge about, say, diving, knowing someone that drowned, etc.

[WreckWench]

Anyone from Australia looking at this thread?

If so, can you post how a trial goes on in Australia... for example do attorneys have the capacity to eliminate potential jurors based upon their knowledge about, say, diving, knowing someone that drowned, etc.

Great question! Hopefully they don't! If they don't then justice might actually be served!

[pir8]

Anyone from Australia looking at this thread?

If so, can you post how a trial goes on in Australia... for example do attorneys have the capacity to eliminate potential jurors based upon their knowledge about, say, diving, knowing someone that drowned, etc.

For that matter does Austrailia use Juries or Judges?