( Caution ) man suspect in wife's diving related death

[sparky]

I received this from a member of the Public Safety Divers News Group I am a member of and thought I would pass it along

it seems a man from the US is a suspect in the death of his young bride while on Honeymoon, and later filed a insurance claim.

Her lifeless body can be seen in the vacation photo of a pair of divers who were unaware of her at the time the picture was taken

give this a read its kind of chilling what some people will do

Note
it is not my intention to shock or gross any one out
please do not open link if you are easily offended


www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22800120-421,00.html


I was able to find a artical that gives a differant spin to this
so i am also includeing the link for that page as well


http://www.cdnn.info/news/safety/s060506.html


Sparky

[Pez7378]

It just goes to show, it is not easy to get away with murder. Accident or murder anyones death brings tragedy to those who love them. If the man is guilty, I hope he is brought to justice, that way he can continue living his life in a comfortable prison cell at the cost of $36,000 a year. Working for enough money to buy an occasional bag of chips and a six pack of soda. When he's not working he can spend his day doing whatever he wants, playing cards, raquetball, basketball, watching TV or reading any number of books. He wont have to worry, we'll cover his cable bill, electrical, water, sewer, garbage, rent, we'll feed him three times a day, and give him access to some pretty decent medical should he ever need it..................Friggin' Murderers!

[Joshua Smith]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... 00,00.html'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... woz221.xml



http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/i ... xml&coll=2



I wouldn't want to judge this guy too fast, but from the stuff I'm reading in the links above, I think I smell a rat. And there's only one way to get rid of rats.

[lamont]

Personally everything I've read on this case fits with an inexperienced diver who screwed up and then clumsily lied about it to make himself look better. The cops still haven't been able to come up with any kind of motive.

I may just be really pissed off at everyone here and in australia who seems to watch too much Nancy Grace and is willing to convict someone of murder just because they appear to be a bit of a douchebag... I'm not sure when the standard of evidence changed such than when 9 out of 10 people think you're a douche that's good enough to convict you of murder...

[hoover]

Personally everything I've read on this case fits with an inexperienced diver who screwed up and then clumsily lied about it to make himself look better. The cops still haven't been able to come up with any kind of motive.

I may just be really pissed off at everyone here and in australia who seems to watch too much Nancy Grace and is willing to convict someone of murder just because they appear to be a bit of a douchebag... I'm not sure when the standard of evidence changed such than when 9 out of 10 people think you're a douche that's good enough to convict you of murder...

i hear ya. it is just troubling to wonder how the poor girl drowned with her air on, and reg in mouth (supposedly that is how the dive master found her).

very sad.

[sparky]

You have to wonder how the guy in the picture feels
why he was cutting up and being cool for his picture some one was dieing just a few feet away

and how about that poor guy that risk his own life to recover her
I read in one article he attempted to resuscitate her for 45 minute.
and that is after he recovered her and brought he back to the boat

hell of a guy in my book

Sparky

[lamont]

i hear ya. it is just troubling to wonder how the poor girl drowned with her air on, and reg in mouth (supposedly that is how the dive master found her).

very sad.

air could have been 1/4 turn on, which is on at the surface, but off at depth.

happened to me around dive #20...

[Marc]

Lamont,

You can't make sense and post on the web.

i hear ya. it is just troubling to wonder how the poor girl drowned with her air on, and reg in mouth (supposedly that is how the dive master found her).

very sad.

air could have been 1/4 turn on, which is on at the surface, but off at depth.

happened to me around dive #20...

[[/i]

[Joshua Smith]

Personally everything I've read on this case fits with an inexperienced diver who screwed up and then clumsily lied about it to make himself look better. The cops still haven't been able to come up with any kind of motive.

I may just be really pissed off at everyone here and in australia who seems to watch too much Nancy Grace and is willing to convict someone of murder just because they appear to be a bit of a douchebag... I'm not sure when the standard of evidence changed such than when 9 out of 10 people think you're a douche that's good enough to convict you of murder...

I dunno- it still sounds fishy to me. One witness says he had his wife in a "bear hug" while she struggled, minutes before she was found lying on the bottom. And he's apparently claiming a "large amount of compensation" from his wife's travel insurance. Maybe it's all speculation, but he has been named as a suspect.

[Seth T.]

Wow, this is horrible. Just horrible.

[lamont]

One witness says he had his wife in a "bear hug" while she struggled, minutes before she was found lying on the bottom.

What do you know about the reliability of the witness, however?

And an overly-aggressive newbie "rescue diver" could bearhug another diver and prevent them from doing a CESA... He might have killed her, but it might not have had anything to do with murder...

And I'm a little dubious that he planned on suing everyone around him prior to the accident and that it was a motive... That's no guaranteed payout...

[Pez7378]

Please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions based on the media reports. Of course I know better. However, Lamont, fact of the matter is that 10/10 murderers are in fact Douche bags! But of course there is always that 1 that is not a murderer. I come from a world where the bad guys are guilty. Period. Therefore they must work very very hard to prove their innocence. If one piece is not fitting the puzzle, end of story. He may not be convicted but I agree with Josh. Something isn't quite right. Scuba deaths are often mired in questions. If the authorities think there is enough to suspect foul play there must be something to it.

[Solitude Diver]

If the authorities think there is enough to suspect foul play there must be something to it.

Not so sure that is true. There are numerous cases of people that are convicted of crimes because of the (supposed) overwhelming evidence, and then later proved to be innocent. Sometimes things look suspicious to the point everyone thinks the person is guilty, and in (perhaps) rare occasions, it was all just coincidental/circumstantial.

There are things about this that could be viewed from the guilty or innocent (possibly even moronic) side. It is too early (based on published evidence anyway) to tell, or to judge this person. If the evidence was strong enough to guarantee he is guilty, he would likely already be behind bars. I am a firm believer that it is better to let a few innocent people go free, than to mistakenly convict and ruin the life of an innocent man. Especially if he has already suffered such a loss.

Let’s wait for things to run their course before we convict the guy. If it is conclusive, he will be punished. If not he may walk (even if guilty). In any case, the wife will not likely care, nor will it cure any of the pain her death has caused. Better to wait and make sure.

A person can sit here and speculate indefinitely and it will not solve or mean anything, except that he/she likes state their opinions and speculations based on (not necessarily factual) evidence which the media has no doubt skewed (at the very least). Just my humble opinion.

BTW, it's been four years since this happened. If it was that conclusive it would likely be over. And it does not sound like any remarkable new evidence has come up.

[jeff98208]

poor las, her familia, oops type-o, family has my simpathys...

[Joshua Smith]

What do you know about the reliability of the witness, however?

I don't know any more about that than you do, I'm guessing. I do see your point- people jump to conclusions pretty fast- but this one smells funny to me. And, apparently, it smells funny to the Australian authorities and the FBI, as well. Maybe he's innocent....for all I know, he's as blameless as a choir boy- but for all you know, he's not. I'm having trouble buying the part about how she was found with her air on, and her reg in her mouth, dead on the bottom. Maybe it was only 1/4 turn cracked open- I don't know, I wasn't there, but it seems like they might have checked for that- all I can find is reports saying her air was "on."

[Joshua Smith]

And I'm a little dubious that he planned on suing everyone around him prior to the accident and that it was a motive... That's no guaranteed payout...

Oh, yes- but there are more motives than just financial ones for murder- especially in the case of married people.

[lamont]

Maybe it was only 1/4 turn cracked open- I don't know, I wasn't there, but it seems like they might have checked for that- all I can find is reports saying her air was "on."

She was recovered by a DM, not a CSI. After hauling her back up to the surface they probably checked her pressure gauge and breathed off her reg and reported that they were both working. Someone on the surface could have shut her air down completely and not noticed the 1/4 turn and thought someone else on the surface had turned it (mostly) off. Things get very intense during a rescue/recovery and awareness is reduced to a fraction.

[lamont]

Please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions based on the media reports. Of course I know better. However, Lamont, fact of the matter is that 10/10 murderers are in fact Douche bags!

You are committing the fallacy of affirming the douchebag (i believe in my logic class it was called affirming the consequent).

It does not follow that since all murderers are douchebags that any given douchebag is a murderer. If all douchebags were murderers then the subsequent murder rate would probably extinguish the human race. In fact, most douchebags aren't murderers. Otherwise all the bicyclists in seattle who think they are pedestrians and run through 4-way stops without stopping would all be murderers... I doubt that can be correct...

If the authorities think there is enough to suspect foul play there must be something to it.

And you've got a considerable amount of trust in law enforcement. I expect that they saw exactly that what you do which is that the death was suspicious and that the guy is a douchebag. That isn't legal proof though and doesn't prove that murder occured.

Don't trust that the authorities necessarily have more information than you do and that they must have damning information which can't be released due to the shackles placed on them. That is exactly how we all knew there had to be WMDs...

[scottsax]

Otherwise all the bicyclists in seattle who think they are pedestrians and run through 4-way stops without stopping would all be murderers... I doubt that can be correct...

Amen to that!

[Pez7378]

Lamont, fact of the matter is that 10/10 murderers are in fact Douche bags!

You are committing the fallacy of affirming the douchebag (i believe in my logic class it was called affirming the consequent).

It does not follow that since all murderers are douchebags that any given douchebag is a murderer. If all douchebags were murderers then the subsequent murder rate would probably extinguish the human race. In fact, most douchebags aren't murderers.

Lamont, you are obviously too intelligent to see the simplicity of what I am saying. Perhaps I should have said 9/10 to satisfy the margin of error. I haven't taken a logic class so your logic is illogical to me.

If the authorities think there is enough to suspect foul play there must be something to it.

And you've got a considerable amount of trust in law enforcement. I expect that they saw exactly that what you do which is that the death was suspicious and that the guy is a douchebag. That isn't legal proof though and doesn't prove that murder occured.

Don't trust that the authorities necessarily have more information than you do and that they must have damning information which can't be released due to the shackles placed on them. That is exactly how we all knew there had to be WMDs...

I do have considerable trust in law enforcement. I expect that the investigators do indeed have more information than we do which is odd because most of their information comes from us. It's how they choose to use the information that makes or breaks the case. Clearly this case is several years old and they haven't solved it yet. I was just saying the other day that Scuba would be an easy way to commit murder. The problem is that there are always clues left for the observant investigator. Everything leaves a "finger print". There is always transference of some kind. As for the few "innocent" people locked up in Jail..........well, they are all innocent. Just be sure to ask their lawyers and not their victims.

[scottsax]

As for the few "innocent" people locked up in Jail..........well, they are all innocent. Just be sure to ask their lawyers and not their victims.

Pez, do you work in law enforcement? That sounds like something my dad, uncle, or brother would say. (SPD retired, SPD retired, Lynnwood PD active). Most of the time the guilty are caught, they are, in fact, guilty, and they do deserve to go to jail. BUT, there are rare occasions when they guilty go free, and even rarer occasions when the innocent are convicted. But as law enforcement investigative techniques have evolved and improved over the last ~40 years I've been around cops, those instances have decreased.

It's been my (anecdotal, mind you) experience that bad guys protest their innocence (and the racism of the arresting officer, if applicable) loudly to anyone who'll listen until they're sentenced. In jail, they may ask each other, "What were you convicted of?" instead of, "What did you do?", but it's largely a ceremonial difference, a way of showing respect. They know what they did, and career criminals are usually proud of it, while one-timers often regret the act that landed them in prison.

Having been raised by and around cops, I am constanty trying to reconcile my innate desire to trust government agencies, particularly law enforcement, with my increasingly libertarian view of the world. I hope in this case that justice prevails, but I agree with Lamont that it's better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to be wrongly imprisoned.

And all murderers are douchebags. This particular douchebag might not be a murderer, but he still is a douchebag. If A then B doesn't necessarily mean if B then A. Been awhile since predicate logic....

[Pez7378]

Scott......

Let's just say I have spent some time around convicted felons. And I agree with you completely, your points were very well stated.

[Grateful Diver]

Hmmm ... information can be misinterpreted, or even manipulated. Sometimes intentionally, if there are sufficient (sometimes career or political) motives for doing so.

Case in point ... Cameron Todd Willingham ... a douchebag, perhaps ... but a murderer? You decide ...

The case against him ...
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/dea ... ham899.htm

The evidence ... in hindsight ...
http://truthinjustice.org/willingham.htm

Unfortunately for Mr. Willingham it did him little good, as he was executed anyway.

The Innocence Project has so far exonerated more than 200 people through DNA evidence ... people who had been tried and convicted based on the interpretation of evidence and information. Fifteen of those people had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Yet they were innocent.

I'm with Gandalf on this one ... "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Marc]

I have spent a lot of time around both felons and cops..... At least I can trust a felon to be a felon. I can't say that I can trust a cop to be a cop. (I was married to one for a long time) the exposure I have to the police turned my stomache. I learned that-much like lawyers make it out to be- the law is up to the interpretation of the police officers that enforce it. I have seen good cops and bad cops. I know people that are felons because of circumstances and I know some that are felons because they are felons.

Stand accused before you stand judgemental is all I am saying.

[Marc]

I come from a world where the bad guys are guilty. Period. Therefore they must work very very hard to prove their innocence. If one piece is not fitting the puzzle, end of story.

Did someone yank the whole "innocant until proven guilty" "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "burden of proof lying on the accuser" thing out of the law when I wasn't looking?

Dude, I know what circumstances you formed your opnion from because I know you and what you do for a living, but you can't err on the side of guilty in every case. There has to be due process...... Providing you have enough money to pay for it....