Fatal Honeymoon or just poor judgment

[markmud]

I think that's the most important point (as far as the legal issue, anyway). Is it possible that he killed her? Sure. Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on everything that I've read about it I see no chance of that if you consider it objectively.

Maybe that's because they didn't have a compelling case. Even if we stipulate that he did kill her Alabama had no jurisdiction over it, leaving them to try and convince a jury that he made the plans to do it in Alabama. My take is that even if he did kill her and had a plan he still took advantage of being presented with convenient circumstances. That demands that any supposed plan was more or less limited to wanting to kill her and thinking diving would present an opportunity. If he didn't conspire with others how would you prove when and where he made the plan? That killing her (if that's what happened) had spontaneous aspects could suggest that there was no plan, or that it wasn't a well orchestrated plan created well ahead of time. As I recall the only "evidence" was the supposed plan to increase her life insurance. My recollection is also that they had recently bought a house (presumably with a mortgage) and that her existing life insurance wasn't very significant. I'm sure it's also a very safe bet that if there was no indication of a plan to increase the insurance the existing insurance would have been presented as a motive. The simple fact is that those of us with financial responsibilities to others are either irresponsible or in the eyes of the prosecution we have a motive if our spouse dies under suspicious circumstances.

Once again, it's possible that he made a plan in Alabama, but I'm not seeing anything beyond a possibility.



I don't think there's any question at all that it happens to everybody, whether they end up being a witness or not. If you think about, discuss it, or tell somebody about it there's a chance for your mind to add or change details. Even if the basic story doesn't change, the simple act of repetition (sometimes referred to as "practice") is going to make you better at telling that story without having to pause to remember things or decide what happened. Inconsistency may suggest fabrication, but getting better at telling the story may just mean that you've told it multiple times.




Those are wise words of wisdom. Unfortunately the prosecution (in general, not just this case) often relies heavily on assumptions. They make an assumption, er, develop a "theory", and then set about trying to prove it. It's a very rare case that can be built entirely on indisputable fact. Even when they use facts they often make assumptions in support of those facts. The life insurance is a great example. Having, and increasing, life insurance may be perfectly reasonable (or essential to responsible finances), but short of actual evidence of the reasoning behind having (or increasing) the insurance any idea that it's a motive is an assumption.



Sorry, but your problem here is a failure to think clearly, not an inability to be objective.

It's a well established fact that most people who are murdered are murdered by somebody they know, but that's entirely irrelevant. That statistic may be helpful in seeking out suspects, but you've got it completely bass ackwards in this case. If she was murdered there's no question about who did it. The question here is whether or not she was murdered. There's evidence that may suggest that, but simple statistics isn't part of that evidence. If she had been killed during an apparent robbery or mugging would you say that Gabe probably didn't do it because 2/3 of murdered women aren't killed by their intimate partners?

Hi Scagrotto,

Your post #40 is right on--on every response you gave.

The people of Australia are guilty of jailing a person, who may have been up to no good, but the government could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would the persecution offer a lesser manslaughter plea bargain convicting Gabe of being an incompetent buddy diver to an incompetent diver if they had a solid case? Circumstantial cases are difficult to prove and they should be.

Detectives and persecutors are experts at getting people to incriminate themselves, especially when a person has suffered a traumatic experience. Add to this mix the fact that Gabe was in a foreign country with a strange legal system.

Never, ever talk to a cop unless your lawyer is present. If your lawyer tells to you to talk with a detective, fire him/her. It is not your job to give a cop another easy notch on his gun belt.
Dont Talk to Police

Laws vary in different countries and different states. However, cops are not your friends.

Some people cannot handle stressful situations where people are injured or dying. I happen to be good when confronted with blood, guts, and death (with the limited experience I have, it seems to be the case). Maybe, just maybe, he freaked out.

Only Gabe knows the answer and he may take it to his grave. That's life!

markm

 

[agilis]

Hi Scagrotto,

Your post #40 is right on--on every response you gave.

The people of Australia are guilty of jailing a person, who may have been up to no good, but the government could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would the persecution offer a lesser manslaughter plea bargain convicting Gabe of being an incompetent buddy diver to an incompetent diver if they had a solid case? Circumstantial cases are difficult to prove and they should be.

Detectives and persecutors are experts at getting people to incriminate themselves, especially when a person has suffered a traumatic experience. Add to this mix the fact that Gabe was in a foreign country with a strange legal system.

Never, ever talk to a cop unless your lawyer is present. If your lawyer tells to you to talk with a detective, fire him/her. It is not your job to give a cop another easy notch on his gun belt.
Dont Talk to Police

Laws vary in different countries and different states. However, cops are not your friends.

Some people cannot handle stressful situations where people are injured or dying. I happen to be good when confronted with blood, guts, and death (with the limited experience I have, it seems to be the case). Maybe, just maybe, he freaked out.

Only Gabe knows the answer and he may take it to his grave. That's life!

markm

I agree completely, but it's not always that simple. A couple of decades ago I was approached by an administrative employee at the college where I was, at the time, a tenured member of the faculty and an officer of the faculty union. The employee, who was not a member of my union but was a friend, asked me for advice. She was being investigated for embezzling college funds, a moderate sum.

During the conversation I got the impression that she was guilty. I immediately told her that I didn't want to know anything more about the situation, and that it was a mistake to discuss this matter with anyone other than a lawyer. I suggested she consult a lawyer immediately, and to keep her mouth shut in the meantime. I told her not to talk to the police, and not to believe anything they might tell her.

To make a long story shorter, the police learned of this conversation and sought an indictment against me for interfering in a police investigation. I had to appear before a grand jury, which refused to return an indictment. I assured the jurors that I would have given the same advice to any of them had they approached me under similar circumstances, and that it was a disgrace for the police to attempt to punish someone for offering friendly advice.

I was eloquent and reasonably respectable, but this could easily have gone the other way. The district attorney attempted to suggest that I might be romantically involved with the employee through tone of voice and suggestive questions. That this was known to be untrue did not deter him in any way. He grew indignant when I called him a liar and he changed the topic immediately. These people have all the power.

To assume that the police are your friend can indeed be extremely hazardous, and offering advice is not always without consequences.

 

[markmud]

Hi Agiles,
You wrote: "I agree completely, but it's not always that simple."

Uhmaaaa....it is simple, but very difficult to do. Sane human beings like being helpful. We like helping authority figures. We don't like criminals.

I have had a few traffic stops in the last 4 years (minor stuff, no biggie). I have learned, and practiced, answering the cops questions with questions. They wanted me to incriminate myself because they did not have Probable Cause for Arrest. Ask about their training, their certificates, the calibration on their lidar, the interrogation room (if you are in one), ask about a bucket to piss in, ask about some low sodium food as you don't want your blood pressure to spike? If you must talk, ask them questions. May I have quilted Northern Tissue, as I think I have to download a deuce?

Your situation is a classic situation. Martha Stewart did not think she was lying and she wasn't. The federal government has tried to quantify the number of laws that they have on the books and they failed. The US federal government can't count the number of laws it has because there are too many. Martha Stewart missed one of them and had to spend five years in jail because of it.

Don't talk to cops. Had Gabe not talked to cops, he probably would not have been convicted of manslaughter.

markm

 

[scagrotto]

Why would the persecution ...

I'll assume that's a typo, but given the particulars of the case I'd say it's spot on.

Dont Talk to Police

That's an excellent video, that everybody should watch. Here's a link (well, it was supposed to be just a link) to the 2nd part

 

[nolatom]

Wasn't Gabe a certified Rescue Diver? Do I recall his defense was (in part) that he was inexperienced, didn't know what to do, and "panicked" and zoomed to the surface for "help"?

Who the f.. certified him as a rescue diver?? At the very least he should have his card jerked, but I understand the certifying bodies don't have that authority, they "found you qualified as of the day you passed", and no more, no matter how awful you are afterwards.

So even if you can't be a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt, you have at the least proved yourself to be dangerously incompetent or panicky or clueless when your wife slips below your grasp and you head in the other direction though you've been taught in Rescue to get the "unresponsive on the bottom" diver and bring her up, if you have air to do it. why should this guy still (apparently) have a Rescue card?

Rant over. And pardon me if I've got the facts wrong here. If not, then I hope he never changes his name, so I can make sure I never ever dive with him.

 

[clownfishsydney]

Nolatom, read the articles linked to this thread and you will see all about it. He also has not dived since then and is very unlikely to.

 

[boulderjohn]

Who the f.. certified him as a rescue diver?? At the very least he should have his card jerked, but I understand the certifying bodies don't have that authority, they "found you qualified as of the day you passed", and no more, no matter how awful you are afterwards.

I am writing from memory here, so if I did not recall correctly, please advise. He was certified as a Rescue Diver by NASDS in a quarry, and there is some question as to whether he actually met those requirements. His wife was similarly certified by the same instructor. That is where they were when they went on the honeymoon.

 

[nolatom]

Nolatom, read the articles linked to this thread and you will see all about it. He also has not dived since then and is very unlikely to.

I read the sections on background and the dive(s), what an intelligent and thorough account. And I am most glad to hear this guy will (apparently) never darken our underwater doors again.

Yeah he was thin on experience except it seems for the Cozumel dives which were 'big boy" if accurately recorded. I took Rescue at about 50 dives, in a Panhandle spring (Morrison) which was also pretty "swimming pool"-like except it had a beach. And I still can't understand why he left Tina and didn't try to go after her, he had all the time in the world, and all the air too. That's absolutely the main thing they teach you in Rescue. I'm skeptical that "inexperience" explains this as opposed to something much more venal.

And he didn't notice until *after* he refitted and cleared his mask that his reg was adrift, and replaced it with his alternate? WTF? "breathe first, then you can solve your other problems" is how I learned it. Whatever, he still could have easily caught up (down) to Tina by hitting any dump valve and getting there. He's making up excuses (imho). But I understand this case is complicated, and I find myself kind of unwilling to believe a friggin' word Gabe says that's favorable to him. I did follow this fairly closely on this site when it happened, and it still seems too unrealistic to be an innocent explanation. Beyond reasonable doubt? I was close to saying yes, but understand that others may and do differ.

 

[MARQX]

Okay, this is old news, the story has been out there for years, but I've just finished a little reading and review of this incident and have form my opinion based on looking at a lot of data, and also what I know with my own limited experience.

Two things

First, in my opinion, poor investigation and misunderstood facts aside, Gabe by the Aussie definition of 'manslaughter' was guilty of that 'crime', he was negligent, he and his wife should never have been on that dive, in the water without a DM or Instructor. And even though "The Hero" Wade Singleton tried to save Tina (and rightly so because he was clearly more negligent than Gabe is so many ways), he should have been even more accountable.

Second, Gabe was no murderer. If it had been his intent to dive and drown his wife by cutting off her air, wouldn't it have been smarter to 'forget' his dive computer entirely, and explain that he was using tables and his watch? I've looked at Mike McFayden's analysis of the dive data, and I'm pretty sure that even being bigger than my wife, I'm not going to turn off her air, and then hold onto her in a 'bearhug' for 3-4 minutes while she drowns without a huge struggle, and then have the wherewithal to turn her valve back on, and somehow account for why there was so much air missing in only the 3-4 minutes she spent acutally breathing.

Now, I am not a super experienced diver myself, but I like to think I've taken a learning progression to my new hobby and sport. So, I take a little exception to McFayden's surly ideas that a diver with 50-60 dives couldn't dive the Yongala. For crying out loud, it's at 27 meters, a deep dive, current might be a problem, but it's a non-penetration wreck, and since the predominant current direction is about what it was the day of this accident. I can't see why the dive itself was a problem.

The difference is out of my dives today (145), I have an average dive time per dive of 40 minutes (which is pretty good for a 335#, 55 year old man), and out of my 145 dives 51 of them are between 18 and 25 meters, 24 of them are between 25 and 30 meters, and 11 of them are in excess of 30 meters (all 11 with an instructor for training (AOW/DEEP/WRECK/SIDEMOUNT). So for this relatively 'inexperienced' diver 86 of my 145 dives (almost 60%) would be classified as DEEP, and I'm not just in the water for a 'quick dip', Also, of those same 145 dives, 24 are wreck dives, 15 of them in Coron. I get my moneys worth for the effort.

Now, my wife has nearly 60 dives, but again, nearly 30-35% of her dives are DEEP by definition, and I know she also has 5 over 30 meters. And, she got her certification (yes, to make me happy) in the harsh waters of SoCal, paying the price to haul gear from the parking lot at Redondo Beach, and to crawl out of the surf after. She nearly gave up, her instructor never figured it would take. But he was there teaching me the DRY SUIT specialty the first time we dived together. And the next time we dove in an aquarium, and after that in Saipan. And I was scared to death having her diving with me. Turns out she is a pretty good diver, has really good SAC, loves the critters. And although I've managed extra trips while she had to work, we enjoy traveling together and diving together.

I mention all this because while I think Gabe was innocent of murder, I also think he was a big dummy. Deep diving does take practice, and certainly, diving in a quarry, no matter how cold, or how poor the vis isn't diving in the ocean. (Nor is diving in the ocean, quarry diving, where I believe an overconfident diver could find themselves in similar trouble.). But diving in that environment with a handful of dives where the guy basically stuck his head under the water? He had no business diving that wreck without a DM.

And then taking that pretty little wife diving without a DM on that wreck? She was a total train wreck mentally. He had to know she was nervous, He had to know that the dive would be stretching her to her limits. They were on a liveaboard for heck sake, he could have scheduled her for her AOW course, then the problem was the instructors to work out, and he could just follow along and enjoy the dive. Not having professional help was just stupid. That was negligent, it was reckless, and he definitely contributed to her death, but he didn't murder her.

For Mike Ball Expeditions (who until I came upon this incident while looking into a trip I thought about using), I guess I'm now going to look elsewhere for our Barrier Reef liveaboard experience we are planning for 2017. The way they handled everything from the time Gabe booked, to basically abandoning him after the accident was not professional, and they obviously don't check out their Boat Directors moral compass.

So, now that I've ranted, anyone care to tell me if you agree or disagree and why not?

 

[MARQX]

Totally agree with you, FWI I used Silverswift when I was downunder a few years ago and felt they were above and beyond on all counts of professionalism and customer service, I would strongly recommend them for your 2017 trip.