NACD Instructor standards violation

[PfcAJ]

The IUCRR reports of yesteryear did not contain any 'opinion'. That's why they were good.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

For what its worth, as a member of the IUCRR, I posted a request for factual unbiased reports to continue to be posted for public view in the organization's members-only discussion forum.

 

[Hetland]

There was an extensive debate about IUCRR reports in Cave Divers Forum a year or two ago. A representative explained why they had stopped issuing reports, and it was all about potential liability. They said their reports are available from the police through FOIA, but they would not be publishing anything themselves.

Investigating incidents like this can be very challenging. You will find that some people will be very, very tight-lipped, even refusing to talk at all. Some will give information that is possibly false. Why? Well, let's look at the latest incident at Ginnie. Some clearly think that one individual made a poor decision. You can talk about whether or not you feel a poor decision was made all you want in a public forum like this. You are protected by a variety of laws. Publish that opinion in an official report, and it is a different situation. Someone who may or may not have made a bad decision may describe things in a way that will make the decision not look so bad. Someone who may or may not have made a bad decision will be advised by an attorney not to talk at all. They certainly don't want an official report published that puts them in a bad light, and they will do what they can to prevent it. It is very frustrating to try to find out what really happened. When you are done, you cannot have complete confidence that what you believe to be true is really true, and you end up omitting anything controversial.

The IUCRR reports of yesteryear did not contain any 'opinion'. That's why they were good.

No one wants opinion, they want facts:

• found at xft of penetration in x tunnel
• backgas empty, marked 32%
• no stages
• scooter found xft away, operable
• buddy stated "x"

A plaintiff's attorney will get the info anyway, so part of the stated reason for not publishing is bull$#(^. They could get an agreement from the LEO organizations authorizing the publishing of limited info after some period of time has passed because honestly, who else is going to go in and haul out a body? If the community really cared, they'd chip in to pay for foia copies, but they're lazy (myself included).

A reasonable compromise is to publish a report every year or so with sanitized facts "person with full cave card found in unlined siphon system 800ft back with a bottle mislabeled 32%, actually containing pure argon". Sure, we could figure out the who, what where, but the stuff that really mattered would get to the community, and the org would have some deniability.

 

[nimoh]

I'm no lawyer and my legal experience is limited to episodes of Law and Order, so this question may be completely irrelevant.

Wouldn't there be an issue if some facts were published by the IUCRR and then later determined to be inadmissible in court?

 

[Wookie]

What is admissible in court has nothing to do with it being a fact or not.

 

[Hetland]

I'm no lawyer and my legal experience is limited to episodes of Law and Order, so this question may be completely irrelevant.

Wouldn't there be an issue if some facts were published by the IUCRR and then later determined to be inadmissible in court?

Things that may not be discoverable usually deal with privilege or privacy. Nothing in a police report would be privileged and the courts have ways of addressing matters of privacy. If there's something your worried about in the report (name of a dive shop that provided fills, make of analyzer that gave a bad reading, resort operator) then just redact it, and give us the stuff we need for accident analysis. Another way evidence can be barred, is if it is discovered as part of a rights violation (4th amendment, 5th amendment, etc.). That may become an issue if there is a criminal case opened on the incident, but having information (sanitized or not) on a semi-public forum wouldn't change it's admissibility. Inadmissible evidence is published every second. Unless a juror considers evidence not given at trial, where's the harm?

Again, even if it were an issue, just publish a report with names, dates, and identifiable locations redacted. Do it every 12-18 months, or every 5 recoveries. Accident analysis can continue, and the sky won't fall (probably).

 

[boulderjohn]

The NSS has published its American Caving Accidents annually for many years. In the past, these were almost completely dry caving accidents, and the cave diving incidents that did make the publication tended to be pretty terse. That has changed, and we are trying to make sure that each American cave diving accident has as thorough a description of the incidents as possible. Not being the IUCRR gives less direct access to information, though.

 

[Omisson]

No one wants opinion, they want facts:

• found at xft of penetration in x tunnel
• backgas empty, marked 32%
• no stages
• scooter found xft away, operable
• buddy stated "x"

A plaintiff's attorney will get the info anyway, so part of the stated reason for not publishing is bull$#(^. They could get an agreement from the LEO organizations authorizing the publishing of limited info after some period of time has passed because honestly, who else is going to go in and haul out a body? If the community really cared, they'd chip in to pay for foia copies, but they're lazy (myself included).

A reasonable compromise is to publish a report every year or so with sanitized facts "person with full cave card found in unlined siphon system 800ft back with a bottle mislabeled 32%, actually containing pure argon". Sure, we could figure out the who, what where, but the stuff that really mattered would get to the community, and the org would have some deniability.

Again you don't understand the law, legal proceedings or science very well. You need to see the very real distinction between facts and conclusions in common parlance versus legal jargon.

"bottle mislabeled 32%, actually containing pure argon"-

this is actually an OPINION/CONCLUSION - it would require a forensic scientific analysis done at a police lab for admission in criminal court- to make it a fact.... and Similarly in a civil court - the person rendering such an opinion would be subject to voire dire on their expertise, have their equipment impounded and tested for calibration etc... Make the bottle/gas available for independent testing, etc... Even distance measurements are subjective and not precise. These opinion could cause the author to become involuntarily enmeshed in a civil or criminal litigation... Great thanks for doing a body recovery.

It's not as simple as publish the "facts" because legally facts and conclusions overlap.

 

[Hetland]

They're going to be subpoenaed anyway! The gasses (if any remain) are going to be re-analyzed anyway. If you don't want to risk being called to testify, stay at the house.

 

[Shocky]

OMG, what a bunch of babble!