DiveMom1
Guest
IMHO all too often civil cases are fought and won/lost on the emotional level. I don't think it always has much to do with facts or evidence.
Diver convicted in wife's drowning
- Thread starter Seanpaul
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Messages
- 53,687
- Reaction score
- 7,869
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Yep, and the odds are in favor of the side with the best law team, deepest pockets. Swain was quoted at the end of the civil trial that he wished there'd be a criminal trial so he could prove his innocence. So he got that, altho it was a bold statement for someone who had so little to present. A google search for David Swain under News offers a variety of stories with some more info, and it doesn't seem like either side had much to support either case. It sounds like the two had a routine of "same ocean" diving - diving a site together but then separating. Hypothetically, the scenarios presented by both sides sound possible, but unproven.
It's a little uncomfortable to think that if I dive, hike, climb, trail ride, whatever with my buddy, girlfriend, wife, business associate, etc. and something goes wrong - I'd better have a clear explanation for everything s/he, I, we did out there. Being in poor financial condition, married to the deceased under a pre-nup that would leave him broke from a divorce, and pursuing another romantic interest before and soon after left him on shaky ground.
DiveMom1
Guest
I think I'll relay this "case" to hubby.... just in case he decided to get rid of me! LOL Makes me wonder though if I'd be suspect if anything happened to my husband or kids on a dive. The mere fact we have dive insurance makes us suspect of profiting from it.
Sheesh.. pretty hard to prove you're innocent in a case like this. Maybe I just keep my video camera clipped to my bc and running at all times. It may not capture anything but it could show I did not engage my buddy causing an incident!
More guilty until proven innocent.
Sheesh.. pretty hard to prove you're innocent in a case like this. Maybe I just keep my video camera clipped to my bc and running at all times. It may not capture anything but it could show I did not engage my buddy causing an incident!
More guilty until proven innocent.
- Messages
- 53,687
- Reaction score
- 7,869
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
I don't think you can profit from dive insurance. It will pay only actually expenses that no other coverage pays and having it is only prudent. Recordings with gaps won't help you tho; see Nixon's Watergate. It does seem tho, that either of you have an accident in the BVIs, whether diving, riding, hiking, showering, whatever - the other better have a good alibi. Witnesses would be best if you can fit them into your plans and bungalow.
With her having a history of panic in the water (many divers have worked thru such), and I am guessing he was her Instructor, it's easy to see how the damages to her mask and other gear could have happened in any of a number of emergency situations. "Shadow of a doubt" is an old term from the Perry Mason show I think, that no real court ever used, but I just don't see how reasonable doubt was satisfied.
The BVIs have very friendly relations with the US, and his family claims they have plenty of ground to appeal - if they have the money. It'll be interesting to see what happens next. The other woman interest makes it tough for him tho.
AfterDark
Contributor
In civil cases the winner is the one that has the most evidence. In this case the parents had expert witnesses, Dave had... what? His word? How do you prove that you didn't commit a crime? He can't prove he was somewhere else, because he was there, there are no witnesses to what Dave was or wasn't doing. So in this civil case the parents had the only "evidence" that was available, Dave had squat. They won he lost. There was no more evidence in the criminal case. How would any of us prove we didn't do it? How would any of you like to go to jail for life on the testimony of expert witness?
This case probably wouldn't even go to a criminal trial in he US.
I suppose it's easy for anyone to point a finger, but we were not there; nor are we aware of all the facts. Although a conviction can be registered with only circumstantial evidence, the Judge must exercise great caution in doing so. I'm not a lawyer, but have some experience as an expert witness in diving cases.
As I understand it (lawyers throw me a bone here) a presumption of fact may take different forms:
1. That the facts and circumstances may raise a presumption so strong that guilt necessarily follows;
2. They may raise a presumption upon which the jury might be directed that if satisfied by the evidence that the facts alleged by the prosecution are established and if no other explanation is offered, they, in some cases, ought to find a verdict of guilty; or
3. They may be so insignificant that the jury is told that they raise no presumption, which does not even require the defendant to address them.
I also think that all circumstantial evidence must be consistent with a verdict of guilty. No aspect of the circumstantial evidence presented can indicate any other reasonable conclusion.
The fact that no proper autopsy was done would seem to lend a reasonable doubt as to how the person died. Obviously the Court felt the evidence was strong enough to sustain a conviction. Who knows? I would thinks that they would have to have something other than what has been published in this article.
As I understand it (lawyers throw me a bone here) a presumption of fact may take different forms:
1. That the facts and circumstances may raise a presumption so strong that guilt necessarily follows;
2. They may raise a presumption upon which the jury might be directed that if satisfied by the evidence that the facts alleged by the prosecution are established and if no other explanation is offered, they, in some cases, ought to find a verdict of guilty; or
3. They may be so insignificant that the jury is told that they raise no presumption, which does not even require the defendant to address them.
I also think that all circumstantial evidence must be consistent with a verdict of guilty. No aspect of the circumstantial evidence presented can indicate any other reasonable conclusion.
The fact that no proper autopsy was done would seem to lend a reasonable doubt as to how the person died. Obviously the Court felt the evidence was strong enough to sustain a conviction. Who knows? I would thinks that they would have to have something other than what has been published in this article.
Scott L
Contributor
GrumpyOldGuy
Contributor
The guy was cheating on his wife. She was wealthy with a pre-nup agreement that protected her assets if they divorced. She died under questionable circumstances while diving with him. He took up with the G/F just 2 weeks after his wifes death. He was convicted in US civil court and BVI criminal courts.
It is true there is no smoking gun, but it sure smells bad.
It is true there is no smoking gun, but it sure smells bad.
It may not look good, but you don't send a man to jail for life because of appearances. If he is convicted, the evidence should prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm not defending the guy, because we don't know what happened. Oddly enough, the newspaper can't seem to make any sense of it either. If the guy's guilty, what's so difficult of listing the circumstantial evidence that lead to the conviction? On what basis was he convicted?
DiveMom1
Guest
I sure don't see it. Too easy for something to go wrong.. if he did "do something" he certianly took a large risk at being successful with wifes reactions and friends not catching the event.
Our DAN insurance provides for a $25,000 "bonus" benefit on top of life insurance if death happens within 180 days of a dive related event or as a death occuring during a dive. Not that this would necessarily be a motive.. at least for most people.
We will never know what actually happened. Anything here is speculation.
Our DAN insurance provides for a $25,000 "bonus" benefit on top of life insurance if death happens within 180 days of a dive related event or as a death occuring during a dive. Not that this would necessarily be a motive.. at least for most people.
We will never know what actually happened. Anything here is speculation.
Similar threads
