AfterDark
Contributor
I got a letter from Dave yesterday. He didn't mention it. As soon as I get news I'll post it.
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
AfterDark
Contributor
I got word that 48 hours will run a program on Dave May 8th.
UaVaj
Contributor
accident or murder. who knows. there was no witness and no hard evidence.
the civil lawsuit obviously got the best of it.
no buddy diving for me.
the civil lawsuit obviously got the best of it.
no buddy diving for me.
AfterDark
Contributor
A reminder that 48 hours is running a program about this on this Saturday May 8. @ 10pm. My DVR is set.
AfterDark
Contributor
Ayisha
Contributor
I thought the 48 Hours show was very well done. The interviewer seemed to know the case quite well and knew some of the answers before the respondents gave them. He seemed to be very knowledgeable about the case. They interviewed a lot of people on both sides of the case, and it seemed to be fair coverage. We heard many of the things we have read here and in the accompanying articles, though I believe we have more information on this board than what was reported in the show. One person notably missing was Christian, the diver who brought Shelley up. I think they came to the only reasonable conclusion that could be made from the evidence and they supported the murder conviction well.
UaVaj
Contributor
Wasted 1 hour of my life - I will never get back.
I was hoping for some hard evidence that proves David was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only hard evidence was the broken mask strap pin and missing snorkel mouthpiece and amount of air left in the tank. WTF. As for the mask - I broken a few mask strap pin to know you never know when it will break. Cheap plastics. As for snorkel - who uses a snorkel while a regulator is in their mouth. As for amount of air left in the tank - that does not even match the profile of a 8 min dive.
Regardless, if David is guilty or not - that is NOT the point. Obviously the judicial system definitely got the best of it. Convicted a man based on all gut feeling. Where is the real forensic evidence!
I was hoping for some hard evidence that proves David was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only hard evidence was the broken mask strap pin and missing snorkel mouthpiece and amount of air left in the tank. WTF. As for the mask - I broken a few mask strap pin to know you never know when it will break. Cheap plastics. As for snorkel - who uses a snorkel while a regulator is in their mouth. As for amount of air left in the tank - that does not even match the profile of a 8 min dive.
Regardless, if David is guilty or not - that is NOT the point. Obviously the judicial system definitely got the best of it. Convicted a man based on all gut feeling. Where is the real forensic evidence!
K_girl
Contributor
Agree with Ayisha on everything - I really wanted to hear from Christian. Here are the things I took note of that I thought was new information:
1. David consistently showed no emotion for Shelley the numerous times the interviewer got him to talk about her. Even several dramatic close-up of his blank, emotionless stare to emphasize the point. The one time David talked about the death of his mother, he did show emotion. If time is the factor that takes emotion away, Shelley's death was many, many years after David's mother's death as David was only 22 at the time of his mother's death. David was present for the Shelley's death, however, not present for the death of his mother (although he claimed to Shelley's parents that he did witness the beating death of his mother in response to their demand that he show some kind of emotion). I think the long-lasting emotional impact of witnessing someone die would have much greater and longer-lasting effects. However, that is not the case here. I think there was a purpose in this program for David showing no emotion for Shelley as opposed to showing emotion for his mother - and that was to bolster the idea that his mother's death had a deep impact on him and "changed" him. However, if he is indeed a "changed" and "non-emotional" person, why does he now, at this time, show emotion for his mother's death? I find his behavior confusing to follow.
2. David used the exact same words as he used in the courtroom when the interviewer asked him if he killed his wife - "I did not, would not, could not..." That indicated to me that there was a lot of rehearsal with that line and an indication of an insincere response.
3. I thought that David was often confrontational with the interviewer when challenged about what certain words or actions mean. Several times David challenged the interviewer by turning the question around and asking the interviewer what it meant and David seemed quite annoyed. In a courtroom, it would have been ruled as "non-responsive" and does not make a witness look good at all. Does this behavior go to the defense's argument that David does not have the capacity to respond as expected? Perhaps. It might also be interpreted as an element of a psychopathic personality.
4. For the first time we heard that David denied that his overtures to Mary Bassler were sexual in nature and that he had invited her (in writing) to join him for a weekend while still married to Shelley. David claimed that everything he wrote to Mary was based on only desiring a "friendship" with her. He described the moment he tried to passionately kiss Mary as foolish. He ignored the fact that Mary told him she was not interested in getting involved with him because he was a married man as she pulled away from this attempted kiss. Fact is that they did strike-up a sexual relationship two months after Shelley's death. I don't think the jury bought the idea that David had only friendship on his mind and he lost a great deal of credibility with the jury. It would be easy for the jury to conclude that David was lying to them about this, therefore, he would be capable of lying about anything else.
Two points of defense. Two witnesses not allowed to testify.
1. Calculation of air usage and time of death. I agree that the defense could have shown that the prosecution could have gotten the air usage wrong, but I don't think it would have changed the case. However, you do have to factor in the air usage, the fact that Shelley went through some kind of struggle underwater and that can quickly use up air. This was not a shallow dive, it was about 80 feet. I don't think either the prosecution nor the defense can accurately calculate Shelley's time of death on this dive. Only David knows when he split-off from Shelley and knowing that exact moment is not knowable with the evidence. Does it matter? No. Not really. It could only help the defense if the defense could prove that Swain came up to the boat well before Shelley had died - that cannot be proven and more likely air usage would show that David was still in the water when Shelley died. That is the only pertinent fact in terms of air usage. The prosecution tried to take it a step further by showing that David was actually with Shelley when she died and that went too far. They really could not prove that.
2. Swain psychiatrist. Would this have made a difference in the result of the trial? Some will see it as "manufactured" evidence, but certainly psychiatric evaluations are used in the U.S. cases all the time, but rarely is it successful in setting aside a conviction for a new trial. Psychiatric evidence is something that is usually used to explain why someone did the thing they did and to reduce the sentence. It is almost never successful in showing innocence of the crime as appears to be the basis of argument here. The court could potentially rule that a court-appointed psychiatrist be allowed to examine Swain. If the psychiatrist finds that Swain is a psychopathic personality, or if they get Swain's psychiatrist to admit that Swain's behavior could also be consistent with psychopathic behavior, it would be detrimental to his case.
However, as I have said many times, every possible point for appeal should be made and I will be very interested to see the appeal.
1. David consistently showed no emotion for Shelley the numerous times the interviewer got him to talk about her. Even several dramatic close-up of his blank, emotionless stare to emphasize the point. The one time David talked about the death of his mother, he did show emotion. If time is the factor that takes emotion away, Shelley's death was many, many years after David's mother's death as David was only 22 at the time of his mother's death. David was present for the Shelley's death, however, not present for the death of his mother (although he claimed to Shelley's parents that he did witness the beating death of his mother in response to their demand that he show some kind of emotion). I think the long-lasting emotional impact of witnessing someone die would have much greater and longer-lasting effects. However, that is not the case here. I think there was a purpose in this program for David showing no emotion for Shelley as opposed to showing emotion for his mother - and that was to bolster the idea that his mother's death had a deep impact on him and "changed" him. However, if he is indeed a "changed" and "non-emotional" person, why does he now, at this time, show emotion for his mother's death? I find his behavior confusing to follow.
2. David used the exact same words as he used in the courtroom when the interviewer asked him if he killed his wife - "I did not, would not, could not..." That indicated to me that there was a lot of rehearsal with that line and an indication of an insincere response.
3. I thought that David was often confrontational with the interviewer when challenged about what certain words or actions mean. Several times David challenged the interviewer by turning the question around and asking the interviewer what it meant and David seemed quite annoyed. In a courtroom, it would have been ruled as "non-responsive" and does not make a witness look good at all. Does this behavior go to the defense's argument that David does not have the capacity to respond as expected? Perhaps. It might also be interpreted as an element of a psychopathic personality.
4. For the first time we heard that David denied that his overtures to Mary Bassler were sexual in nature and that he had invited her (in writing) to join him for a weekend while still married to Shelley. David claimed that everything he wrote to Mary was based on only desiring a "friendship" with her. He described the moment he tried to passionately kiss Mary as foolish. He ignored the fact that Mary told him she was not interested in getting involved with him because he was a married man as she pulled away from this attempted kiss. Fact is that they did strike-up a sexual relationship two months after Shelley's death. I don't think the jury bought the idea that David had only friendship on his mind and he lost a great deal of credibility with the jury. It would be easy for the jury to conclude that David was lying to them about this, therefore, he would be capable of lying about anything else.
Two points of defense. Two witnesses not allowed to testify.
1. Calculation of air usage and time of death. I agree that the defense could have shown that the prosecution could have gotten the air usage wrong, but I don't think it would have changed the case. However, you do have to factor in the air usage, the fact that Shelley went through some kind of struggle underwater and that can quickly use up air. This was not a shallow dive, it was about 80 feet. I don't think either the prosecution nor the defense can accurately calculate Shelley's time of death on this dive. Only David knows when he split-off from Shelley and knowing that exact moment is not knowable with the evidence. Does it matter? No. Not really. It could only help the defense if the defense could prove that Swain came up to the boat well before Shelley had died - that cannot be proven and more likely air usage would show that David was still in the water when Shelley died. That is the only pertinent fact in terms of air usage. The prosecution tried to take it a step further by showing that David was actually with Shelley when she died and that went too far. They really could not prove that.
2. Swain psychiatrist. Would this have made a difference in the result of the trial? Some will see it as "manufactured" evidence, but certainly psychiatric evaluations are used in the U.S. cases all the time, but rarely is it successful in setting aside a conviction for a new trial. Psychiatric evidence is something that is usually used to explain why someone did the thing they did and to reduce the sentence. It is almost never successful in showing innocence of the crime as appears to be the basis of argument here. The court could potentially rule that a court-appointed psychiatrist be allowed to examine Swain. If the psychiatrist finds that Swain is a psychopathic personality, or if they get Swain's psychiatrist to admit that Swain's behavior could also be consistent with psychopathic behavior, it would be detrimental to his case.
However, as I have said many times, every possible point for appeal should be made and I will be very interested to see the appeal.
Last edited:
K_girl
Contributor
Uavaj - the broken mask and the missing snorkel mouthpiece must be explained. The defense cannot explain it. In this show, the defense argued that in the open water dive book, divers who panic will reject their equipment. What they neglected to say was this happens on the surface, most especially with new divers. The book specifically says that panicked divers will place their masks on their heads, start splashing about wildly, spit their regs out, unresponsive to commands. Does this sound like something that happens at 80 feet? No. Shelley was an experienced diver. There were no currents in the area to fight. She did not have a heart attack. Her notes in her dive log relating to panic were really about anxiety during her earlier dive years. She never actually went into full-blown panic where she started making serious mistakes. She would talk about how she started to "panic" but would notice the lovely fish and forget all about it.
During the trial, the defense tried to say that she experienced such a terrible headache that she ripped her own mask off so violently that it broke the pin and somehow she pulled her mouthpiece off the snorkel. It is just beyond reasonable belief that this could happen. Cheap plastic would explain the broken mask strap, but doesn't explain a broken pin. No one ever said that the plastic around the pin broke, only that the pin was missing. An indication that the pin was bent enough to be pulled out. The bending of a pin would require significant force. Most especially since there are two pins.
Your point is excellent indeed about the missing snorkel mouthpiece. Yes, no one uses their snorkel mouthpiece while diving, so it did NOT separate because she was biting down on it. It separated because it was pulled apart from the snokel by applying pressure from two sides - the mouthpiece and the snokel. This would take two hands to accomplish. So, what two hands accomplished this task? The most logical - one hand belonged to David and one hand belonged to Shelley in a struggle over the mask. There is no other reasonable explanation.
These two things are the "hard" evidence in this case and shows that Shelley put up a fight for her mask as some thing or some one was trying to take it away from her.
During the trial, the defense tried to say that she experienced such a terrible headache that she ripped her own mask off so violently that it broke the pin and somehow she pulled her mouthpiece off the snorkel. It is just beyond reasonable belief that this could happen. Cheap plastic would explain the broken mask strap, but doesn't explain a broken pin. No one ever said that the plastic around the pin broke, only that the pin was missing. An indication that the pin was bent enough to be pulled out. The bending of a pin would require significant force. Most especially since there are two pins.
Your point is excellent indeed about the missing snorkel mouthpiece. Yes, no one uses their snorkel mouthpiece while diving, so it did NOT separate because she was biting down on it. It separated because it was pulled apart from the snokel by applying pressure from two sides - the mouthpiece and the snokel. This would take two hands to accomplish. So, what two hands accomplished this task? The most logical - one hand belonged to David and one hand belonged to Shelley in a struggle over the mask. There is no other reasonable explanation.
These two things are the "hard" evidence in this case and shows that Shelley put up a fight for her mask as some thing or some one was trying to take it away from her.
AfterDark
Contributor
"1. Calculation of air usage and time of death. I agree that the defense could have shown that the prosecution could have gotten the air usage wrong, but I don't think it would have changed the case. However, you do have to factor in the air usage, the fact that Shelley went through some kind of struggle underwater and that can quickly use up air."
If her air was turned off as the prosecution "proved" then no air would have been used during a struggle. Now if they are wrong about that what else are they wrong about?
If her air was turned off as the prosecution "proved" then no air would have been used during a struggle. Now if they are wrong about that what else are they wrong about?
Similar threads
