Austrailian Skipper's trial
A7WIENS
.c The Associated Press
CAIRNS, Australia (AP) - The skipper of a tourist boat who left two U.S.
divers behind on Australia's Great Barrier Reef was acquitted today of
manslaughter.
A jury found Geoffrey ``Jack'' Nairn not guilty in the deaths of Thomas
Lonergan, 33, and his 28-year-old wife, Eileen, who were last seen Jan. 25,
1998, when they went diving from Nairn's boat at St. Crispin Reef, 45 miles
from the northern resort town of Port Douglas.
Nairn was charged with manslaughter following an inquest's ruling that the
couple, from Baton Rouge, La., perished at sea after they were left behind on a
reef and not reported missing for 50 hours.
A 1998 inquest heard the Lonergans were probably eaten by sharks. Their bodies
have never been found. A swim fin, a buoyancy vest, a wetsuit hood and an air
tank were recovered, along with a diver's writing board bearing a plea for
help.
The jury took 90 minutes today to reach its verdict that Nairn was not guilty
of criminal negligence causing death, after a 12-day trial in the Queensland
state Supreme Court.
Nairn faced up to life imprisonment if convicted.
Eileen Lonergan's parents, who flew from the United States to attend the trial,
sat motionless in court as the verdict was read.
The Lonergans' disappearance prompted Queensland authorities to impose tougher
guidelines on the state's multimillion-dollar diving industry. The Great
Barrier Reef's colorful coral and marine life attracts about 1.3 million scuba
divers each year.
AP-NY-11-24-99 1032EST
Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP
news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.
NE333RO
>divers behind on Australia's Great Barrier Reef was acquitted today of
>manslaughter.
>
>A jury found Geoffrey ``Jack'' Nairn not guilty in the deaths of Thomas
>Lonergan, 33, and his 28-year-old wife, Eileen, who were last seen Jan. 25,
>1998
Interesting that that would even go to trial with no bodys. I thought the
whole thing sounded a bit hoaxy.
Bob Crownfield
IF they were aboard the boat when it left the dock, and were not when it
got back, then there would seem a good question of how the skipper
handled the responsibility of passengers, to which he has a duty.
If they were checked out on a dive, and then left, as master, I would
expect to be held liable, unless I could prove a reason why I was not
responsible. The fact that they were checked out on a dive would showe
that they were on board, and the captain was responsible for recovering
them. This should make the captain liable unless proper and accurate way
of checking them back on board was shown. IF they were left on the reef,
this would be reasonable proof that the crew had erred in their
responsibility to the passengers.
--
Bob Crownfield, Crown...@Home.com
Photography, Flying, Delphi Rad Addict
Now diving the Pacific in the LA Area.
Jack Connick
Criminal responsibility hard to prove, civil liability easy to prove.
Hope the families sue him into the stone age.
Jack Connick
OWC - NAUI, LA County 1969
AOW - PADI June, 1999
--
Please remove the words "NOSPAM" from my address when replying.
scs
Lucho <abird...@ndabushinthe.nest> wrote
>
>
> In most cases I took this not as an insult but as a expression of national
> pride, but the comments were pointed in their intent. It may well be that
> the Australian jury was not ready to convict an Australian for the deaths
of
> two US citizens when the lack of bodies allowed them a bit of latitude on
> that point. We have seen American juries react in the same way when race
and
> nationality are a component of the dispute.
>
> Were they (the two missing people) Australian citizens the verdict may
have
> been quite different.
>
>
Try three tanks of pure oxygen and call me in the morning.
Vince Brannigan
Vince
Brian Wagner
>
> Lucho <abird...@ndabushinthe.nest> wrote
> > Were they (the two missing people) Australian citizens the verdict may
> have
> > been quite different.
> >
> >
> Try three tanks of pure oxygen and call me in the morning.
No, he has a valid point. It happens everywhere and is the main flaw
in the jury system. There is no obligation for a jury to be rational.
I've been watching the way everyone here has been sparring with this
guy in the hall of Shame thread, and while I sometimes object to his
attitude and demeanor, his logic and rhetoric are sound. If you wantto
dispute what he says here, how about trying some facts and reason,
rather than cute remarks?
scs
>> dispute what he says here, how about trying some facts and reason,
>> rather than cute remarks?
>It may well be that
>the Australian jury was not ready to convict an Australian for the deaths
of
>two US citizens when the lack of bodies allowed them a bit of latitude on
>that point.
Did you actually read this? What will be next? Maybe if the people were
English instead, there wouldn't even have been a trail. Maybe if the people
were Canadians instead, it wouldn't even make the news. ( English & Canadian
has been used to make this point and is not a discrimination of any kind.) I
have chosen a "cute" remark because we are dealing with a personal opinion.
>Were they (the two missing people) Australian citizens the verdict may have
>been quite different.
This is a very powerful statement. I do not see a need to drag this out any
further.
Brian, there are no facts and there is no reason. How can I dispute
somebody's view of a matter? But, my "cute" remark made you think about my
reply. Job well done, if I may say so myself. You, of all posters in this
NG, should know that I don't use any "off the shelf" replies. A little humor
goes a long way. Like I always say: " Life is a blast, go and get one."
Chuck Tribolet
drunk, drive, kill people, you can be tried for manslaughter.
It happens with some regularity (probably part of the reasons
MADD gave California their only A earlier this week).
In one case, fish around for a tape on a mountain road, run
over and kill four bicyclists, get tried for manslaughter even
though stone cold sober.
Jason O'Rourke wrote:
>
> Not knowing anything about Australia's legal doctrines, I don't see any
> reason to presume a nationalistic explanation.
>
> Manslaughter requires intent, does it not? (in the US we do have
> involuntary manslaughter as well) The captain was incompetent, but I
> don't think there was a desire to do this. Isn't his boat out of the
> diving business now?
> --
> Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
> We need more snow!
--
Chuck Tribolet
Internet: tri...@garlic.com
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/triblet
Silicon Valley: Best day job in the world.
Craig & Vicky Miller
doesn't have the same legal standings, laws, rules etc. as the USA
does.....This may come as a suprise to you but in many countries civil suits
cannot be filed for damages unless there is criminal charges proved.....Only
in America are civil suits so easy to file against someone proven innocent
by a jury....."If someone is found not criminally responsible for an
action...how can he be held financially responsible??"...The American
judicial system is built around being able to sue someone for just about
anything......This is not an intent to slam you Americans...it is your way,
your nation, and you are definitely the most proud nation in the
world......But you have to appreciate that the rest of the world hasn't
adopted every legality that has been used or accepted in your country.
I agree that what happened to this couple is a tragedy...a nightmare for
anyone who has or does long range boat dives....but without court
transcripts of the trial, evidence presented, witness accounts, etc.....you
dont't have the right to jump into an "I've been prjudiced against!"
attitude.
Enough babbling...just got back from Ambergris Cay, Belize.....AWSOME.....
My apologies if anyone feels offended, it wasn't my intent.
Craig
Jason O'Rourke
Rod Childs
Bob Crownfield
I think that the failure of a master in his professional duty to his
passengers would make it criminally negligent manslaughter.
There is also involuntary manslaughter.
Jason O'Rourke wrote:
>
> Not knowing anything about Australia's legal doctrines, I don't see any
> reason to presume a nationalistic explanation.
>
> Manslaughter requires intent, does it not? (in the US we do have
> involuntary manslaughter as well) The captain was incompetent, but I
> don't think there was a desire to do this. Isn't his boat out of the
> diving business now?
> --
> Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
> We need more snow!
--
NE333RO
wrote:
>I suspect it has little to do with the legal process itself, and a lot to do
>with the issue of Australians and Americans.
>On a recent trip to PNG I booked some time in Cairns and Sydney, and there
>is a definitive national perspective regarding Australia and the US. On
>numerous occasions people told me that Australia was a better place to live
>and was a better country of people.
>In most cases I took this not as an insult but as a expression of national
>the Australian jury was not ready to convict an Australian for the deaths of
>two US citizens when the lack of bodies allowed them a bit of latitude on
>that point.
I would be more inclined to believe that any jury from either country,
would have a hard time putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives,
without bodys.
We had an incident a few years ago in this area where a guy "fell" off a
boat and was presumed drowned without a body ever being found. He turned up a
couple of years later in another part of the state. Seems he got tired of
paying child support.
> We have seen American juries react in the same way when race and
>nationality are a component of the dispute.
>Were they (the two missing people) Australian citizens the verdict may have
>been quite different.
Maybe, but I would like to think not.
scs
Lucho <abird...@ndabushinthe.nest> wrote
> >
> >>It may well be that
> >>the Australian jury was not ready to convict an Australian for the
deaths
> >of
> >>two US citizens when the lack of bodies allowed them a bit of latitude
on
> >>that point.
>
> >Did you actually read this? What will be next? Maybe if the people were
> >English instead, there wouldn't even have been a trail. Maybe if the
people
> >were Canadians instead, it wouldn't even make the news.
> >( English & Canadian
> >has been used to make this point and is not a discrimination of any
kind.)
>>
> Lucho's reply to Rudy<
> I am surprised at your naiveté in this regard. But in any case, the
> resulting hyperbole found in your reply is of your making. I never
suggested
> or implied anything even remotely similar. I simply suggested that *home
> cooking* may have played a role in the findings of the jury.
>
Lucho, I am very, very sorry that I thought you crossed the line with your
post. I know now that I was wrong and that you only meant to tell us that
the "jury" was not ready to convict the "skipper" for the deaths of two
"divers" when the lack of bodies allowed them a bit of latitude on that
point. I also understand now that saying that an "Australian jury" did not
convict an "Australian" for the deaths of two "US citizen" is strictly for
informational purpose. You are absolutely right that I was naive when I
thought that you have "suggested or implied anything even remotely similar".
> Rudy to Brian<
> >I have chosen a "cute" remark because we are dealing with a personal
opinion.
> Lucho to Rudy<
> How do you get an opinion out of my post? It is a proposal of a possible
> situation. But the realities of the legal process, whether a bench or jury
> trial, is that *homefield* advantage is sometimes just that....and
> advantage.
You make me feel really dumb, but I deserve that. How could I ever read an
opinion into your post, when it was only a proposal of a possible situation?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>Were they (the two missing people) Australian citizens the verdict may
>>> have
> >>been quite different.
> >
> >This is a very powerful statement.
>
> That's funny, I didn't, and indeed do not think so now.......especially in
> light of the fact that Australians as a people have shown themselves to be
> as prejudiced, and racially and nationally biased as Americans. The notion
> of a fair trial is quaint. The legal process attempts an "as fair as we
can
> get it trial", but simple and everpresent issues like wealth, appearance,
> race, nationailty, intelligence, venue and many more issue seek to disrupt
> even that abbreviated intent.
>
> I am interested in why you think otherwise.
>
I rather leave this one alone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> [little snip]
> >You, of all posters in this
> >NG, should know that I don't use any "off the shelf" replies. A little
> humor
> >goes a long way.
> >Like I always say: " Life is a blast, go and get one."
>
>
> Can't tell whether to laugh (if the contradiction was intended) or cry (if
> it was not :-)
>
>
Lucho, my friend, if you have a choice.....laugh. I mean it when I say that
life is a blast. You've got to set yourself a goal in life and than go for
it like I do. My goal is to dive as deep as my IQ is high. Yes Sir, all the
way to 85'.
Vince Brannigan
Craig & Vicky Miller wrote:
> Chuck.....one thing all must keep in mind here is that the rest of the world
> doesn't have the same legal standings, laws, rules etc. as the USA
> does.....This may come as a suprise to you but in many countries civil suits
> cannot be filed for damages unless there is criminal charges proved....
not in any of the many countries that I have taught or woked in.
> .Only
> in America are civil suits so easy to file against someone proven innocent
> by a jury....
A jury verdict only says the state has not proved the case "beyond a reasonable
doubt" the civil standard of proof as well as the evidence permitted, is much
less protective of the defendant.
> ."If someone is found not criminally responsible for an
> action...how can he be held financially responsible??"...The American
> judicial system is built around being able to sue someone for just about
> anything....
nonsense There are many actions which can be filed all over the world which have
no counterpart in the USA.
> ..This is not an intent to slam you Americans...it is your way,
> your nation, and you are definitely the most proud nation in the
> world......But you have to appreciate that the rest of the world hasn't
> adopted every legality that has been used or accepted in your country.
> I agree that what happened to this couple is a tragedy...a nightmare for
> anyone who has or does long range boat dives....but without court
> transcripts of the trial, evidence presented, witness accounts, etc.....you
> dont't have the right to jump into an "I've been prjudiced against!"
> attitude.
I dno't know wehre you got your view of american law, but it is incorrect.
Vince
scs
scs wrote
>Like I always say: " Life is a blast, go and get one."
>
consider this my attitude towards life. It is by no means an advice to you
to get a life.
No offence
Rudy
CMccar31
writes:
>Not knowing anything about Australia's legal doctrines, I don't see any
>reason to presume a nationalistic explanation.
The "Baby Deseria (? sp) case, in which a dingo stole and killed an infant at
Ayers Rock will show that Australian juries can be tough on locals even with
the absence of a body. They convicted the mother and put the entire family
through hell only to be proven wrong.
Perhaps this case set an example, and juries are more careful to react to the
legal facts rather than emotion and gut feelings.
Just recently, new evidence (bones or something) was found at Ayers rock
confirming the dingo story and the righteousness of over turning the
conviction.
It's easy to sue anyone here in the U.S. but in Australia as in most of the
Commonwealth, I believe the loser pays. That tend's to discourage frivolous
suits, as it should be.
I believe we used to have it the same way until we let lawyers start writing
our laws.
Charlie
Vince Brannigan
>
> It's easy to sue anyone here in the U.S. but in Australia as in most of the
> Commonwealth, I believe the loser pays. That tend's to discourage frivolous
> suits, as it should be.
Incidentally this is one of those great myths that really means nothing. In most
of the world that has "loser pays" you buy insurance against legal fees, often as
part of your auto or homeowners insurance.
Some crtics acuatlly claim that environments with legal insurance and loser pays
actually have more litigation than the US, since it's in all the lawyer's
interests to file cases all over the place.
Vince
RAL2OOO
>Queensland Australia, and used this poor chap to fake their deaths.
B.S.
HLAviation
>
> Bob
DMs eat babies? You are a strange and confused lot down there. I guess being
upside down kind warps y'all.
Bob McNair
Bob
Lucho <abird...@ndabushinthe.nest> wrote in message
news:81hdvu$3b3$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> x-no-archive:yes
> Jack Connick wrote in message ...
> >Sounds like an OJ Simpson sort of thing;
> >
>
>
> I suspect it has little to do with the legal process itself, and a lot to
do
> with the issue of Australians and Americans.
>
> On a recent trip to PNG I booked some time in Cairns and Sydney, and there
> is a definitive national perspective regarding Australia and the US. On
> numerous occasions people told me that Australia was a better place to
live
> and was a better country of people.
>
> In most cases I took this not as an insult but as a expression of national
> pride, but the comments were pointed in their intent. It may well be that
> the Australian jury was not ready to convict an Australian for the deaths
of
> two US citizens when the lack of bodies allowed them a bit of latitude on
> that point. We have seen American juries react in the same way when race
and
> nationality are a component of the dispute.
>
Bob McNair
CMccar31 <cmcc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991125124642...@ngol07.aol.com...
> In article <383c83b5$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, j...@best.com (Jason
O'Rourke)
> writes:
>
> The "Baby Deseria (? sp) case, in which a dingo stole and killed an infant
at
> Ayers Rock will show that Australian juries can be tough on locals even
with
> the absence of a body. They convicted the mother and put the entire family
> through hell only to be proven wrong.
Too many movies? baby Azaria!
> Perhaps this case set an example, and juries are more careful to react to
the
> legal facts rather than emotion and gut feelings.
> Just recently, new evidence (bones or something) was found at Ayers rock
> confirming the dingo story and the righteousness of over turning the
> conviction.
>
Dingos do not eat babies, just DMs
Bob
slyeball
> Skipper Acquitted in Diver Deaths
>
> .c The Associated Press
>
> CAIRNS, Australia (AP) - The skipper of a tourist boat who left two U.S.
> divers behind on Australia's Great Barrier Reef was acquitted today of
> manslaughter.
>
> A jury found Geoffrey ``Jack'' Nairn not guilty in the deaths of Thomas
> Lonergan, 33, and his 28-year-old wife, Eileen, who were last seen Jan.
> 25, 1998, when they went diving from Nairn's boat at St. Crispin Reef, 45
> miles from the northern resort town of Port Douglas.
>
> Nairn was charged with manslaughter following an inquest's ruling that the
> couple, from Baton Rouge, La., perished at sea after they were left behind
> on a reef and not reported missing for 50 hours.
>
> A 1998 inquest heard the Lonergans were probably eaten by sharks. Their
> bodies have never been found. A swim fin, a buoyancy vest, a wetsuit hood
> and an air tank were recovered, along with a diver's writing board bearing
> a plea for help.
>
> The jury took 90 minutes today to reach its verdict that Nairn was not
> guilty of criminal negligence causing death, after a 12-day trial in the
> Queensland state Supreme Court.
>
> Nairn faced up to life imprisonment if convicted.
>
> Eileen Lonergan's parents, who flew from the United States to attend the
> trial, sat motionless in court as the verdict was read.
>
> The Lonergans' disappearance prompted Queensland authorities to impose
> tougher guidelines on the state's multimillion-dollar diving industry. The
> Great Barrier Reef's colorful coral and marine life attracts about 1.3
> million scuba divers each year.
>
> AP-NY-11-24-99 1032EST
>
> Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. The information contained in the
> AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
> distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Bob McNair
RAL2OOO <ral...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991125140127...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> >There have been rumours that these two divers have been seen in parts of
> >Queensland Australia, and used this poor chap to fake their deaths.
>
It may be bullshit but he is right, there are many rumours!
Bob
CMccar31
<thu...@wanet.com.au> writes:
>Dingos do not eat babies, just DMs
So you say it was a hoax?
Charlie
trevi...@hotmail.com
"Bob McNair" <thu...@wanet.com.au> wrote:
> What an absolute load of crap!!!!
> Bob
>
> Lucho <abird...@ndabushinthe.nest> wrote in message
.. <dribble about race & nationality influencing the juries'
decision>...
> > Were they (the two missing people) Australian citizens the verdict
may
> have
> > been quite different.
> >
I agree with Bob. What a load of bull dust. This guy lucho is clueless.
Race and nationality have never been an issue in this case. The skipper
escaped guilty verdict on technicality. No bodies were found. The male
diver was suicidal, the wife wrote in her diary that her husband had a
death wish and she feared for her life as well.
I live in Australia and have been following this case very closely.
Personally, I think the skipper is guilty of professional negligence
and should be penalised. Whether that is criminal and resulted in
manslaughter is another question. The juries decided that there was not
enough evidence to convict him on this.
Here's an article from the local paper.
The Australian
Moment of confusion counted out the Lonergans
The fate of two US scuba divers was probably sealed in a few seconds of
inattention, KEVIN MEADE reports
25nov99
TOM and Eileen Lonergan committed suicide. Tom murdered Eileen and then
killed himself. They faked their deaths and slipped ashore.
These were just some of the less fanciful theories that emerged after
the two US divers disappeared on a scuba diving trip off Port Douglas
in January last year.
But evidence in the Cairns Supreme Court trial of Geoffrey Ian Nairn,
the skipper who was yesterday found not guilty of the manslaughter of
the Lonergans, suggests their fate was sealed in a moment.
That crucial moment took place when Mr Nairn spoke to George Pyrohiw,
the crewman he had asked to do a head-count before the vessel Outer
Edge left a Barrier Reef dive site to return to Port Douglas.
As Mr Pyrohiw was counting, two passengers walked to the front of the
boat and dived into the water.
During the trial, Mr Nairn and Mr Pyrohiw gave conflicting versions of
what happened next. There were 26 passengers on the cruise, but Mr
Pyrohiw told Mr Nairn that he counted only 24.
Mr Nairn, according to Mr Pyrohiw, then said: "Two in the water makes
26." But Mr Nairn's version was that Mr Pyrohiw told him he counted 26
people.
Mr Nairn said he asked if that included the two people who had just
dived in. Mr Pyrohiw had replied: "Yes, we have 26 passengers on
board."
Either way, it seems that the two passengers who jumped overboard were
counted twice, which would explain why the Lonergans were not missed.
Mr Nairn must have felt on top of the world as the Outer Edge sailed
back to Port Douglas. The weather conditions on January 25 last year
were perfect for diving at Fish City, a coral outcrop 32 nautical miles
north-east of Port Douglas.
Mr Nairn, who had bought the boat six months earlier, spent much of the
return trip chatting to passenger Richard Triggs. "He was enthused
about his future with the Outer Edge," Mr Triggs said.
Little did Mr Nairn know that he would be forced to sell the Outer Edge
less than 12 months later to cover legal costs and that his future as a
skipper, a businessman and indeed as a free man would be thrown into
jeopardy by the fact that he had just left two of his passengers at
sea.
The suicide theories were fuelled by entries in the Lonergans' diaries.
On August 3, 1997, about six months before the couple vanished, Tom
Lonergan wrote: "I feel as though my life is complete and I'm ready to
die."
Just 16 days before they disappeared, Eileen Lonergan wrote that her
husband had a death wish.
As for the faked death scenario, police investigated more than 20
alleged sightings of the Lonergans after they disappeared, including
claims they were seen in a bookshop in Port Douglas and a service
station in Darwin.
Their fate is still a mystery and some nagging questions remain. If
they drowned, why were their bodies never found?
A two-storey dive pontoon, which according to many witnesses could be
seen from the surface at Fish City, was just 2.3 nautical miles away.
Once they realised they were left behind, wouldn't they have tried to
swim to the pontoon?
But whatever became of the Lonergans, the inescapable facts are that
the Outer Edge left Fish City without the couple and their
disappearance was not reported to police until two days later.
Both of these key planks of the prosecution case were conceded by Mr
Nairn's defence counsel, Tony Glynn.
Mr Glynn chose not to pursue the murder and suicide theories. Instead,
he argued that their diaries showed Tom was someone who was fed up with
life and wanted to dramatically change it , and that Eileen was willing
to go along with his wishes.
After the Outer Edge returned to Port Douglas, Mr Nairn and his staff
were presented with a string of clues indicating that two passengers
had gone missing. But the clues were not noticed.
The fact that the jury found Mr Nairn not guilty of the charge of
manslaughter through criminal negligence does not necessarily mean they
believe the Lonergans faked their deaths and are still alive.
Nor does it necessarily mean they believe the suicide theories. They
may have simply decided that Mr Nairn's conduct could not be regarded
as criminally negligent.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kylre F
Lucho
Hey, you simply read way too much into it...and then simply wrote way to
much about it afterward :-)
Lucho
Jason O'Rourke wrote in message <383c83b5$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>Not knowing anything about Australia's legal doctrines, I don't see any
>reason to presume a nationalistic explanation.
I did not presume anything. I simply stated that it was a
possibility.......as much of one as it would be here in the US.
>Manslaughter requires intent, does it not? (in the US we do have
>involuntary manslaughter as well) The captain was incompetent, but I
>don't think there was a desire to do this.
That would not matter. While in Australia last month I read an article about
this case and there was clearly precedent and legal foundation of his being
accused and possibly convicted. In this circumstance the responsibilty for
death in Australia is applied differently than here in the US.
Jason
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>Incidentally this is one of those great myths that really means nothing. In most
>of the world that has "loser pays" you buy insurance against legal fees, often as
>part of your auto or homeowners insurance.
I'm not sure about that. I live in the UK. I've got legal cover as
part of my car insurance but it's an optional extra. It only covers
you for car related cases. I've never heard of legal cover as part of
buildings insurance.
>Some crtics acuatlly claim that environments with legal insurance and loser pays
>actually have more litigation than the US, since it's in all the lawyer's
>interests to file cases all over the place.
But it's basically up to the insurance company what cases they'll
cover. And given how keen insurance companies are in general to pay
out, I can't imagine them authorising anything they don't think
they'll win.
I think a big factor is that the size of payouts in the UK is much
less than the US. Multi-million dollar payouts just don't happen here.
Jason
--
See www.volnay.freeserve.co.uk for trip reports on Barbados,
Bali, Spain, the Maldives, Gran Canaria and Australia
Steve
> Sounds like an OJ Simpson sort of thing;
>
> Hope the families sue him into the stone age.
Jack,
Thats what you would expect from a yank. No wonder your country is
so screwed up, your country's preamble should be, "You only have to pay if
you win". This ridiculous attitude is starting here, what is the point if
everyone sues each other, it will just cancel each other out and nothing
will be gained. Bring back natural justice, you know behind the back shed so
the cops dont see.
Dont sue me, I've got no money, I spent it all on Olympic tickets but thats
another story.
PS: Austrailian is spelt Australian and pronounced 'Stralyan. And Aussie is
pronounced Ozzie and not Ossie.
Just a little lingo lesson for you yanks if you come out here and
dont forget your whistle and safety sausage.
PPS: I hope your not offended.
Sothrnngts
It's 'you're' not 'your', and it's pronounced you're.
(digging out my wescue weenie)
Steve
Sothrnngts <sothr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991127051122...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> >PPS: I hope your not offended.
>
> It's 'you're' not 'your', and it's pronounced you're.
>
Will that do?
> (digging out my wescue weenie)
Where did you bury it? Under a wock, in a qwarry or in a wiver bank.
I hope you're not offended.
CMccar31
>Too many movies? baby Azaria!
What ever her name was, the case showed what a rush to judgement and emotion
can do to the facts.
Charlie
AAB USER
spoken in either country !! ;o)
P Bekker-Hansen
Denmark
Brian Wagner
>
> I
> have chosen a "cute" remark because we are dealing with a personal opinion.
Then show why that opinion is mistaken, and you can even do it in a
humorous fashion, but don't resort to personal insults right out of the
gate.
Marcel Cossais
We have the verdict, but we really don't know what happened on this trial.
Yet we have comments about nationalities, biais, etc.
Marcel
___________________________
Marcel Cossais
mcos...@home.com
http://members.home.net/mcossais/
Jason O'Rourke <j...@best.com> wrote in message
news:383c83b5$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Not knowing anything about Australia's legal doctrines, I don't see any
> reason to presume a nationalistic explanation.
>
> Manslaughter requires intent, does it not? (in the US we do have
> involuntary manslaughter as well) The captain was incompetent, but I
> don't think there was a desire to do this. Isn't his boat out of the
Brian Wagner
>
> I agree with Bob. What a load of bull dust. This guy lucho is clueless.
>
> Race and nationality have never been an issue in this case. The skipper
> escaped guilty verdict on technicality. No bodies were found. The male
> diver was suicidal, the wife wrote in her diary that her husband had a
> death wish and she feared for her life as well.
>
> I live in Australia and have been following this case very closely.
> Personally, I think the skipper is guilty of professional negligence
> and should be penalised. Whether that is criminal and resulted in
> manslaughter is another question. The juries decided that there was not
> enough evidence to convict him on this.
Well, that's all clear with the additional information you supplied, but
in its absence, his thoughts weren't that unreasonable. Perhaps
premature, but not unreasonable.
Lucho
Brian Wagner wrote in message <3842E3EE...@mr.picker.com>...
>trevi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Bob. What a load of bull dust. This guy lucho is clueless.
>>
>> Race and nationality have never been an issue in this case. The skipper
>> escaped guilty verdict on technicality. No bodies were found. The male
>> diver was suicidal, the wife wrote in her diary that her husband had a
>> death wish and she feared for her life as well.
>>
>> I live in Australia and have been following this case very closely.
>> Personally, I think the skipper is guilty of professional negligence
>> and should be penalised. Whether that is criminal and resulted in
>> manslaughter is another question. The juries decided that there was not
>> enough evidence to convict him on this.
>
>in its absence, his thoughts weren't that unreasonable. Perhaps
>premature, but not unreasonable.
Race and nationality are an issue in every case in which diversity of such
are apparent. This jury made a number of decisions (as did the judge) and
nothing you have said (trevin not Brian) precludes the possibility that
nationality played a part.
Funny that you think because the jury did not have to vote on punishment or
degree of crime that they did not vote on something that could have been
affected by prejudice. They voted that this man would not be tried........I
suggest that this is better than a full trial ending a not guilty verdict. I
know if I was facing manslaughter or murder charges I would rather get off
free *now*, rather than after a full blown trial.
You folks can call it clueless, or crap or bull dust or whatever...but the
reality is that it is a possibility in this particular case. I find it
guileless to suggest otherwise.
scs
Brian Wagner <bwa...@mr.picker.com> wrote in message
news:3842C34C...@mr.picker.com...
What was that all about?
Speedymccr
been effectively bankrupted already, by virtue of simply having had to hire a
lawyer. So, what good would a civil trial do? By the way, going on a dive
trip at the time of the trial, those two very unfortunate deaths have caused
the dive boat operators to change the fashion in which they monitor divers.
Maybe it's for the better? I doubt the verdict had anything to do with
nationalism--the Australians are very kind, considerate folk, very unlike we
Americans, and they, in fact, kind of like us!
ken
Brian Wagner
>
> and they, in fact, kind of like us!
I find that hard to believe, given the ability of most Americans to
behave so boorishly when abroad. If they do like American tourists,
they have amazing patience.
Bob McNair
But we still luv ya :-)
Bob
Brian Wagner <bwa...@mr.picker.com> wrote in message
news:38456D40...@mr.picker.com...
mu...@my-deja.com
locations all over Australia at approximately the same time!
It is widely believed that the Lonergans are now hiding in Australia as
illegal immigrants and American spies!
If you've ever been on a dive trip in Australia and you've signed one
of those declarations prior to the trip, you'd know that they can do to
you whatever they want and it'll always be your fault!