Bill Shtner's wife, an alcoholic, was found at the bottom of their pool, trapped by her clothes in the pool drain. The day after, the media pressed him with questions when he came out to get his morning paper.
Someone immediately started to wonder if he'd somehow killed his wife becsuse there he was, a day later, just waltzing out for the paper.
Thing is, i don't know what the proper behavior is for finding a spouse dead.
I have taught the kids how to do laundry, and what to do if thgecwasher is unbalanced, or the dryer catches fire, or the bathroom floods (again.). I haven't taught them what to do if the washer starts speaking in Etruscan. No one ever taught me. So, whatever thery do if it happens, i'd be hard pressed to say that their actions were wrong. Because i have offered no standard.
I also haven't covered the expected behavior in mourning a spouse. Or in other unexpected outcomes. No one does.
We try to teach our kids how to avoid rape, assault, vegan menus, and so on. We're less likely to cover what to do if it happens anyway. So, they're not prepared. And they're completely alone in choosing their next steps.
And then, years later, someone who has never been in the situation judges their credibility by what choices they made while in shock.
I was involved in a few cases of people put on Report, including me, while i was in. Yes, there usually is an element of "what you should have done in that situation' every single time such events are prosecuted. But that's usually connected to the punishment phase. "Come to me next time you're being bkackmailed, so you don't get extra duty."
Or training the rest of the crew. "Seaman Schmuck will be on the Captain's Official Shit List thru next April. To avoid the COSL, do not fuck prostitutes in the bilge on duty nights."
It seems less useful to use the 'what you should have done' element at the investigation phase, in determining the claim's credibility.
