For economy, I have replied to several post to this thread in one post:
At 01:34 AM 10/15/01 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>That's most unfortunate, from the point of view of FACT FINDING. If
>they did nothing wrong, why were they gagged from speaking out?
1) To prevent crew members (who may be extremely upset) from speculating
on matters of which they do not have first hand knowledge that may be
damaging to integrity of the official investigation, and/or PH.
2) To allow an orderly investigation and prevent a media circus (and
attempt to head off employees from giving sensational stories to tabloids
for money).
If I were representing them, I would insist on a ban on unauthorized
discussions with the media. This is a routine request, and has nothing to
do with wrong-doing. This is also a frequent request from authorities
investigating an incident. You should not assume that because the crew is
gagged from media interviews that they are also gagged from speaking to
officials investigating. The latter is not possible. Thus, the gage can
be to further FACT finding (versus speculation-finding), not hinder it.
At 01:53 AM 10/15/01 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>....how can you possibly
>know whether they were negligent, criminally negligent, or did every-
>thing properly and shit just happened?
Exactly my point. I obviously do not know all of the facts. This is why I
have not reached any conclusions.
>But you seemed to have formed
>the opinion that they did nothing improper simply because they were
>gagged from speaking about the incident.
Wrong. I have formed no opinion. I am giving captain and crew to benefit
of the doubt until I know more. Thus, I will not call them negligent, much
less criminally negligent.
>I agree completely. But does it have to be a "legal investigation"?
>Wouldn't the SAME be of the best interest to everyone (if for no other
>benefit than clearing away any unwarranted speculatiion and clear the
>Captain and crew from ANY wrong-doing?
Well, if they are being cleared of wrong-doing, is this not a legal
investigation? If you prefer, call it an "official" investigation or
anything you like. But ask yourself who will be conducting this
investigation, and will it not involve testimony under oath? If there is
no sworn testimony (even in the form of a sworn statement) can there be any
credibility to the clearing of captain and crew to any wrong-doing?
>At 02:12 AM 10/15/01 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>But my QUESTION is, in view of the above, whether the Captain and
>crew did everything ELSE properly once they've decided to moor.
>THAT was the crux of my question(s) to try to understand why the
>Wave Dancer capsized and lost 20 lives whereas none of the other
>boats (including the smaller Aggressor) in the same harbor capsized
>or any OTHER life was lost in the entire country of Belize as a
>result of Hurricane Iris's hit.
That is a perfectly reasonable question, and I assume the question everyone
is asking.
At 03:39 AM 10/15/01 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>The fact that the Aggressor had explicit instruction and briefing
>to the passengers on what to do and where to gather, on the night
>of the Wave Dancer tragedy -- and the Wave Dancer Captain and crew
>DIDN'T (but left the passengers wander and fend for themselves)
>surely qualified them to be considered "negligent".
That is what I would call a leaping to a conclusion. Simply because one
boat followed a procedure that another did not follow means nothing! The
issue is what did the captain of the Dancer know, and when did he know
it. Once this question is answered than conclusions can be drawn as to
what should have been done. It is unfair to the captain and crew to form
conclusions of negligence until more is know. Perhaps the captain had no
reason to believe, based upon the information available to him, that such
precautions where warranted. As it turns out, those precautions by the
Aggressor boat, turned out to be overkill. I am not the one who has
formed any opinions in this case.
Dive safe,
/Don
|
