On 15 Oct 2001, at 17:31, Reef Fish wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:06:52 -0500, Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 15 Oct 2001, at 10:13, Reef Fish wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Are you aware of ANY official investigation ongoing?  Why can't we
> >> discuss the case based on FACTUAL information revealed by
> >> first-hand witnesses?   How are the crew members different in that
> >> respect?
> >
> >I would think that we could safely ASSUME that an official
> >investigation is ongoing as there was loss of life in this incident.
>
> That's a reasonable assumption NORMALLY!
>
> A BAD assumption in this case, because each passenger had signed a
> COMPREHENSIVE waiver and release like you've never seen anywhere else
> in the scuba world, or the world for that matter, before a diver can
> dive on a Peter Hughes liveaboard.

Just because the signed a waiver does not mean that the proper
authorities will not conduct an investigation. It would amaze me if
they declined to investigate such a serious accident regardless of
what the passengers signed.
>
> The loss of life, even if CAUSED by the NEGLIGENCE of the Captain and
> crew of a Peter Hughes liveaboard boat, is covered under the WAIVER.

That's an assumption. There's no guarantee that it will hold up until
decided by a court of law.


>
> Therefore there is no incentive for anyone associated with the PhD
> organization to say or do anything other than claiming innocense and
> not do any investigation.

I agree that they would claim innocence, but I disagree as to their
incentive to perform an internal investigation. They have a reputation
to uphold, and regardless of the waivers signed by the passengers,
there will more than likely be lawsuits that they will have to defend.


>
>
> >> >>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?
>
> GIVEN that the entire PhD organization is "immune" to procecution,
> under the signed WAIVER and RELEASE written by a team of lawyers
> working for Peter Hughes, to cover even their negligence, it's all the
> more reason for my paragraph above.

I think you are making an assumption here that they are immune to
prosecution. They are most definitely not immune to criminal
prosecution based on the passengers signing a waiver to get aboard
their boat. They MIGHT be immune to civil liabilities if the waiver
holds up. Has their waiver been tested in court?


>
>
> It's a SPECIAL case, because of the air-tight clauses the lawyers of
> the PhD Inc had drawn up.  Some will say it won't hold up.  If so, one
> would have to SHOW an actual case in which the signed Peter Hughes
> liveaboard waiver did not cover them for the terms of waiver.

Again the words "air-tight" are a guess on your part unless you can
show that they HAVE held up under the scrutiny of the court. And if
the case(s) are tried before a jury of their peers, they might not hold
up anyway.


>
> -- Bob.
>


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Wallace
Wilson Lumber Company, Inc.
256.852.7411 x225
[log in to unmask]