Concordia News: Please Post Here

[CostaSmurfette]

Interesting. I lived in the UK for several years when I was younger and acquired a taste for British Mysteries. I have seen many characters such as Dr. George Bullard, Dr. Laura Hobson, Max, and McCallum playing the forensic pathologists, so I am making a connection here. They are are always key players that have sometimes determined whether or not the DCI can proceed against a favorite suspect. Silly, perhaps, to equate these fictional characters to the real world that we are discussing, but it is the only point of reference that I have, so please forgive me. Are these the types of individuals under discussion here, or do they have superiors who actually provide these types of findings? I suppose, in this case, that it is a whole investigative team such as those who have compiled the Marine Investigative Report at http://www.seereisenportal.de/fileadmin/Downloads/Italian_Maritime_MSC90_Presentation_Costa_Concordia.pdf

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

Until the investigation is complete and cause(s) for the accident have been agreed upon and verified, the legal arguments for culpability cannot start...afterall, you cannot prosecute someone for something that is not proven to be a criminal act. Unless intentionality can be proven in making the "mistakes" that led Concordia to go off course, the prosecutorial side have a very slim chance of getting anyone convicted of anything.

 

A case in point was Concorde in 2000, it was 2004 when the investigations finally came to their conclusions and only then did the legal wheels start to turn and criminal litigation start, which reached its end last year with Continental Airlines being prosecuted for that wayward piece of metal that burst the tyre, that busted the fuel tank, that set the wing on fire that brought the plane down onto the hotel.

 

In amongst all that were the civil suits against Aerospatiale, Air France and Continental.

 

French justice system was slow with Concorde, Italian justice is likely to be the same for Concordia...slow, methodical and full of legal shenannigans, ducking and diving.

 

There is no rushing these things.

[Uniall]

Misadventure might not be used in the USA but it IS still used in Europe and the criminal case (if it ever gets that far) will be in Europe, using European laws and statutes.

 

So you cannot keep dismissing procedures just cos the USA no longer identify them.

 

Misadventure first disappeared in the UK and then in the USA. As for Napoleaonic Codal Law, they have always been more strict than Common Law and never had such a concept. They would convict of a crime when mere negligence caused severe injuries because they focus more on the results than the conduct and causal connection. Codal countries apply, as their general rule, what Common Law nations regard as rare: Strict Liability.

 

I was the first American invited to join the UN created International Prosecutors Association in the 190. I've worked cases in Europe both Codal and Common Law nations, including some of your finest QCs assigned to major fraud cases in London.

 

Your little quote defining "Misadventure" is a source like Wikipedia. Please stop trying to give legal opinions or act as if you are knowledgable in the law. You are really out of your depth and league.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Uniall

[CostaSmurfette]

CostaSmurfette Quote:

Misadventure covers a multitude of sins and grey areas...including drowning in a semi-submerged ship as a result of an unintentional legal act (aka accident).

Someone will have to prove that the "accident" wasn't an accident at all and that it was an intentional act with premeditation.

 

The Captain left the planned route intentionally and premeditated. He contacted people on the island well in advance to tell them to watch for the sail by.

 

OK...so the counter for that will be that he used charting that was, unbeknown to him, incorrect that did not show the rock formation that ultimately caused the ship to get into distress.

 

No premeditation or intentionality.

 

And before anyone starts saying I am a defence team member...NO I AM NOT...but you can bet your life that his defence team will be there ready and waiting to counter every argument made by the prosecutorial side...afterall, it is what they are paid to do, they are ther to trip up and disprove the prosecution case.

[Emilija]

Quote from CostaSmurfette:

A coroner will at some point cast a judgement in the Italian court as to the reason or method of death

 

 

I am pretty sure they drowned. To my knowledge none of the victims were found in the swimming pool, hot tubs, bathtubs or showers. Kind of rules out accidental death to me.

 

 

How do you know that all drowned. Some could have sustained an injury in a fall that caused life to cease.

 

Emi

[Ratt]

The cause of death is detirmined by the trier of fact (judge in bench trial or jury in jury trial).

 

The police gather gather evidence thru their own evidence techs or employees of the Medical Examiner's office. Now days, Appointed Medical Examiner's Offices have replaced elected Coroners. Where elected Coroners still exist they have have a Medical Examiner's Department.

 

Physcial evidence (like CSI on TV) is processed by techies at either a Police Crime Lab or the Medical Examiners office.

 

The autopsy is performed by Doctors who have varying degrees of expertise ranging from GP pill pushers to Board Certfied Pathologists. They can be employees of the Medical Examiner or contractors paid by the autopsy.

 

The Medical Examiner, in concert with the police investigators and CSI techies, issue a preliminary "COD" Cause of Death. But, it is not admissable in court to prove anything. Then the Medical Examiner or Coroner (where they still exist) issue a death certificate which (regardless of any verbiage) is only good to prove the person died.

 

If the cause of death need be proven, all the techies, investigators, and Docs will testify in criminal court as to what activites they performed. Then, a medical expert(s) will be called to give his opinion as to the COD based upon all the results of the other personell. The Medical expert may or may not have been involved in the investigation. There may be a court room battle of dueling experts for with both sides calling multiple experts. But this is rare because as I've tried very hard to explain, the prosecutor only has to prove the defendant's conduct was "A Cause" not "The Cause." It is very rare for a defense expert to testify "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty" that the prosecutor's expert is wrong in concluding the defendant's conduct had any "casual connection with the death."

 

Finally, the Judge or Jury will decide the legal cause of death.

 

In jury trials, the Judge will instruct the jury that the prosecutor does not have to prove the defendant's conduct was the only COD but only has to prove the conduct was a COD.

 

The grade level of the criminal conduct determines the grade level of the punishment. In some jursidaictions they still use the original:

 

Murder (with sub degrees depending in circumstances: e.g. cop victim, torture killing, etc)

Manslaugter: varying degrees: 1st: Intentional (intended the conduct to injure but not kill) Involuntary (sub degrees: Reckless Conduct, Gross Negligence, Vehicular Homocide etc)

 

Some jurisdictions use the old headings Murder & Manslaughter with sub degrees, while others dropped the main headings and use the old sub heading degrees on a stand alone basis.

 

I hope this answers you query.

 

It sure did.

[Uniall]

OK...so the counter for that will be that he used charting that was, unbeknown to him, incorrect that did not show the rock formation that ultimately caused the ship to get into distress.

 

No premeditation or intentionality.

 

And before anyone starts saying I am a defence team member...NO I AM NOT...but you can bet your life that his defence team will be there ready and waiting to counter every argument made by the prosecutorial side...afterall, it is what they are paid to do, they are ther to trip up and disprove the prosecution case.

 

I have never encountered anyone in my entire life who argues with such certainty in very difficult and specialized areas with no knowledge, training, education and expertise. You know nothing about the law and somehow have convinced yourself you do. What is your medical disability?

Edited August 9, 2012 by Uniall

[cruiserfanfromct]

OK...so the counter for that will be that he used charting that was, unbeknown to him, incorrect that did not show the rock formation that ultimately caused the ship to get into distress.

 

It is highly unlikely that there were wandering or errant rocks in the path of the Concordia. I read that mariners from Mycenean Greece and even earlier the Minoans and Phoenicians were sailing and charting those waters by at least 1250 BC. The local mariners were all very well aware of those rocks as it turned out in several interviews after the wreck.

 

On another note, did you see my post #1883? -- I know you've been busy lately, but when you get a chance could you respond?

[fin]

Hey, it's the internet Uni. Anyone can be anything.

 

Cheers

[MorganMars]

Though this may not be what people want to hear, I can see it as a plausible, and even probable, scenario. I am reminded of the infamous Captain Hazelwood of Exxon Valdez who was cleared in court of being drunk and instead was found quilty of a misdemeanor of negligent oil discharge. The fine was $50,000 and 1,000 hours of community service. :(And that was in a US court. We may need to prepare ourselves emotionally for such an outcome in this case, as well.

 

I recently saw an article that provided data on previous captains who had abandoned ship with passengers left onboard with no negative consequences. I will see if I can find it again.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

Until the investigation is complete and cause(s) for the accident have been agreed upon and verified, the legal arguments for culpability cannot start...afterall, you cannot prosecute someone for something that is not proven to be a criminal act. Unless intentionality can be proven in making the "mistakes" that led Concordia to go off course, the prosecutorial side have a very slim chance of getting anyone convicted of anything.

 

A case in point was Concorde in 2000, it was 2004 when the investigations finally came to their conclusions and only then did the legal wheels start to turn and criminal litigation start, which reached its end last year with Continental Airlines being prosecuted for that wayward piece of metal that burst the tyre, that busted the fuel tank, that set the wing on fire that brought the plane down onto the hotel.

 

In amongst all that were the civil suits against Aerospatiale, Air France and Continental.

 

French justice system was slow with Concorde, Italian justice is likely to be the same for Concordia...slow, methodical and full of legal shenannigans, ducking and diving.

 

There is no rushing these things.

[CostaSmurfette]

In your statement "there has been a catalogue of errors made and missed...both human and with the ship" I understand the human part but could you elaborate on the "catalogue of errors made and missed with the ship"? Besides the documented black box problem, what were the other "missed" things with the ship? You pointed out a possible electrical problem but has this be substantiated? Do you have documentation regarding this? Were there other mechanical problems we are not aware of?

 

I completely understand how Schettino's blowhard, kamikaze-style attitude regarding the sail-by may have gotten him into deep sh*t (there is a new phrase out there, I kid you not, "to be in deep Schettino") re the wreck, to begin with, but don't you think if, after saving his own skin, he would have carried out his duty and stayed and helped out with the passengers in his charge, then perhaps, just perhaps, blaming it on a mechanical error and /or other crew, as bad and incredulous as it may have sounded, might have at least given him an ounce of credibility? Sorry, but as soon as he tripped and fell into the lifeboat and refused to go back on board, or at least take charge and coordinate the evacuation from whatever rock he was on, all bets were off as far as I'm concerned.

 

I spoke to crew in May this year when aboard Classica, many of the crew were aboard Concordia on the night of the accident and over the previous few months during their previous deployment.

 

Concordia was well known and had a reputation for mechanical and electrical issues, moreso that her siblings in the fleets (Carnival & Costa fleets, that is). One of the technical crew used a well known phrase in the UK..."Concordia... lei è stato un lavoro di venerdì sera..."...which translates to Concordia, she was a Friday night job...meaning not well put together and always causing headaches.

 

It is actually quite strange, she was a long standing favourite for many of the crew and passengers alike, but she could be a bit of a "diva" sometimes. The crew spoke of her with surprising affection...surprising cos of what she was, just a ship, but past crew aboard her really enjoyed working aboard her, warts and all. They also miss her too, as do alot of her repeat passengers. I am not a big ship person by any means, but her interiors were stunning to look at, she had quite a following.

 

As for Schettino...who can say what state his mind was at the time of the accident or indeed now. He has alot to live with and rightly so (as do the others involved)...he made mistakes and got away with them until that night when they all caught up with him.

 

Survivor guilt hits most people who come through a tragedy, Schettino is no different, sometimes it leads to suicide or substance abuse later on. Whether Schettino will go down those paths is anyone's guess at this stage.

 

No amount of punishment metered out by the authorities will measure that what he gives himself...that is a well known fact in survivor guilt, some can move on from it, some can't. Just cos he doesn't show his guilt, certainly does not mean that he doesn't feel it within...the man was an idiot and a risk taker but that doesn't automatically mean that he has no emotions. Not many men cry in public, very few cry in private....some people bottle up their feelings, others wear them on their sleeve.

 

No defence, no mitigation....like the Captain of the Herald of Free Enterprise, he had ultimate responsibility for the actions of himself and others that led to several people dying. That did make it to court and some were imprisoned but it was a far easier case to prove than Concordia.

[Uniall]

It is highly unlikely that there were wandering or errant rocks in the path of the Concordia. I read that mariners from Mycenean Greece and even earlier the Minoans and Phoenicians were sailing and charting those waters by at least 1250 BC. The local mariners were all very well aware of those rocks as it turned out in several interviews after the wreck.

 

On another note, did you see my post #1883? -- I know you've been busy lately, but when you get a chance could you respond?

 

Damn, I knew there was something symptico about us. I'm a lover of ancient history and love the 1500 BC - 500 BC era. In my retirement I've taken non credit adult courses at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute.

 

My User Name is my Gaelic Clan name: The Niall Clan (O, Mac & Mc - Neill)

 

The ancient lore is the the Clan was founded by a Sythian prince, Gadol Glas, from the Gael people in the Crimea on the black sea) and hired out with his troops to the Pharoah as mercenaries. He was bitten a snake and his life was saved by the Pharoah's physician, Moses. When he complained to Moses that his men hadn't been paid in several years, Moses told him his people hadn't been paid either and they were leaving. Gadol Glas left Egypt during the Exodus. (The old testament says Moses took a multitude of peoples out of Egypt) In any event, when Glas returned to Scythia his brothers had usurped the throne and he took a new Clan Name after the "Nile" river: Niall. The Clan became sea farerers who plied the Med for a thousand years and eventually ruled the present day province of Gallicia in northwest Spain before moving on to Ireland and ruling as the High Kings for 500 years.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Uniall

[balf]

David/Balf ... Until they get Concordia back to a yard and put it into drydock they will not know what damage other than the hole there is to the ship, there is a possibility that the damaged areas could be rebuilt and the ship used under another name.

 

And pigs might fly.

 

David.

[CostaSmurfette]

Though this may not be what people want to hear, I can see it as a plausible, and even probable, scenario. I am reminded of the infamous Captain Hazelwood of Exxon Valdez who was cleared in court of being drunk and instead was found quilty of a misdemeanor of negligent oil discharge. The fine was $50,000 and 1,000 hours of community service. :(And that was in a US court. We may need to prepare ourselves emotionally for such an outcome in this case, as well.

 

I recently saw an article that provided data on previous captains who had abandoned ship with passengers left onboard with no negative consequences. I will see if I can find it again.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

In 1987 we saw Herald of Free Enterprise capsize inside the port of Zeebrugge, 193 died. It did go to court eventually and those deemed to blame were convicted and punished.

 

But Herald was a simple case of negligence, relatively easy to prove...the bow doors were left open, water flooded in and over she went.

 

It also changed regulations...Masters must ensure that roro ferries leave port with all doors closed, CCTV systems and alarm systems were fitted.

 

But again it was only after deaths happened that the rulebook was rewritten...and we are looking at the same thing with Concordia except this case is far, far more involved and potentially complex than Herald was.

 

If the courts do find no case to answer, the hue and cry will be enormous...but at this stage, there are no guarantees that a criminal action will come from this accident...not only due to the complexities of how it happened but thanks to the way the media was stomping over everything and reporting so much utter crap too. Any chance of getting a jury that has not been swayed by media reporting and who can make an educated and unbiased decision on guilt or innocence is next to zero.

[CostaSmurfette]

And pigs might fly.

 

David.

 

If she isn't broken up, she'll be sold to the highest bidder and become a livestock carrier running out of Saudi Arabia, Egypt or India.

 

They tend to buy up wrecks and run them into the ground in a different guise to their original use. She would made a decent livestock carrier too, once her holes and gashes are sorted.

 

Unless the ship is worthy of razorblades, they go for conversion...especially with the price of secondhand steel being so volatile. Even the venerable old Flamenco that was sold for scrap 3 years ago has resurfaced this week running out of Thailand on 3-4 day cruises to Cambodia...and when I saw her in 2010 she was an absolute wreck in lay up off Port Klang.

 

If they can get Concordia to float, she can be reused somewhere.

[Uniall]

Hey, it's the internet Uni. Anyone can be anything.

 

Cheers

 

I guess that would explain a multitude of things................:eek:

[watertheodds]

How do you know that all drowned. Some could have sustained an injury in a fall that caused life to cease.

 

Emi

 

I said I was just "pretty sure".....you know, with all that "accidental" sea water swirling around. The victims I read about were in elevators, in lounge rooms and near lifeboat decks. It would be quite a fall to kill someone instantly but more likely render them incapacitated until the water got to them. In any event the premeditated action of the course change made by the Captain is the cause of their deaths, drowning or otherwise. IMO

[CostaSmurfette]

How do you know that all drowned. Some could have sustained an injury in a fall that caused life to cease.

 

Emi

 

I said I was just "pretty sure".....you know, with all that "accidental" sea water swirling around. The victims I read about were in elevators, in lounge rooms and near lifeboat decks. It would be quite a fall to kill someone instantly but more likely render them incapacitated until the water got to them. In any event the premeditated action of the course change made by the Captain is the cause of their deaths, drowning or otherwise. IMO

 

Other causes of death in that situation....heart attack, stroke and other pre-existing conditions that could be exacerbated by extreme stress....

 

No-one can prove it was a premeditated action.....a course change maybe, but his team can argue that it was based on incorrect charting, instrument issues due to the ship's documented reputation for breakdowns...even if his team came up with someone else programmed the co-ordinates incorrectly...

 

It is not cut and dry......wishful thinking that it would be.

 

There are no easy answers and as Morgan rightly points out, there is a real chance that no-one can be held accountable...it has happened before, it can happen again.

[sidari]

"They are irrelevant, inconsequential, immaterial, imcompetent, inadmissable, inappropriate"

 

Uni ... maybe in the US but not in the UK!

 

With regard to the fire death question, in the UK the Fire Authority are responsible for determining the cause of the Fire, the Police are responsible for investigating it if the Fire Authority deem it to be a Criminal Act ie Arson and whoever carries out the Autopsy decides on the cause of the death.

 

The course plotted to Savona from Civitavecchia was via Giglio at around one Half mile from the Island exactly the same course as previous sailbys, sadly and for what reason Concordia went beyond that half mile only time will tell when the investigation is complete.

 

For those who think that a quick trial may be forthcoming it is not unknown in Italy for cases to take 10 years to go to trial!

 

ctheworld .... can you post a link to the reply you made re the ship being scapped?

[sidari]

Some info on the tasks afforded the UK Coroners office ... taken from Wikipedia .... :)

 

Verdict

The coroner's former power to name a suspect for trial upon inquisition has been abolished. The coroner's verdict sometimes is persuasive for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, but normally proceedings in the coroner's court are suspended until after the final outcome of any criminal case is known. More usually, a coroner's verdict is also relied upon in civil proceedings and insurance claims. The coroner commonly tells the jury which verdicts are lawfully available in a particular case.

The most common verdicts include:[7]

• Death by natural causes
  
• Death by misadventure
  
• Accidental death
  
• Lawful killing
  
• Suicide
  
• Unlawful killing
  
• Occupational disease
  
• Drug dependence
  
• Non-dependent drug abuse
  
• Attempted abortion
  
• Self-induced abortion
  
• Disaster (but only if it has been the subject of a public enquiry)
  
• Still birth
  
• Self-neglect
  
• Lack of care/neglect
  
• An open verdict
  
• A narrative verdict
  

[edit] Notes

 

Lawful killing includes lawful self-defence. There is no material difference between an accidental death verdict and one of misadventure.[8]

The verdicts of suicide and death by natural causes require proving beyond reasonable doubt. Other verdicts are arrived at on the balance of probabilities.

A verdict of neglect requires that there was a need for relevant care (such as nourishment, medical attention, shelter or warmth) identified, and there was an opportunity to offer or provide that care that was not taken. Neglect can be ruled an aggravating factor in other verdicts as well as a freestanding verdict.[9]

An open verdict is given where the cause of death cannot be identified on the evidence available to the inquest.

A coroner giving a narrative verdict may choose to refer to the other verdicts.[10] A narrative verdict may also consist of answers to a set of questions posed by the Coroner to himself or to the jury (as appropriate).

[edit] Jurisdiction

 

Any person aware of a dead body lying in the district of a coroner has a duty to report it to the coroner; failure to do so is an offence. This can include bodies brought into England or Wales. The coroner has a team of Coroner's Officers (previously often ex-police officers, but increasingly so from a nursing or other paramedical background) who carry out the investigation on the coroner's behalf. On the basis of the investigation, the coroner decides whether an inquest is appropriate. When a person dies in the custody of the legal authorities (in police cells, or in prison), an inquest must be held. In England, inquests are usually heard without a jury (unless the coroner wants one). However, a case in which a person has died under the control of central authority must have a jury, as a check on the possible abuse of governmental power.

The coroner's court is a court of law, and accordingly the coroner may summon witnesses, and people found lying are guilty of perjury.

Additional powers of the coroner may include the power of subpoena and attachment, the power of arrest, the power to administer oaths, and sequester juries of six during inquests.

Coroners also have a role in treasure trove cases. This role arose from the ancient duty of the coroner as a protector of the property of the Crown. It is now contained in the Treasure Act 1996.

[watertheodds]

Quote by CostaSmurfette:

Other causes of death in that situation....heart attack, stroke and other pre-existing conditions that could be exacerbated by extreme stress....

 

No-one can prove it was a premeditated action.....a course change maybe, but his team can argue that it was based on incorrect charting, instrument issues due to the ship's documented reputation for breakdowns...even if his team came up with someone else programmed the co-ordinates incorrectly...

 

It is not cut and dry......wishful thinking that it would be.

 

There are no easy answers and as Morgan rightly points out, there is a real chance that no-one can be held accountable...it has happened before, it can happen again.

 

Oh come on, The Captain left the charted course , pre-meditated far long enough to notify certain people on the island to watch for them that evening, hit rocks that everyone seemed to know about but him - even the matre de said be careful, while watching from the bridge. The impact caused a hole in the side of the ship, he didn't call for immediate evacuation of the passengers resulting in loss of life. It is cut and dried. The rest is just what it is, excuses. Maintenance issues have nothing to do with these basic facts of the events that night. Debate them all you want but basic facts don't change. The only thing I can agree with you except one word, Chances are "no one can (I say, WILL) be held accountable.

 

I just envision you going on cruises just so you can go around interrogating staff and crew. I stand by my earlier comments that I am baffled that so many are willing to talk candidly with you while on Costa cruises with the investigation so fresh. If this is all true you must have a quite a way about you. The staff and crew I encounter on cruises are way to busy to engage in long conversations and are relunctant to spill their guts about "behind the scenes" activities. Costa must be quite the cruise line - at least for you.

[Uniall]

"They are irrelevant, inconsequential, immaterial, imcompetent, inadmissable, inappropriate"

 

Uni ... maybe in the US but not in the UK!

 

With regard to the fire death question, in the UK the Fire Authority are responsible for determining the cause of the Fire, the Police are responsible for investigating it if the Fire Authority deem it to be a Criminal Act ie Arson and whoever carries out the Autopsy decides on the cause of the death.............

 

 

That's just plain wrong. The US and UK courts have the final say on COD, not the Fire Marshall or the person doing the autopsy. The prosecutor or the defense have access to all evidence and

reports and can and do have their own experts testify as to COD in both countries. I think that the judge makes the final decision on the COD as a legal issue in the UK while the jury makes the decision as a factual issue in the US.

 

It is very a very rare occurence to challenge COD because it usually is multiple causes and only one og them has to be tied to the defendant's conduct to connect the dots.

 

It's like the time my irish maternal grandfather recognized a wanted criminal and shackled him to a Chicago PD call box. While he was asking for a horse drawn Paddy wagon, the criminal stabbed grandpa 23 times. Since it was before antibiotics, he was treated in the hospital with sulpha drugs for two months and progressing very well. He snuck out of the hospital for the annual opening of the home made wine with his Italian colleagues and was back in the hospital the next morning. A month later, he developed pnemonia and died.

 

Then, the city government circled the money wagons with the Coroner and PD and refusing to pay the death in the line of duty benefits saying he died of pnemonia caused by his drinking wine. The City lost. The Courts said even if the final COD was pnemonia caused by the wine party they exacerbated a pre exisiting condition caused by the stabbing during an arrest and ordered the payment of the death benefits to my grandmother.

 

Oh, did I mention the pros the prosecutor changed the charges from attempted murder to murder and convicted the perp who was "hung by the neck until dead."

Edited August 9, 2012 by Uniall

[MorganMars]

While the course to Giglio is often questioned, I believe that a careful reading of the Marine Accident Investigation as of May 18th, does not indicate a concern with that course by the Maritime Investigative Body, only stating that the ship is "off the planned course - much more close to the coast compared to the planned route." (This is on page 14 where the planned course is shown), which is still only .5 mile difference. What they DO take issue with, as do I, is the "delay in sounding the 'General Emergency' alarm and taking timely steps to abandon the ship." (page 55) Pages 56 through 60 layout all the items that are still to be investigated.

http://www.seereisenportal.de/fileadmin/Downloads/Italian_Maritime_MSC90_Presentation_Costa_Concordia.pdf

 

Just saying that if we are not going to find ourselves tremendously dissatisfied with the eventual outcome, it might be advisable to try to be on the same page with the investigators and not quite so focused on our own opinions of the causes.

 

Also, for those who have been focusing on the watertight doors, there are some very interesting drawings on pages 46 through 53.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

 

 

 

Oh come on, The Captain left the charted course , pre-meditated far long enough to notify certain people on the island to watch for them that evening, hit rocks that everyone seemed to know about but him - even the matre de said be careful, while watching from the bridge. The impact caused a hole in the side of the ship, he didn't call for immediate evacuation of the passengers resulting in loss of life. It is cut and dried. The rest is just what it is, excuses. Maintenance issues have nothing to do with these basic facts of the events that night. Debate them all you want but basic facts don't change. The only thing I can agree with you except one word, Chances are "no one can (I say, WILL) be held accountable.

 

I just envision you going on cruises just so you can go around interrogating staff and crew. I stand by my earlier comments that I am baffled that so many are willing to talk candidly with you while on Costa cruises with the investigation so fresh. If this is all true you must have a quite a way about you. The staff and crew I encounter on cruises are way to busy to engage in long conversations and are relunctant to spill their guts about "behind the scenes" activities. Costa must be quite the cruise line - at least for you.

[stella_mare]

Here is where the "incorrect charts" defense falls apart for me, and I could be wrong. Schettino claims he was aware of Le Scole and that he had set the minimum distance to pass one rock in particular which was charted and was picked up by radar. (Also said he knew the area, knew the depths, had made the same move three or four times before, etc.) But on this go round, there was a second rock - undetected - that he saw only at the last second when he looked out over the bow. This uncharted second rock was under water, apparently, but the foam off it caught his eye and alerted him to something there. Then he knew...

 

But this was at night! Certainly, the ship's lights might have illuminated that, but he saw this at a glance (with his vision) at night?

 

Seems he and his legal team undoubtedly realize that that part of the story will not hold up if the charts indeed were accurate. Now they're focusing on "bad information," insisting that his crew never warned him they were closer than he had thought they would be when he arrived on the bridge. As a captain, do you not specifically get a handle on that when you take over the command?

 

As told his boss, this happened because he "messed up." He decided to make this salute at night. He delayed making the general and emergency alarms. He left his ship and did not return. He abandoned his passengers and crew. And made matters worse by lying and lying: "It's only a blackout." "Go back to your cabins.""We were sailing 300m from the coast and the chart showed the rocks at 150m, so we shouldn't have hit it." "We were the last to leave the ship." "I fell..."

[MorganMars]

While I don't buy the "second rock" thing, I have been at sea at night and it is pretty amazing what you can see when you have become accustomed to it. We call it "night vision." Seeing waves breaking on a rock is entirely possible in my experience. The rest of it, :eek:!

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

Here is where the "incorrect charts" defense falls apart for me, and I could be wrong. Schettino claims he was aware of Le Scole and that he had set the minimum distance to pass one rock in particular which was charted and was picked up by radar. (Also said he knew the area, knew the depths, had made the same move three or four times before, etc.) But on this go round, there was a second rock - undetected - that he saw only at the last second when he looked out over the bow. This uncharted second rock was under water, apparently, but the foam off it caught his eye and alerted him to something there. Then he knew...

 

But this was at night! Certainly, the ship's lights might have illuminated that, but he saw this at a glance (with his vision) at night?

 

Seems he and his legal team undoubtedly realize that that part of the story will not hold up if the charts indeed were accurate. Now they're focusing on "bad information," insisting that his crew never warned him they were closer than he had thought they would be when he arrived on the bridge. As a captain, do you not specifically get a handle on that when you take over the command?

 

As told his boss, this happened because he "messed up." He decided to make this salute at night. He delayed making the general and emergency alarms. He left his ship and did not return. He abandoned his passengers and crew. And made matters worse by lying and lying: "It's only a blackout." "Go back to your cabins.""We were sailing 300m from the coast and the chart showed the rocks at 150m, so we shouldn't have hit it." "We were the last to leave the ship." "I fell..."

[MorganMars]

I have a question for those mariners with experience of the "yaw radius" of these ships. On page 12 of the report I have been reading, it states the ship's position at 42 degrees 20 minutes 12 seconds N; 010 degrees 58 minutes 19 seconds E at 2137 hours, and 1.8 miles off Giglio as they begin to make the turn. Seven minutes later, at 2144 hours, the position is 42 degrees 21 minutes 05 seconds N; 010 degrees 56 minutes E, and 0.3 miles off the rocks of Giglio. They've traveled West for 1.5 miles in that seven minutes according to the report, though I don't have the charts to plot the course. Would it typically take that long to make the turn to starboard and head North?

 

Regards,

MorganMars