Angela Orlich Testimony

[DBailey]

Personally, I would have done the following, in order:

1. Report it to the local authorities.
2. Report it to my embassy in that country.
3. Report it to the cruise line.
4. Report it to the dive operator.

I don't see how the cruise line is responsible for tracking down and investigating a crime that didn't happen on their ship. I would like to believe the cruise line would have contacted the authorities and assisted in the investigation, but I wouldn't expect the cruise line to investigate it.

 

[Kingpatzer]

NOBODY really knows what happened except her and the "instructor" because this was never fully investigated.

First, I don't claim to know what happened and I'm not defending anyone, just thinking outloud.

But . . .

There are a few inconsistencies in her story, that tend to make her not believable in my eyes. We don't know if there were other witnesses or not. We don't know what the cruise line did or did not do.

We don't know, in other words, if this happened or not, and we also don't know if it was investigated or not, since the cruise lines are not required to report on their investigations.

What we have is testimony that makes even beginning scuba divers scratch their heads and go "WTF? that doesn't make sense . . " And not in the "that doesn't make sense because it's a senselses crime" sort of way, but in the "her story doesn't add up" sort of way.

Now, it may be that the cruise line did investigate this, talked to whatever witnesses there were, interviewed the scuba instructor, and concluded that there was nothing here and so they just did nothing further.

 

[northen diver]

I have to disagree, and for the record, hallucinating and "making it up" are two different animals. If we are not allowed to dissect the account and her statements including how and if it happened, then I guess the only thing anyone should ever post in the accident forum are the final investigatory reports. No SB member analysis, no discussion or examination, no theories should be allowed.
fo•rum [fawr-uh m, fohr-uh m]
–noun, plural fo•rums, fo•ra
1. the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and a place of assembly for the people.
2. a court or tribunal: the forum of public opinion.
3. an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.

Well first off, where did the hallucinating come from? There is simply just a "she said". There isn't even a "he said" for nobody knows what he said for there wasn't an investigation on what the instructor side of the incident (crime) was. This shouldn't really even be in the A and I forum for it wasn't a accident. It was a crime. There is just not enough info for any of us to even begin to guess what happened. Why?? Because there was no police investigation. This is what Ms. Orlich is testifying on. The lack of reporting serious crimes so that they can be investigated. NOT if she is lying about what happened to her.

 

[deepstops]

This smells very strongly of "I want compensation" from the guy with the deepest pockets.......

Who is Playasol Park?? I don't think they are a dive operator I've heard of on CZM. Royal Caribbean sells you a ticket to ride on that operation's boat. It's not like RCCL owns the dive operation.

What were the other 39 people doing while the molesting was happening??

 

[Ann Marie]

This shouldn't really even be in the A and I forum for it wasn't a accident.

This is the Accidents and Incidents Forum for the discussion of diving accidents and incidents. I believe that what happened to Ms. Orlich definitely qualifies as an incident.

 

[northen diver]

This is the Accidents and Incidents Forum for the discussion of diving accidents and incidents. I believe that what happened to Ms. Orlich definitely qualifies as an incident.

Sexual assualt isnt really a diving incident. It is more of a crime.

 

[Ann Marie]

This is NOT the forum in which to discuss the schematics of incident vs. crime.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Any claim that this was a crime makes several leaps:

it assumes the veracity of her claim.
It assumes the cruise line did not have an investigation

That the cruise line is not reporting on what it did with regard to this alleged incident does not mean it was inadequately investigated. As it stands, I find her claim highly dubious at best. I prefer not to presume someone is a sexual predator based on one person's questionable testimony.

 

[mikerault]

Given the other statistics given with her report this morning, thousands of sexual assalts, 200+ people missing and many other crimes on cruises why is her report any less credible? She may have called it scuba, but it could have been snuba or several of the other derivitives were there is no BCD involved.

Mike

 

[MoxisPilot]

You are playing detective here. Why call her statements into question when you know very little about what really happened. Because of the magnitude of this reported crime, I would give her the benefit of the doubt until the evidence suggest otherwise. It is traumatic enough for her without other people "guessing" on what happened. The point is that important evidence was lost by the authorities not investigating this reported crime properly. She didn't have her day in court as she should have.

Actually, I'm asking a very pertinent question that will also be asked by defense attourneys in a courtroom, when she does, in fact, have her day in court - because that's what's happening right now: she's taking it to a court with five or six other people and filing suit against Royal Caribbean Cruise lines.

Also, I would like to point out that I was neither guessing what happened, nor was I stating that she was lying.

To add to that, the instructer in question here? Is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Regardless of whether the authorities followed through or not, he was not convicted of any crime, so I (as well as everyone else in the United States) am bound by law to assume he is innocent until such a time as he is brought to court and convicted.

I'm not saying he didn't do it, but basically, it's his word against hers, and honestly? Giving her the benefit of the doubt is the first step toward violating the instructer's right to due process.