You claim the captain of the Aggressor made a good decision by going to Big Creek.
You also claim the captain of the WD made a bad (or even criminal) decision by going to the same place.
Both boats were moored before the storm hit.
In fact, the WD was next to the Aggressor - we know this because there apparently was contact between the two when the lines parted on the WD (never mind that it was reported that they were tied up next to each other.)
You probably have never had a day of real sea time in your life - and it shows.
Here are the facts, some of which I've posted before, some of which are just blooming obvious to anyone who has ever DONE any time at sea.
1. You DO NOT, ever, head into the oncoming winds of a major storm while pinned against a lee shore. To head north would have been to do exactly that, and such an act with a closing hurricane from the NE would be suicidal.
2. ALL of the boats which took shelter in Big Creek, including the Aggressor and WD, knew this simple and known rule of basic seamanship. They all followed it.
3. ALL of the boats that took shelter in Big Creek calculated that the best shot of being on the outbound side of the storm was to be there rather than in Belize City, and made their decision accordingly. As it turned out they were a bit too far north. But there was no way to know this with certainty until after the event.
4. Iris was a powerful but very compact storm. Being off by 50 miles one way or the other was the difference between a nice blow and a crushing storm. The track error up to the point that gale-force winds hit Big Creek was sufficient to insure that no truly safe harbor decision was available to anyone. That all the captains made the same deciision - to go to Big Creek - says quite a bit.
5. NONE of the decisions made prior to the mooring at Big Creek are relavent in any way, shape or form. ALL were not simply WD's decision made alone, they were decisions made along with many others, acting independantly, who all came to the same conclusion and arrived at the same place! You want to attack WD's decision but not Aggressors - why is that? Is it because Aggressor and all the rest didn't founder? What's the test here - is it success or a proper decision process? You can't have the former in a storm - if you think you can then STAY ON DRY LAND, because you have no business being at sea. If the criteria is the latter, then you have to square your claims with Aggressor and others who were there and survived pretty much intact.
5. If you want to argue that WD's moorings were "insufficient" or "negligent" I will tell you up front that you are uninformed and almost certainly full of crap. Why? Because this much I can ASSURE you - when there is a storm coming every captain is every other captain's keeper and big brother. If the Aggressor thought that WD's mooring was insufficient, they would have helped to fix that and would have fixed it no matter what it took, including but not limited to handing over extra ground tackle for their use. This is not a matter of being nice, its a matter of self-defense. In a storm your greatest risk of getting wrecked and/or killed is some other boat getting loose and impacting YOURS! EVERY captain in that harbor would have been paying A LOT of attention to EVERY other boat's mooring anywhere near them, and would have all checked each other's moorings out and approved them. Again, this is not "being nice", its SELF DEFENSE! I have added doublers to boats in MY marina when an approaching storm threatened and one of my neighbors was not sufficiently tied - even in one case where I provided the lines! Again, just to make sure you all understand this - I wasn't being nice - I was engaging in self-defense. If you don't understand this very simple part of managing a boat in a blow then you lack the understanding to comment on this incident.
6. WD got to the harbor before the storm. They also got the boat secured before the storm hit. You cannot argue that the decision to seek shelter there was a bad one when the port was made before the blow hit, yet not argue that the same decision by every other captain there was equally negligent. WHEN the call was made was not relevant - none of the boats there could have moved, because they would have all had to violate rule #1 above to move northward, and only a fool runs further than one must with a storm at their back, especially if their boat is slower than the storm is. Thus none of them could run north, and none could run south. They went where they went because it was the best available option.
7. If you can PROVE that the crew prevented pax from disembarking (difficult, when it has been clearly reported that bus transport out of there wa offered) then you'd have a case. As for the other charges of radios removed maliciously and such, I'd like to see some proof of those charges by a board of inquiry or some other independant government or NGO agency. So far all I've heard is bald assertions.
8. As for the allegation that the captain threatened to fire any crew that tried to desert the ship, I applaud that move. I would have done the same thing, as having the full ship's complement available when you are in storm conditions is important to safety.
An attempt to punish this company for an the consequences of an act of God is outrageous and beyond the pale. I have seen nothing that merits a claim that the captain acted criminally - or negligently.
I also see evidence that the passengers made the final decision to stay aboard, were offered transportation inland, and that they declined - thus knowing of and accepting the specific risk of being aboard during the storm.
If you can refute any of the above, take your best shot. Just realize that if you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the sea when doing so, I'm gonna excoriate you here, in public, as you are trying to do to this firm.
