Conception trial begins

[SlugLife]

She said Boylan had done things “the Fritzler way” for decades, referring to boat owner Glen Fritzler, who did not require a roving night watch. “Jerry cared. ... He could have done better,” Wakefield said. “There absolutely should have been a roving patrol.” But he did not know he was endangering people’s lives, she said. “He didn’t know he should have done anything differently.” The fire was a tragedy but not the fault of a man “making a day wage at 66 years old.”

If the owner (Fritzler) is guilty, that doesn't absolve the captain (Boylan) or anyone else of their neglect.

However, the question I am asking is why the owner is not on trial. Whether it's hiring unmotivated crew, not having proper fire safety, alert, equipment, or procedures or anything else that went wrong in some way traces back to the owner.

"The captain had the authority to order patrols, establish safety protocols, the responsibility because of some regulation, and the experience, training, and knowledge to do those things." - More convincing. Established authority, responsibility, and ability to avoid or mitigate this kind of disaster before it happened.

"The captain jumped in the water" - Unconvincing. Once the fire started, the captain's actions were not significantly different from anyone else's, at least not enough to say HE is guilty of manslaughter, but no other crew is on trial.

I'd probably have to actually watch the trial to get a better idea of how well they established his authority, actions, and responsibility BEFORE the fire was discovered.

When it comes to negligence cases you can't really prove that the death wouldn't have happened without the negligence. Yes I know "Beyond a reasonable doubt" but juries don't always seem to hold cases to that standard. More than likely if they convict they are going to be looking at if the procedures had been followed would there be a reasonable chance for the pax to survive.

My opinion going back to when the fire was discovered, was the only reasonable chance for everyone to survive was for the owner to have installed proper fire-safety and escape equipment and procedures. Things like an integrated fire-alarm system, or more fire-suppression systems.

So, it seems he didn’t take the stand, leaving his attorney to carry the ball, and blame it on his employer— who got the best deal in the world, in not being prosecuted himself.

As someone with some personal connection to two victims, I am asking why the owner is not on trial. Perhaps the captain is also guilty, but there's an elephant in the room.

It seems like they're throwing the 2nd in command under the bus, to avoid going after the first. And perhaps both of them should be on trial.

 

[boulderjohn]

However, the question I am asking is why the owner is not on trial.

Do we know he won't be on trial? All we know is he is not a part of THIS trial.

Here in Colorado, we had an unfortunate incident in which a young man walking home at night was beset upon by three policemen who thought he looked "suspicious." In a few seconds, the slender young man, who had done nothing wrong and had not resisted anything, was taken to the ground by one officer and put in a carotid neck hold. Later he left and the other two took over with the assault. Then paramedics arrived and administered a massive dose of ketamine.

The aftermath of the man's death is requiring three completely separate trials, one for the officer who took him down for no reason and put him in a carotid hold, one for the two officers who followed up, and one for the paramedics who administered the ketamine. In each one, the people on trial are blaming the people who are not on trial with them.

 

[DandyDon]

However, the question I am asking is why the owner is not on trial.

It would be a major stretch to try to apply criminal law to an absentee owner.

Do we know he won't be on trial?

Covered by an old law that has since been changed but the new law cannot be applied. Excerpting from...

Carbajal: Maritime Liability Reforms Inspired by Conception Boat Fire on Track to Become Law this Month

carbajal.house.gov

Background on the Small Passenger Vessel Liability Fairness Act:

The Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 stipulates that the owner a vessel may not be held financially liable for any losses incurred as a result of the fire – including loss of life – because the boat had no value after it was destroyed.

This meant that the families of the 34 persons killed in the 2019 Conception boat fire could not seek damages from the boat owner in the aftermath of the incident.

 

[SlugLife]

It would be a major stretch to try to apply criminal law to an absentee owner.

Why would it be? The standards of neglect don't say "you must be physically there performing actions at the time."

Covered by an old law that has since been changed but the new law cannot be applied. Excerpting from...
Carbajal: Maritime Liability Reforms Inspired by Conception Boat Fire on Track to Become Law this Month

That appears to be civil liability, not criminal liability.

 

[Cthippo]

Where does "Patrol once an hour" come from?

A roving patrol roves. Constantly. They may take readings once an hour, but they constantly move about.

In the three years I worked on small cruise ships for two different companies it was never like this. We would trade off every hour between lookout on the bridge and rounds below. You went, walked your route, punched the clock if there was one, and wandered back up to the bridge about 45 minites later and hung out. Each space got visited once an hour.

 

[DandyDon]

That appears to be civil liability, not criminal liability.

That's my point. The boat owner is liable under the old law only to the extent of the value of the boat, which is now worthless. The change in the law was long overdue.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

39 minutes is a long time for a fire.

I agree.

My theory, based on some conversations I had with a number of people "in the know," is that the "THUMP" they reported hearing somewhere around 3:05-3:10, which is what prompted them to go outside and look (and then discovered the fire), is most likely either the battery exploding or flashover. Even the ATF says that, once they got the fire going in the trashcan (it supposedly took them three attempts), that the galley area was engulfed within minutes.

If my supposition is correct and the ATF is correct about how quickly this spread out of control, this illustrates why I've been harping on the notion that even if there wasn't a roving watch assigned, had there been one, would it have made a difference in the outcome? If the watch person is roving, maybe they wouldn't have been in the galley area at the right time. Maybe they would have been in the engine room for a few minutes and then come up to find the fire out of control.

There are too many unknowns and untested things for anyone to assert that THIS is what happened and there are no other possibilities. Awful lot of untested variables in all of this it seems to me. Which leads back to my previous comment of asking people to look at this through the evidence, not the emotion of what a horrible tragedy this was. Hard to do, I know.

 

[Manatee Diver]

Which leads back to my previous comment of asking people to look at this through the evidence, not the emotion of what a horrible tragedy this was.

A bit hypocritical when you keep on going back to a theory based on supposition but zero evidence, that a charging battery caused it, while doubting actual attempts to do testing to try to sus out what happened. You can't pick the evidence you want to believe.

No one is saying that the night watch could've definitely prevented this. Simply that it might have. And because the captain neglected it the pax had zero chance of survival. Remember while stopping it before it got out of control is the preference, that they don't need to actually save the ship, simply buy time to get the pax out of the berthing area. With proper firefighting that might have happened.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

No one is saying that the night watch could've definitely prevented this.

Actually, that's pretty much the prosecution case and certainly the public perception (read a bunch of the posts here). The underlying theme: If there had been a night watchman, none of this would have happened.

As for your evidence-cherry-picking thought, I beg to differ. I do think the ATF testing procedure was flawed and anything I've posited I've clearly labelled as speculation and offered it as a possibility. May or may not have credence but there are multiple ways to look at all of this which some people (I'm not suggesting that you're one of them) are loathe to do.

 

[KevinNM]

I think you argument amounts to: ‘Well, if I wasn’t drunk I might have not noticed the train anyhow. So my being drunk had nothing to do with the death of my passengers.’ We’ll see how compelling that is to the jury.