Conception trial begins

[rmorgan]

Is there a news source out of Santa Barbara or elsewhere that's reporting on the trial more recently than a week ago? Am wondering if Captain Boylan took the stand or not, and if so how it went, when are/were the closing statements if it' got that far?

The government rested its case on Wednesday, and the defense case is in progress today. No indication on the docket of who is testifying.

 

[The Chairman]

This is moving rather quickly then. Cool.

 

[KevinNM]

Per the request of the Chair, I pulled down the testimony of a witness with substantial maritime experience and licensure who worked briefly aboard Conception a few weeks before she burned. it was separately transcribed because the defense seeks to strike it—the mine run of transcript is not available at this point. It is attached (let me know if it won’t download).

I can see why they don’t want this on the record. But it isn’t surprising based on what I’ve read of how the boat operated and the testimony of the surviving crew.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I can see why they don’t want this on the record.

I'd like to read what the cross-examination by the defense was. This is only the prosecution's side and they're obviously going to paint as bleak a picture as possible. It's important tee that this guy only worked for them for eight days. Now maybe it was such a horrible eight days he said, "I've got to get out of here."

But the other question would be whether or not he's an outlier. In other words, having one person testify to all of these alleged deficiencies, some of which seem relevant to the issues of the actual fire, may be coincidence. On the other hand, if you have the testimony of three or four crew or former crew testifying to the same type of things, then it establishes a pattern that may be relevant. I'm not following this testimony closely enough to know if there has been other testimony to that effect. But I am aware that they had another dive boat captain in to testify that assigning a night watch (not sure if he used the word "roving") was SOP and that he always followed that on his boats.

So it seems the government case is to establish that there was lack of an assigned roving night watchman. I don't know if that alone is enough to convict or not. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know why the defense didn't simply stipulate to that fact (lack of a night watch) which would have meant you wouldn't have all of this testimony. To me, the case should rest on - and I don't know if this holds legal water or not, perhaps someone else with that background can weigh in - establishing a definitive connection between lack of a night watch and dousing the fire early on &/or evacuating the bunkroom of passengers.

ATF did their fire starter test (which still seems suspect to me as I mentioned previously) but I would like to have seen them do a test where they start the fire, let it go for just a little bit, and then try to have a person douse it. If the fire can't be doused, and there's some generic testing that's been done to indicate that a lithium battery fire probably could not have been extinguished, then there's no connection between lack of a night watch and the ability to extinguish the fire.

By the same token, I'd love to have seen an evacuation test. Let the fire start and then see if the bunkroom can be evacuated before it all gets out of control. Getting 34 people woken up, alert, up a narrow curved staircase, and out of the galley at least to the back deck, is not as easy as it might sound. Maybe you could have gotten everyone out. Maybe you could have gotten some people out. Maybe you couldn't have gotten anyone out before things got out of control. Without some sort of a controlled test, how would we know? It shouldn't enough to just say, "They all would have gotten out," or "Someone could have extinguished the fire." Should you have to prove that?

So I guess what bugs me most about all of this - and maybe this is the legal standard for the charge - is that it seems the only thing that needs to be proved is lack of a night watch. But there's nothing being said about how, in the real world and under the actual circumstances, that that definitely would have made any level of difference. (And if it's such a foregone conclusion that it WOULD have made a difference, why wasn't that addressed by the prosecution to remove ANY lingering doubt.)

 

[KevinNM]

Well, I’m completely confident that my being drunk had nothing to do with how I drove the bus in front of the train…

 

[boulderjohn]

So I guess what bugs me most about all of this - and maybe this is the legal standard for the charge - is that it seems the only thing that needs to be proved is lack of a night watch. But there's nothing being said about how, in the real world and under the actual circumstances, that that definitely would have made any level of difference.

Well, I’m completely confident that my being drunk had nothing to do with how I drove the bus in front of the train…

Another way of looking at it would be Ken's way. of seeing it.

Yes, you were drunk when you drove the bus in front of the train and got all those kids killed, but it is possible that you might have driven the bus in front of the train if you were sober, so your being drunk had nothing to do with it, and you are totally innocent.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Another way of looking at it would be Ken's way. of seeing it.

Yes, you were drunk when you drove the bus in front of the train and got all those kids killed, but it is possible that you might have driven the bus in front of the train if you were sober, so your being drunk had nothing to do with it, and you are totally innocent.

Well, I’m completely confident that my being drunk had nothing to do with how I drove the bus in front of the train…

You're both so full of it, I'm assuming you're both suffering from surface narcosis and your posts are enough to convict.


In all seriousness, I think a lot of you are looking at this emotionally and not from a legal standpoint. I truly don't know if the prosecution has made the case that Boylan's actions or inactions are directly linked to the outcome. All the testimony has apparently been "He didn't assign a night watch." That may not be enough to convict and I think this has to be a unanimous verdict. I would think you have to make a connection to the deaths and I haven't seen that they have. Lots of supposition, and most of it here, not in court testimony, but nothing beyond that.

 

[RobPNW]

Can't pass judgement without having been there. It's possible the crew could have gotten it under control and saved people but panicked. It's also possible the fire was out of control, or the people were beyond rescue, and trying to do so would have just killed more people. Having seen a real shipboard fire firsthand, it's not pretty.

 

[DandyDon]

Can't pass judgement without having been there. It's possible the crew could have gotten it under control and saved people but panicked. It's also possible the fire was out of control, or the people were beyond rescue, and trying to do so would have just killed more people. Having seen a real shipboard fire firsthand, it's not pretty.

I'd agree to an extent, but that's why they're having a trial: Present the evidence and judge and jury decide.

The "operator/driver" is the MASTER of the boat and is directly responsible for operating the vessel safely or locking it at the dock and going home. If he finds or faces any safety issues he can't correct for any reason, he locks the boat and goes home and nobody sails anywhere with the boat. He mails the keys to the owner and transfers custody to them. If decides to sail with crew and passengers on this boat with any condition that is unsafe, he is responsible in a criminal case.

I fully agree, but how the law is written and applied is what matters here.

I have never felt as safe as on @Wookie's Spree. Mel kept him in line!

True that! I went on a fast Flower Gardens trip with him once and was very impressed with the safety and every other aspect.

 

[NorCalDM]

You're both so full of it, I'm assuming you're both suffering from surface narcosis and your posts are enough to convict.


In all seriousness, I think a lot of you are looking at this emotionally and not from a legal standpoint. I truly don't know if the prosecution has made the case that Boylan's actions or inactions are directly linked to the outcome. All the testimony has apparently been "He didn't assign a night watch." That may not be enough to convict and I think this has to be a unanimous verdict. I would think you have to make a connection to the deaths and I haven't seen that they have. Lots of supposition, and most of it here, not in court testimony, but nothing beyond that.

Completely agree with this. Does having a night watch change the outcome is the question for me but I'm not a lawyer. Looking at the timeline a crew member was in the area of the fire at 2:35am dumping trash at 3:12am he hears and sees the fire and at 3:14am the mayday goes out. So 37 minutes from no fire to fully engulfed. So would it have made a difference if the crew member made another round 20 minutes after dumping the trash maybe maybe not but nothing so far proves it one way or the other.