Ouzo

sarabande

sarabande

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 May 2005
Messages
36,182
Visit site
When did the tanker appear on the scene ?

I thought the POB had been inspected for traces of contact ?


Now I cannot find the Ouzo report in the MAIB site. Qu'est-ce qui se passe, mes vieux amis ?
 
I don't think they actually found any traces of contact, or at least no any marks that would be conclusive proof of contact with a small vessel.

The report disappeared from the MAIB site together with all the associated reports etc when the trail started but I think you will find them all on the RYA website. They were certainly still there last time I looked and I did put the URL on here! (I down loaded a copy anyway when it was first published)

Start HERE
 
It is just the defence team trying to blame it on another ship that came into the area after the ferry.

Basically the guy is syaing yes I did nearly hit the Ouzo but it survived me and this nasty man in a tanker actually sunk them.

It came on the back of a confession from the tanker captain that he only had hilmself and the 2nd officer on the bridge rather than the required 3 people.

The P & O is trying to crawl out of it in my opinion
 
Bearing in mind the guy is innocent until proved guilty....isn't the case partly about proving beyond doubt that the near miss experienced by the PoB was actually with Ouzo? There is no physical proof, is there, it's circumstantial only. No marks on the ship, and no Ouzo to look at either.
 
[ QUOTE ]


It came on the back of a confession from the tanker captain that he only had hilmself and the 2nd officer on the bridge rather than the required 3 people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great crystal ball you have there, actually the captain of the tanker admitted that only the second mate was on the bridge during this time. This means no look out was present and the second mate could well have been doing all sorts of things other than look out. It certainly throws a large shadow over the whole sorry saga.
 
P&O are not on trial.

No one is try to prove the company guilty

The system is that the individual on trial - and potentially facing a life sentence - must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Until that happens he is innocent.

Making statements that he is guilty, or trying to get off or such like are likely to land those making such statements in chokey as well as causing the trial to be abandoned.

It would appear that there is little or no evidence to show that that individual on trial is responsible or criminally negligent.

Unless there is such evidence the verdict must be not guilty.
 
There would appear to be, however, an awful lot of evidence of extremely poor seamanship - which is, I imagine, why the MAIB report has been temporarily removed ?
 
[ QUOTE ]

There would appear to be, however, an awful lot of evidence of extremely poor seamanship

[/ QUOTE ]

If what the Bridge Officer is accused of is true, then yes there is, but the MAIB report falls a long way short of 'proving' anything, and is a mish mash of guesswork, supposition and convoluted deductions which to my mind as an ex skipper of a commercial passenger boat, proved nothing at all except MAIB had to come up with answers when there are none.

The supposition that Ouzo was anywhere near PoB when she encountered a yacht is flawed, and is no more than guesswork. The last actual contact with her was three or four hours earlier when she went out of range of the Soton VTS radar as she cleared Bembridge Ledge. MAIB 'experts' worked out 'if' she held a particular course, and 'if' she was sailing at a particular speed, and 'if' the Ouzo skipper was doing what 'they' think he might do, then she 'might have been' in roughly that position when the PoB came through. Thats an awful lot of 'ifs' for sailing a 25 footer for 4 hours in darkness!

The report concludes that because no other yacht reported a close encounter with PoB, it must have been Ouzo. What nonsense. I have had several close encounters with ferries - including one where a ferry passed within 20 feet of me (in daylight too), but I did not report it to anyone - it never occurred to me that I should. Whats the point?

The guy on trial is claiming that he took no action because he was satisfied a) the ferry had passed clear of the Yacht, and b) he could see the yachts lights clearly astern of the ferry after the encounter. He has maintained this point right from the night it happened. If the yacht had been knocked down and swamped, the chances that her lights would still be showing normally afterwards are pretty small. And that was what convinced the ferry watchkeepers that all was well with the yacht and there was nothing to worry about.

What will be interesting is to see whether the Senior watchkeepers testimony is substantiated by other bridge personnel present at the time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...Making statements that he is guilty, or trying to get off or such like are likely to land those making such statements in chokey as well as causing the trial to be abandoned.

It would appear that there is little or no evidence to show that that individual on trial is responsible or criminally negligent...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not unless you are a juror in the trial or a journalist. Individuals are allowed to discuss what they want.

The CPS would appear to disagree on your assessment of the evidence, but then they have actually had access to the court papers.

The solicitors are just doing what they are paid for - bringing in an element of doubt so that the case doesn't get proven "beyond reasonable doubt". It is a tactic that has saved a lot of guilty people from conviction.
 
it is probably a tactic that has also saved a lot of innocent people from conviction....

but then you may consider it better that 10 innocent men be convicted than 1 guilty man goes free
 
[ QUOTE ]
it is probably a tactic that has also saved a lot of innocent people from conviction....

but then you may consider it better that 10 innocent men be convicted than 1 guilty man goes free

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all and our system does not allow that, the idea that "a lot" of innocent people are convicted is a fabrication of the guilty - another tactic to try and get themselves out of facing the consequences of their actions.

As a general principle I think it morally wrong to use a tactic that can rely on making allegations against innocent parties to create enough doubt to prevent the conviction of a guilty party.

Then again lawyers have different morals from the rest of us.
 
I suspect that, without indepndent witnesses, there is no finite proof in this case. Just the balance of probabilities.

But does the case not hang on culpability? Shifting the course of a chunk the size of the PoB is not something lightly undertaken, given the restraints: another vessel (of damaging proportions) is described as being in the area. What is the responsibility of the senior officer on the bridge - yup, it's the persons in his charge.

This is what I tell myself when crossing the Straits of Dover or elsewhere and finding myself in line with a passenger ship. Time to take a course that the on-coming bridge will understand and which gives me a chance of survival. Wouldn't you?

I cannot but wonder of what was in the minds of the crew of Ouzo, as they watched what must have been a well lit ship coming up on them, what options they thought they had. Or is it the sad fact that they stood on in hope? Did it cross their minds to light up their boat / get on the radio? We shall never know, but we can conjecture and learn.

More than once at night I have got out my very powerful lamp and played it on the sails, and flashed the oncoming bridge. Self preservation!

PWG
(please don't read into these comments anything less than total sympathy for Ouzo's crew and their relatives!)
 
i sometimes think only lawyers have morals and the rest of humanity just have prejudices but of course that is not so.
if the presumption of innocence means anything then the prosecution in the " ouzo " case are making allegations against an innocent man. however the allegations will not prove guilt. only evidence will do that. similarly the defence can ask questions or make allegations against third parties but in my view if these allegations are baseless then the tactic is useless because a jury will see that. only a foolish lawyer would make allegations he could not back up with some evidence.
however can i say that not all prosecutors are knights in shining armour. there are some sneaky sods in their ranks as well.
ps - i was not trying to suggest that there are " lots " of innocent people convicted but it is not exactly unknown for that to happen.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...but in my view if these allegations are baseless then the tactic is useless because a jury will see that. only a foolish lawyer would make allegations he could not back up with some evidence...

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately there are many foolish juries which the clever lawyers rely on to not see through their tactics.
 
If you watched the BBC South report at the beginning of the trial you would have assumed that people in this great country of ours are guilty until proved innocent .... absolutely appalling reporting!
 
What you all seem to forget is the MAIB investigation is totally seperatre from the Prosecution Investigation which was undertaken by the Police. MAIB look at why and how to improve things and the police look for anything criminal negligance. So the MAIB report has no relivance to the criminal proceedings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top