Because the Judge and the Jury in law cases are always people who do not know the person on trial. And they only have to go on what they are given in that trial-Markofsealifes.
True about the judge and the jury, however the people posting are neither the judge nor the jury. They are the prosecution. The people posting her are the prosecuters....trying to submit heresay evidence and conjecture as fact. We are not talking about the obvious facts that he sailed away from the dock. But what he was thinking in his mind...and his leaving in one hour thats a fact so they could not refuse to leave is the fiction. It is the conclusions drawn from the facts which are posted as facts by some are merely speculation.
The Captain took his ship to the pass of an hurricane when he knew he was there and could avoid it, staying in port, diverting to a safer port or sailing in the opposite direction of the Hurricane path.
- thats a fact
Thats what he did and that was a terrible error in judgement which makes him responsible for the loss of life and the ships sinking
He made absurd statements to convince the crew to follow him in this adventure(the Bounty would be more safe at sea than in a port).
the fact is he made a statements the Bounty would be safer at sea than port. the speculation- that they were absurd and that he made the statement to convince the crew to follow him
He knew that the boat made water, that the bilges where not clean and that obviously could lead to clogging of the pumps in the event of flooding and even so sailed way to unnecessarily face terrible weather.
the facts- the bilges were not clean, the pumps clogged and he sailed into bad weather/ the speculation- the water ingress was normal and the failed pump was caused by a clogged pump not operator error
He could be a very nice man, a quality but all these facts tell us, without doubt, that he was a reckless captain. This are facts Dave, not snippets of information neither hysterical assumptions
See I could agree with this if the statement said he was a reckless Captain in this instance, but thats not what is meant. Now you are trying to say he was always a reckless Captain in general.
the facts- he was a professional captain, the statements about his seasmanship from first hand observers was that it was good and knowledable, NO ONE of the first hand observers, crew or people who had ever been with him ever said he was a reckless captain. That does count for something, inn fact that superceeds and speculation that he was a reckless captain in the past
the speculation- from only the social bloggers not the first hand observers that he was reckless
It makes no difference to me that he was a nice man...thats an attribute you are putting on me and others. That isnt germane to this discuission. To dismiss what I or others say based on that we think is is a nice man, is failing to recognize we think he was a professional, experienced, knowlegeable leader who made a terrible mistake thats all. Thats a pretty simple explainaton for what happened and usually the simple explaination is the easiest to prove by fact. The contiual theories and conjecture base on a few snippets of information is actually reckless in itself.
What they and I have said was that he was professional, he was experienced, he was knowledgeable. Those are facts borne out by statements. The other fact is that this professional, knowledgable, experienced man made a mistake/ error in judgement which caused a loss of life and ship. The speculation- he was a cult leader, they followed him because they were mesmerized, he left in an hour so they couldnt get more information to not go, he was a reckless captain all the time and before, the ship was in bad repair, the ship couldnt survuve the weather it had countless times before, he was a ******** artists.
Try and really
differentiate between the actual facts, and the conclusions drawn from those facts as well as speculation and theorizing.
Truth of the matter is tghis man has been in control of this ship for 17 years. This is the first time he made an agregious error which he was brought up on charges for or being cited for.
Because you get caught speeding...doesnt mean that you are a reckless driver all the time and a terrible driver. It means that partuicular time you were. Because you have a car crash doesnt make you a reckless driver for all of history...it does for that particular incident. There is danger is extrpolating a statement to define the Cpatian by this one incident in his life. Albet he will be defined by it by many and the aggregious mistake/ error in judgement he made.
Funny though the ones who knew him first hand, even the crew who was on the boat during the sinking find that not to be true. Why is that do you think? Why dont you hear them all saying he was reckless, a ******** artist and going after him for what shppened?
These are the first hand people now? Listen to them carefully, you dont hear any referneces to many of the speculative things attrributed tot he Captain posted here. Note none of us defend him in this incident of having good judgement.
Why cant the explaination just be a simple one. It doesnt get good press/ It makes for boring posts. There is no spectacle. All the things why some ridicule the CG invetigation. If it doesnt come out with the results they expect, or they think it should we have already seen a number of posters say it isnt correct before it happens.