You spelled "weeks" wrong in your first sentence.
I'm amazed at people's ability to read contrary evidence, or at least possible explanations for what might have happened, and yet stick doggedly to their initial positions, which are identical to what was posted in the first few posts of the thread. Assumptions ain't facts. Again, the guy wasn't delirious when he got on board, the body sank right away, and the article said the captain wasn't able to call until the next day.
All in all, though, this thread has remained remarkably civil, which is nice.
Excuse me, but where are these "facts" you refer to?
All we have is a supposed Coast Guard report, and a supposed news report, supposedly based on one-sided statements by people being interviewed.
So what we are debating is a story, that may be pure fiction, and not based on any facts at all.
We read the story, try to determine what is true, and base an opinion.
What I believe is true, is that based on the story, there was a boat, with a skipper and 3 crew; only 2 crew came back, and the skipper didn't do nearly enough to try to bring back the third, and is trying to cover up his negligence, that contributed to the possible drowning.
The only reason I am so involved, is because I am appalled by those having the opinion (which may not be fact, they may just be trying to ruffle feathers) that the skipper was not negligent, based on the story, as we think we know it.