M Pigneguy & Phillip Sweetman colluded on their evidence

M Pigneguy & Phillip Sweetman colluded on their evidence
The signed report  & Claim M Pigneguy made to Maritime New Zealand contained 16 main points eg, where he was when he 1st saw Classique, the course, the position of the incident,  what he saw on the way,  what he did enroute, what Classique was or was not doing & his thoughts on the subject.

These were copied word for word by Phillip Sweetman in his purported independent sworn statement  with 2 differences  –
1: To make it look as if it was his own evidence, he rearranged the order of the points but  by keeping  the phraseology practically identical, the ruse fails.

2: Because he didn’t understand what he was copying, in an attempt to hide that he was copying information, he reveals an abysmal lack of navigational knowledge. He not only confuses his point of 1st observation with the point of incident but he puts his point of 1st observation of Classique as from the top of Browns Island.

M Pigneguy starts by putting the location of the incident down as “36*49.2’S; 174*54.0’E, 020*T x 0.25’from Browns Light”
Phillip Sweetman begins his statement with where he was when he 1st saw Classique – “Our vessel, Seaway was in 36*49.2’S; 174*54.0’E. Browns Island Light was bearing 020*T at a radar range of 0.25 nautical miles.”

If non navigators might appreciate an explanation –
1: 36*49.2’S; 174*54.0’E is said by M Pigneguy to be the location of the incident – the alleged close quarters shown in Photo 3 & he says it is on a compass bearing of 020 degrees True, ie  North of Browns Light & ¼ of a sea mile away on that bearing.

2: Phillip Sweetman was at Sth Motuihe when he 1st saw Classique which has a different lat/lon to that of the incident & was to eventuate more than 2 nautical miles further along their track.

Then he says from the position of Seaway, Browns Light was on a compass bearing of 020*T or to be seen in that direction, ¼ nautical mile away – for that to happen, Seaway would have to be on top of Browns Island.
That only gives the position of Browns Light, it is not the point of incident – that would be a further ¼ nmile out on a bearing of 020*T
Even though Bolton revealed the error in Court, Phillip Sweetman didn’t understand his mistake – neither did Judge Davis.

M Pigneguy fudged his answer as to whether he knew Philip Sweetman copied his report – “He may well have seen my report, I’m not sure but we discussed everything… we were both independent witnesses … he wanted to know certain facts … he wanted to know what ships course we were on because from where he was standing as look-out, he couldn’t see the GPS position.”
Judge Davis asked –“What are the points of 1st observation, Mr Bolton? I’m not going to have more of this airy fairy thing – you’re wasting the court’s time.”

Further demonstration of the disadvantage of hearing a Maritime case in a district court with a Judge who admits to lack nautical knowledge & apparently  who is not concerned when the 2 main witnesses have colluded on all the 16 main points of evidence.

 

Phillip Sweetman & M Pigneguy get away with their collusion, even though the trainee watch keeper
portrays an elevated view of Browns Light, confusing it with M Pigneguy’s location of Incident
2014-07-30_2125

 

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge