Judge Wylie’s Appeal Decisions – Recapping
1: Matters of Fact – continues
P19 – Although M Pigneguy was said to have filed an incident report with MNZ & Ian Howden appointed to investigate the incident, Bolton’s incident report which was also filed, is entirely disregarded by MNZ, Judges Wylie & Davis along with the plethora of evidence provided indicating Bolton was not guilty.
P26 – Judge Wylie reads what Judge Davis says about the “factual” background referring to Bolton’s plotting which had their authenticity disputed by Barry Young because he said there was no fixed starting point.
B Young was wrong to say that, it had been given by M Pigneguy on his drawn chart at Sth Motuihe – therefore Bolton’s plottings are valid & not a red herring as suggested by Judge Davis who wrongly said the 3 photos showed a crossing situation was developing. At photo 2, Classique is ahead of the ferry & would’ve been further across if the ferry had not turned towards Classique after Photo 1. The onus was on the ferry to have maintained its course & speed towards Browns Island & Auckland.
P33 – In dismissing that the ferry turned towards Classique, Judge Wylie was wrong to half quote from the interview that Bolton “thought the ferry had kept a straight course.” Bolton had also said that he “had the feeling that the ferry had been following him up … I can tell you with absolute certainty he was altering his course … I couldn’t figure why he was apparently chasing me” Additionally Bolton wouldn’t be expecting the ferry to be turning up as the photos subsequently showed, in violation of the rule requiring alterations to be large enough to be visible.
P34 – Judge Wylie is wrong to repeat, as B Young stated, re photos 1 & 2 that Classique is on the ferry’s port side, when it is easily seen that Classique is ahead of the ferry’s bow in photo2.
He is also wrong to say there is no evidence to support Bolton’s assertion that the ferry turned – firstly, B Young had begrudgingly admitted 2.4 deg of turning.
Secondly, If the Judge had projected the side of the ramp to the shore ahead in photo 1, he would’ve seen that it was on the Sentinal building & Classique on the white cliff which is where the ferry would’ve been if it was on the course of 286deg claimed by M Pigneguy.
In Photo 2 he would’ve seen Classique on the Sentinal & the ferry is above the Sentinal on the rising slope of Rangitoto – having come up by an equal amount Classique has traveled.
In Photo 3, the ferry’s bow is well up the slope of Rangitoto with the Sentinal out of view to the left.
It is patently clear that Classique, with a white cliff behind her, is about 1 deg on the port side of the ferry at half a nmile away. If the ferry had been on 286* at photo 1, the picture would’ve been similar to photo2 showing Classique ahead of the ferry.
If the ferry had maintained 286*, Classique would’ve been on the starboard side of the ferry at photo 2 with 463 mtrs clearance, showing there was no risk of collision.
That the ferry was already on the Sentinel at photo 1, indicates a turning up (6deg) prior to photo 1, which has to be added to the turning which occurred within photos 1, 2 & 3 (2.4deg or more) apart from the turning in sight of Classique at Sth Motuihe from 260*to 286* – that totals 41 deg.
For Judge Wylie not to be able to determine the turning made by the ferry after he had been given the diagrams & method to work it out, indicates a rubber stamping of Judge Davis decision made on the basis of misleading & perjured information from the prosecution.
Matters not properly considered, rather than fact, concludes next.
Classique only had 39 mtrs to travel from 1 side of the ferry
to the other when the ferry had to travel half a nmile –
if it had kept a straight course from the taking of Photo 1.
If Seaway had been on 286* at Photo 1, Classique would’ve
already been practically ahead of the bow of the ferry.