A Crucial Question Misleadingly Sidestepped By M Pigneguy.

A Crucial Question Is Misleadingly Sidestepped By M Pigneguy.
Bolton asks – “So why did you continue over to Rangitoto when your course would normally have been round Browns Island & up to Auckland – after photo 3 you continued on to a point just East of Rangitoto Wharf?”
M Pigneguy prevaricates – “Well it has no relevance to you as far as I can see … we might have turned right on the spot that we normally turned or we might have let it run through … but it was of no consequence to what happened at 10.26 am.”
A diagram shows just how relevant this point is & how Judge Davis with his admitted lack of Nautical Knowledge would be unable to grasp the significance of the misleading excuse made up by M Pigneguy.
The course of Seaway to that point just East of Rangitoto Wharf shows that M Pigneguy had already been East of his purported course he drew on his evidential chart & substantiates Bolton’s determination of Seaway’s turning starboard towards the path of Classique to manufacture a close quarters to complain about when if Seaway had kept a straight course there would’ve been no incident at all & each vessel would’ve passed starboard to starboard with clearance of about 460 mtrs.

Seaway’s course to East of Rangitoto Wharf shows that M Pigneguy had steered starboard
towards Classique to reduce the clearance that had existed prior to point of incident at photo 3 
& Seaway was East of the purported course M Pigneguy drew on his evidential chart.

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Your email address will not be published.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