Did M Pigneguy Manufacture The Close Quarters Incident ?
In the Professional Skipper Magazine, M Pigneguy as a contributing author writes in his article after the rigged prosecution decision of Judge Davis came out – “Bolton also insinuated I had manufactured the incident by altering Seaways course to starboard, following Classique as she was crossing Seaway’s bow. The photos I took that were presented in court clearly showed this was not the case, a point proved by the independent expert witness, Barry Young”
If M Pigneguy intends to fool the readers of Professional Skipper Magazine, he might manage that to the extent they didn’t hear the evidence – so to fabricate something for his own absolution would appear to be the aim of this nonsense.
1: Bolton didn’t “insinuate” M Pigneguy manufactured the incident, he proved conclusively that was the case & showed the method by which it is easy for anyone to see the same for themselves. This information was given to Maritime New Zealand in Bolton’s Incident Report & further described at the interview including the determination that M Pigneguy had zoomed Photo 3 to give the appearance of proximity which didn’t exist in reality.
2: It wasn’t that Seaway was following Classique as she was crossing Seaway’s bow. M Pigneguy had turned a full 37 degrees in total from his course of 260* from Waiheke. After Sth Motuihe,1st of all to 284* before photo1, then 286* & continued incrementally right through until he was steering 297* by Photo 3
3: For M Pigneguy to present his 3 photos & maintain they don’t show evidence of his turning throws huge doubt as to his eyesight & intelligence – perhaps it also assumes his readers can’t determine for themselves what the photos show.
4: Barry Young rather than proving Seaway hadn’t turned, he begrudgingly admitted that Seaway had turned 2.4 degrees within the distance covered by the 3 photos which is half the amount actually turned in that last half nmile. It was entirely unprofessional of Barry Young not to also calculate the turning Seaway did prior to Photo 1. Barry Young didn’t make any attempt to work out the courses Seaway was on & probably wouldn’t want to reveal that Seaway was already past 286* at Photo 1 – he wasn’t interested in facts which would be to the detriment of his role – not as an independent expert witness helpful to the Court but rather as a Hired Gun” for Maritime New Zealand.
5: Julian Joy in his Report revealed also that Seaway had turned 5 degrees within the distance covered by the 3 photos (half nmile) & showed his diagrams of his method with lines projected to the features on North Shore.
6: It is easy on magnified photos to identify those features. By using a ruler parallel to the port side of Seaway’s ramp for instance, it doesn’t take an Einstein to see the gradual shifting of Seaway’s heading past where it was in photo1. The tall Sentinal building almost in line in photo 1 is out of sight in photo 3 due to the extent of Seaway’s turning. Between photos 2 & 3 if a vertical line is projected from the short white post on the starboard bow, it can be seen to the West of Rangitoto’s Summit in photo 2 & to the East of the summit in photo 3.
7: All these details were made very clear to M Pigneguy, Barry Young, Maritime New Zealand & Mark Davies of Crown Law in the months leading up to the prosecution & in the event they didn’t acknowledge the violation of Maritime Collision Regulations prior to, they were then presented in Court to Judge Davis who unfortunately had no nautical understanding of the significance of Seaway’s turning towards the path of Classique as the main causative factor in the close quarters M Pigneguy manufactured to complain about.
If a pedestrian is crossing the road, it is not expected that an on-coming car will cross the centre line to encroach on the pedestrian’s safe walk to the other side. At the point when the pedestrian feels the car is getting too close, breaking into a run might be in order ?