Conception trial begins

[Manatee Diver]

If the vessel burned to the waterline, how can the ATF make any credible statement that the fire began in a trash can under a stairwell?

They built recreations of the main deck and did burn tests comparing it to what they know from the evidence.

 

[USdiver1]

They built recreations of the main deck and did burn tests comparing it to what they know from the evidence.

It still seems too subjective and speculative for a court of law; in other words an example of forensic "junk" science. It also begs the question, who lit the fire in the trash bin? Murder most foul.

 

[Manatee Diver]

It still seems too subjective and speculative for a court of law; in other words an example of forensic "junk" science. It also begs the question, who lit the fire in the trash bin? Murder most foul.

If a question is begged, you don't actually say it...

The charge isn't murder or manslaughter but the charge is misconduct or negligence during his role as the captain of the boat. What exactly caused the fire isn't really a major concern. Instead his actions leading up to the night of the fire, and his actions during the night of the fire.

Now what caused a fire would be more of a concern for the civil trail.

 

[johndiver999]

For a variety of reasons, I have avoided (up until now) commenting in this thread. There's no question that this tragedy was horrific. And I get it that human nature is such that we try to understand things by simplifying them so we can make sense of events and assign blame. But I also believe, as drrich2's post (#10) pointed out, that you have to look at cause-and-effect. Did this thing that was or wasn't done have an actual effect on the outcome?

Is that really what the trial is about? IF there is evidence that the captain could have taken actions that would have definitively prevented the tragedy?

I don't claim to know much about the "law" , but if I were a juror, I would need to be provided convincing evidence that he did not follow required protocol on many trips prior to the fire. Now that a tragedy has occurred, I would be willing to convict the captain if I was convinced he failed on the night watchmen part. That would be enough for me. I don't need to know (for sure) if it would have made a difference.

If we do otherwise, it would be similar to a drunk driver who kills another person in an apparent reckless manner. If I knew the driver was significantly impaired, I would not "need" evidence that the accident was directly and completely attributable to the blood alcohol level to convict.

All the talk of heroism (or the lack there of) is speculative and designed to appeal to emotions, not logic.

 

[USdiver1]

I agree that the Captain's negligence of not posting a watch and failure to provide the crew with adequate fire drills /fire fighting training are the major issues that need to be proven in this case, yet to cloud these issues with a subjective "the fire started here" conjecture is not only irrelevant, but highly prejudicial to the defendant.

Sufficient to say that by the time any surviving witness to the fire became aware of the situation, it had grown to a conflagration beyond their ability to extinguish, and that had there been a watch [trained in fire fighting / evacuation drills] well then, a different outcome may have been possible.

 

[rmorgan]

A couple of others touched on this, but it's such an important point I'll ask directly now; given the circumstances described, even if Boylan had trained and drilled the crew so, and even if he had directed them to fight fire/attempt rescue during the event, is there any credible reason to think this would likely have saved any lives?

Also, had he remained on the boat and directed the crew to fight the fire and/or try to rescue passengers, would this have put pressure on them to stay longer and endanger themselves more? (All this would've been far different to think about in the middle of the disaster).

What I'm getting at is the idea that even if Boylan was negligent in not training and drilling the crew in fire fighting (and I don't know what legal obligations if any he had in that), I believe the prosecution would also need to show that specific negligence contributed to the fatalities. If it's negligence that was non-contributory to the outcome, it might be useful for making Boylan look bad.

I get that this still leaves the issue of the required roving night watch. I just want to put aside emotion, passion and the natural tendency to root for the favored side, and focus, accusation by accusation, on whether each point is valid or not.

Once combustion occurred, one would think a night watch with an extinguisher might‘ve done a lot of good. And failures often have more than one step. It the problem was a battery in with paper trash, something as simple as a placard—combined with an effective briefing—might’ve changed things. And if the trash had been emptied before lights out, well, who knows. I do plan to keep an eye on common-area trashcans from now on.

 

[drrich2]

French was called by the prosecution at the seaman's manslaughter trial of Jerry Boylan

Boylan, 70, is charged with misconduct or neglect by of a ship officer.

The charge isn't murder or manslaughter but the charge is misconduct or negligence during his role as the captain of the boat.

Manatee Diver's post led me to check the original post, which I've included 2 relevant snippets from, above. Apologies if this is something everybody else knows or that I just missed or forgot, but can somebody please tell me...is this a manslaughter trial or not?

I don't claim to know much about the "law" , but if I were a juror, I would need to be provided convincing evidence that he did not follow required protocol on many trips prior to the fire. Now that a tragedy has occurred, I would be willing to convict the captain if I was convinced he failed on the night watchmen part. That would be enough for me. I don't need to know (for sure) if it would have made a difference.

And I don't know what the individual jurors will do. I presume the Judge will educate and direct the jurors on the manner in which they are expected to consider this case, and that the standard of proof will be 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

What you describe in the excerpt from your post I quoted does not sound to me like he would be expected to be found guilty of manslaughter if it were not established beyond a reasonable doubt that his negligence (if established at trail) was significantly contributory to the deaths.

But I'm not lawyer, and my understanding may be far off. If so, someone please clarify.

 

[Cthippo]

I've worked with the ATF fire investigators, they are very good at what they do.

I also agree, it probably doesn't matter.

The conduct of the crew on the night of the incident is probably just a distraction. By the time they became aware of the fire there was probably no survivable space left in the passenger cabin. Would a roving night watch have made a difference? Also maybe. Typically a roving watch walks around the vessel once an hour, and hangs out somewhere else the rest of the time. It is very possible that a fire could go from smoldering to out of control in the time the watch was somewhere else.

Yoy know what would have made a difference in survivability? A working fire detection system and sprinklers. NTSB has been calling for these on all inspected passenger vessels for years and the USCG has been ignoring them. Also, the Coast Guard inspected the Conception annualy. Did they never ask if a night watch was being set?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

. . . but can somebody please tell me...is this a manslaughter trial or not?

From the L.A. Times:
"Boylan’s prosecution has repeatedly run into problems. He was initially indicted by a grand jury in 2020 on 34 counts of so-called “seaman’s manslaughter,” a steamship-era law that holds captains responsible for lives lost on their vessels. Each count carried a potential 10 years in prison.

"Boylan’s defense argued the fire was a single incident, not separate crimes, prompting prosecutors to seek a superseding indictment on one count of seaman’s manslaughter. Last year, however, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu threw out the indictment, finding it did not specify the necessary criterion that Boylan acted with gross negligence.

"A month later, a grand jury indicted Boylan on a single count that specified “gross negligence.” Boylan could face 10 years behind bars if convicted."

 

[KevinNM]

Once you decide to ignore clear and long-established safety regs and something very bad happens you are in a bad place. It’s like being the bus driver after a fatal crash who blows a 0.07 on the breathalyzer.

I’m sure he didn’t plan to kill a bunch of prople any more than Francesco Schettino intended to kill a bunch of people. But they both did due to their reckless actions.