Re: Erebus 25 years on
Casper,
Presume you have not read fully the contents of that finding. Admittedly it is very wordy, but, you will no doubt note that Mr Woodford was not called to give evidence, you will also note it was stated in a previous post that an actual weather report at Mc Murdo was passed to the crew advising of whiteout conditions at Mc Murdo and not to bother with any sightseeing in that area, this experienced AntArctic observer was also not called to give any evidence, why would this be? these people obviously had information that was very relevant, or did it not fit into Mahons theories?
"Dear Sir,
At the time of the DC10 crash I was employed in Antarctica by D.S.I.R. as a survival instructor/mountaineer assistant. I was one of the three mountaineers who made the initial inspection of the site for survivors. I was also one of the three mountaineers who accompanied Messrs David Graham (Investigator) Ian Gemmell & Ian Wood (Air NZ) during their initial inspection of the aircraft. During the first six days after the accident I was at the crash site at all times when the site was occupied.
In regard to evidence reported in the Christchurch Press today, 5 Dec 1980, I can state unequivocally that:
(1) Captain Gemmell did not spend any time inspecting the aircraft without other people being present.
(2) Captain Collins flight bag was found by me the day after the crash, this being three days before any Air N.Z. personnel or crash investigators reached the site. My recollection is that it was empty when I first inspected it. It certainly contained no diaries or briefing material.
(3) Captain Gemmell did not remove any items from the persons of deceased lying in the area...."
Counsel proceeded to read from the letter which goes on to refer to instructions concerning the crevassed area of the ice-slope.
No challenge was made to the views expressed by Mr Woodford nor was he called to give evidence. And no evidence to any contrary effect was given by anybody. Yet apart from the passing reference to the matter in paragraph 349 of the Report the point of view Mr Woodford expressed seems to have been given no attention. The extent of the evidence which could have been given by Mr Woodford if he had been called as a witness is indicated by his affidavit now put before this Court. The importance of the letter seems obvious. The bag being empty when it was seen only 18 hours after the aircraft had crashed it is difficult to understand how it could have any significance when found in that same condition three days later. Yet in this part of the Report it is left as a central issue. Mr Woodford's own concern about all this is indicated in the lengthy affidavit which he prepared for the purpose of exonerating Captain Gemmell. It was sworn by him on 21st May 1981 not very long after the Report of the Royal Commission had been made public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That to my way of thinking explains the so called missing documents from the flight bag. Nobody made any claims of vested interest by Mr Woodford.
Prospector