pulse 1
I'll start with you, with 2 qualified Met Observers and their wives (who lived all year round on the Mull), plus five other eyewitnesses - how many eye witnesses do you need to cast doubt on the various different accounts from the "Lone Yachtsman" to the various Inquiries.
The BOI were criticised by the FAI for not asking the Yachtsman exactly what he could see on the Mull. I would suggest to you that if a witness states on oath that his position was "2 NM SW of the Mull" and that the visibility was "1 NM limited by haze" then it would seem pointless to ask that question. No mention was made regarding the "Cabin Boy" (or "Adult Male Companion") that featured in later reviews of the event in his evidence to the BOI.
The names of the "eye - witnesses" on the Mull were recorded by the Civil Police and those persons were interviewed on oath by the BOI. They show a remarkable level of agreement in regard to the actual weather conditions on the Mull - in contrast to the evidence of the Yachtsman. It is interesting to note that in his original statement to the Police he said that he was "2NM SW of the Mull and the visibility was 1 NM limited by haze". That would suggest to me that he could not see the Mull - or his evidence was incorrect.
That's enough for tonight - perhaps you would like to comment before I continue?