1 1
obelixtim

Cilliers Trial UK.

Recommended Posts

The other thread is locked, so its not possible to comment on it. Not sure why.

But......just reading the BBC coverage of the trial, and so far it is only at the stage of the prosecution witnesses testifying. I'm a little uncomfortable with what I see from the skydiving experts.

Now, Cilliers may well be guilty, but reading through coverage of the trial so far, it seems to me that the prosecution witnesses testifying about the skydiving side of it all, are not covering themselves in glory.

Most of what they are saying, can only be described as rather loose speculation, which may have a huge influence on a jury who know nothing about skydiving.

To look at a few examples: (from the CI of the DZ)

"Never seen a main parachute so tangled".

Really? Cutaway canopies can tie themselves into knots, as anyone who has untangled a few well knows. I've sorted out a few with a heap of tangles.

"Slinks have never been known to fail".

Incorrectly assembled ones do, and there are examples of that.

"There has never been an accident in the UK where both main and reserve have failed".

Wut????

"That reserve had never failed".

The rig only had 250 jumps on it. It had never been deployed before. The expert testified that he'd seen photos of the reserve, after the incident. How could he then make a valid comment on the integrity of the slinks before the incident?

"The packer had never packed a mal after 2 years working as a packer"

That means nothing. Always a first time, and mals are not always caused by bad pack jobs.

"10 different riggers had packed that reserve and had not found problems with the slinks".

Riggers miss things, especially if they are not specifically looking for something, and can easily assume that because the rig had been looked at by someone else, everything was OK.

Then we have photos of the CI inspecting a parachute "like the one used by Mrs Cilliers". That shows a parachute with several lines disconnected. Prejudicial much?

Also the CI in a video demonstrating how he could sabotage the canopy in 5 minutes. Again, very prejudicial.

As I said, Cilliers may well be guilty, certainly there are a lot of other things that point the finger at him, and he probably will be found guilty, but based on what I'm seeing vis a vis the parachute evidence, a lot of it is rather flimsy, and it seems the parachute "experts" are really throwing him under the bus.

They certainly don't seem impartial. I have thoughts about that, but I'll keep those to myself for now.

If the defence comes up with a parachute expert who knows his stuff, I'm sure they can cast doubt on nearly all the prosecution allegations.

FWIW, I think, on balance, he probably did do it, but I don't think things are open and shut from the skydiving POV.

Have a look at the BBC website.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting observations.

I'm curious what the causes of those kinds of answers could be. All sorts of reasons come to mind:

-- Getting a bit flustered about giving a carefully nuanced response on the stand.
-- Having sentences taken out of context from a longer response.
-- Having to respond specifically to a lawyer's narrow question without being able to provide further explanation.
-- And just being too casual and not objective in their responses because they 'know' the bastard is guilty

Although I think the sabotage-in-5-minutes thing is useful. Ok, I don't know if they need to SHOW it to the jury, as long as they have some proof that they've tested it and it works.

I figure the guy is guilty but agree that witness evidence should be of high quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you upset?

This is standard legal practice.

No lawyer wants the jury or judge to hear "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Lawyers always manipulate witnesses to limit testimony to less than half of the truth and only the half of the truth that supports their side of the argument.
I have been shouted down by a lawyer ("I ask the questions here ") who refused to answer my question. He was clearly trying to limit the amount of evidence that I could reveal in court. He also asked some preposterous leading questions that could only have been answered by an octopus.
That lawyer was later implicated in "contempt outside the court."

Sometimes justice delayed is worse than no justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob

Why are you upset?

This is standard legal practice.

No lawyer wants the jury or judge to hear "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Lawyers always manipulate witnesses to limit testimony to less than half of the truth and only the half of the truth that supports their side of the argument.
I have been shouted down by a lawyer ("I ask the questions here ") who refused to answer my question. He was clearly trying to limit the amount of evidence that I could reveal in court. He also asked some preposterous leading questions that could only have been answered by an octopus.
That lawyer was later implicated in "contempt outside the court."

Sometimes justice delayed is worse than no justice.



I'm not upset, but I am uncomfortable with some of the expert testimony. Some of that comes directly from the BPA.

I am aware of how courts and lawyers work.

Some of the statements from the skydiving experts precede the court case though, which suggests to me, they clearly have an agenda of their own. I'm not quite sure what that is, but it seems to me there may be a bit of arse covering going on. That would not be unheard of.

Some of those statements, as most skydivers would recognise, over egg the pudding rather. Which I would say, damages their credibility big time. A decent defence lawyer would drive a truck through some of those "facts".

Just yesterday, the victim was quoted as saying a reserve malfunction was a "one in a million thing". That is just absurd. I can see how a lay jury would believe that BS though. I can't believe she actually said that.

It is likely the reporters are editing her comments, they have lots of form for that, especially with skydiving, so what is reported, are quite likely carefully selected and edited quotes, as you say. Sensationalising things is the media brief.

I think they could present quite a strong case without over emphasising what they found, and putting their own spin on things. Some of it is pure speculation.

I hold no brief for Cilliers, and if he did do it, I hope they throw the book at him. Sabotage of someones gear is a dog act.

As I said, in the other thread, all the defence has to do is throw reasonable doubt, and the way the prosecution has gone, I think they could do that.

I would hate a guilty man to walk free because the prosecution went too far, equally, I would not like an innocent man be found guilty on spurious testimony.

FWIW, I think he will go down, and on balance, I think he probably did do it.

What is your take on some of these "facts"?
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obelixtim



Just yesterday, the victim was quoted as saying a reserve malfunction was a "one in a million thing". That is just absurd. I can see how a lay jury would believe that BS though. I can't believe she actually said that.



Is this really so outlandish? If the reserve is needed on around one in 700 jumps, and if a reserve malfunction occurred at the same rate per use, a reserve malfunction would occur on one in 700 x 700 = 490,000 jumps. Technical reasons (e.g. system design, reserves packed more carefully) should mean the chances of a reserve malfunction are considerably lower than a main malfunction. If half as likely, a reserve malfunction can be expected on one in 700 x 1400 = 980,000 jumps and that looks like a reasonable (albeit very much over-simplified) basis for the one-in-a-million claim.

I realise that raw incident statistics won’t come out like this because a reserve malfunction is (often? nearly always?) a consequence of the main malfunction. So a lot on the precise definition of “reserve malfunction”. But if thinking about situations where the main malfunction does not contribute to the reserve malfunction (e.g. bad maintenance/rigging of the reserve, sabotage of the reserve), the one-in-a-million claim does seem reasonable to me.

BTW, I agree with you completely that the expert opinions should steer well clear of anything sensational, misleading, or plain wrong. I’m just not sure this one-in-a-million thing is a particularly good example.

Very happy to learn if I’m grabbing the wrong end of the stick here. B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
philipturneraa

***

Just yesterday, the victim was quoted as saying a reserve malfunction was a "one in a million thing". That is just absurd. I can see how a lay jury would believe that BS though. I can't believe she actually said that.



Is this really so outlandish? If the reserve is needed on around one in 700 jumps, and if a reserve malfunction occurred at the same rate per use, a reserve malfunction would occur on one in 700 x 700 = 490,000 jumps. Technical reasons (e.g. system design, reserves packed more carefully) should mean the chances of a reserve malfunction are considerably lower than a main malfunction. If half as likely, a reserve malfunction can be expected on one in 700 x 1400 = 980,000 jumps and that looks like a reasonable (albeit very much over-simplified) basis for the one-in-a-million claim.

I realise that raw incident statistics won’t come out like this because a reserve malfunction is (often? nearly always?) a consequence of the main malfunction. So a lot on the precise definition of “reserve malfunction”. But if thinking about situations where the main malfunction does not contribute to the reserve malfunction (e.g. bad maintenance/rigging of the reserve, sabotage of the reserve), the one-in-a-million claim does seem reasonable to me.

BTW, I agree with you completely that the expert opinions should steer well clear of anything sensational, misleading, or plain wrong. I’m just not sure this one-in-a-million thing is a particularly good example.

Very happy to learn if I’m grabbing the wrong end of the stick here. B|

I'm not sure about your maths, but I've seen a few reserve malfunctions, and I certainly haven't seen a million reserve deployments.

I suspect what she really meant, was malfunctions caused by slinks breaking/incorrectly assembled, i.e. specifically in her case. That would be more believable, but even then, one in a million strikes me as being too high. The media have prolly jumped on part of her statement.

A malfunction can occur to any parachute, perfectly packed or not. Reserve or not. Bad body position can cause a malfunction.

I had a reserve malfunction on my 6th jump (a round reserve), which inverted completely and burnt about a hundred small holes in it. I landed safely, but the reserve was destroyed. Square reserves are more reliable than roundies however. So for me personally, its 1 out of 2.

But, a jury is liable to interpret her statement literally...as in: out of a million reserve deployments, you'll only get one malfunction. They will most likely take her statement at face value, more so because she was the injured party.

That puts the defendant in a very deep hole.

IMO the reserve malfunction rate would not be far from the main malfunction rate, probably a bit more....its just that reserve deployments are comparatively rare anyway.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I had a reserve malfunction on my 6th jump (a round reserve), which inverted completely and burnt about a hundred small holes in it. I landed safely, but the reserve was destroyed. Square reserves are more reliable than roundies however. So for me personally, its 1 out of 2.

But, a jury is liable to interpret her statement literally...as in: out of a million reserve deployments, you'll only get one malfunction. They will most likely take her statement at face value, more so because she was the injured party.



Oh my! I bow down to experience!!!! I have just over 300 jumps and no reserve rides. :)
I see what you mean now ... “one in a million reserve rides” and “one in a million jumps” are very different things and, without a very clear explanation, misinterpretation is very likely. Kind of brings us back around to the idea that the discussion in court should be about the evidence of what he actually did or did not do, and not claims based on statistics, especially where the situation (i.e. a reserve malfunction) is a pretty rare thing to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
philipturneraa

Quote


I had a reserve malfunction on my 6th jump (a round reserve), which inverted completely and burnt about a hundred small holes in it. I landed safely, but the reserve was destroyed. Square reserves are more reliable than roundies however. So for me personally, its 1 out of 2.

But, a jury is liable to interpret her statement literally...as in: out of a million reserve deployments, you'll only get one malfunction. They will most likely take her statement at face value, more so because she was the injured party.



Oh my! I bow down to experience!!!! I have just over 300 jumps and no reserve rides. :)
I see what you mean now ... “one in a million reserve rides” and “one in a million jumps” are very different things and, without a very clear explanation, misinterpretation is very likely. Kind of brings us back around to the idea that the discussion in court should be about the evidence of what he actually did or did not do, and not claims based on statistics, especially where the situation (i.e. a reserve malfunction) is a pretty rare thing to start with.



Well, in court they are trying to prove he did it, and in the absence of an eye witness or a confession, they are trying to build a picture of events that show how rare it is to have these things happen.

That in itself, is not proof he did it though, and statements by the CI about the tangles in the main are meaningless, as is the statement by the slink expert who is basing his statement on a photo.

If the defence can show those opinions for what they are, then IMO, that damages the credibility of anything else they say.

However, the prosecution will benefit greatly from a jury who know nothing about skydiving and who will (in their own minds at least) have an already prejudicial view on skydiving, based on stereotypical attitudes the public already have.

Having skydiving experts like the CI and BPA stating unequivocally that some things are true, when clearly some of them are simple opinions, does a disservice to all parties involved.

The CIs statement about the tangled main, for example, says to me,

a: he's never seen a tangled main after a cutaway, or

b: he is bullshitting.

Why would that be?

Surely a more honest answer would be along the lines of:

"The main was badly tangled, but it is hard to tell if most of the tangles were pre or post cutaway, as a main will typically tangle itself after a cutaway. We know she cutaway from tangles in the main, which, while unusual, can happen for a variety of reasons, packing, body position, worn components, or, we think in this case, sabotage".

Most skydivers would regard that as reasonable.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to call you on this Tim.

You said "I am uncomfortable with some of the expert testimony. Some of that comes directly from the BPA. "

Unless you are in court you cannot rely on the testimony of tabloid reporting. Simple as.

Quarterbacking is easy to do. You come across as an expert but I highly doubt that. Reason being simple.

New Zealand probably has the best safety rating in the world so your contention that you have seen countless deaths and injuries are bogus.

It is obvious that you have a historic hard on for the BPA, however times, people and organisations change. So whatever issue you had has passed.

If you are that much of an expert then offer your services to the defence and action where your mouth is.
Journey not destination.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skydog

I am going to call you on this Tim.

You said "I am uncomfortable with some of the expert testimony. Some of that comes directly from the BPA. "

Unless you are in court you cannot rely on the testimony of tabloid reporting. Simple as.

Quarterbacking is easy to do. You come across as an expert but I highly doubt that. Reason being simple.

New Zealand probably has the best safety rating in the world so your contention that you have seen countless deaths and injuries are bogus.

It is obvious that you have a historic hard on for the BPA, however times, people and organisations change. So whatever issue you had has passed.

If you are that much of an expert then offer your services to the defence and action where your mouth is.



And I am going to call you on that! Point out where I have said I've seen countless deaths and injuries.

Stop making shit up!

I've seen two incidents in 43 years which resulted in death, One a solo student, and one a tandem. I have seen a few injuries, as you would expect after many years on the DZ.

I have investigated 5 fatal accidents at the request of NZ Police/CAA. I have been a rigger since 1979, Instructor 1980, CI since 1981, Instructor Examiner 1982 both rigging and Instructing, trained numerous Instructors and Jump masters and have trained more than 10,000 static line students.

I learnt a long time ago that taking things at face value is not a good method of investigating any incident, and preconceptions are to be ignored and dismissed in every case.

I've stated many times I have historical issues with BPA, mainly due to attitudes I have encountered, the "old boys club" being sufficient reason in itself, besides the pedantic application of a principle I would describe as: "lets find a reason why you can't do something".

I make no apology for that.

I hope, it is as you say, that attitudes have changed, but as recently as a year ago I helped British student who was been given a real run around, was ripped off, given the bowling speech, as someone who was a danger to herself and others and who was impossible to train. I sorted her issues out very quickly, and she has now done over a hundred jumps. Safely.

The instructor she dealt with was nothing less than an arrogant arse who took her money and then brushed her off. Total wanker.

So forgive me if I am a little sceptical about BPA.

Anyway, I would be quite happy to appear for the defence, and I'm sure my credentials would easily match anyone the prosecution puts up. I doubt they will give me a call.

I'm wondering what is your issue. I've already stated if Cilliers is guilty of the crime, he needs the book thrown at him, and I would happily turn the key on him and throw it away if that is the case.

I am looking at all that has been reported from an impartial viewpoint, and I've already pointed out that what the press reports needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

It seems to me you haven't really read my posts carefully, or simply don't understand what I have said, but have simply jumped in swinging, in defence of your beloved BPA and infallible experts.

Do you understand where I state that the prosecution may actually be hurting their own case?

I think not!

And NZs safety record, while good, hasn't always been so. Sport jumping is much more limited that it used to be, so incidents are not so prevalent.

Your bat!
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I hope, it is as you say, that attitudes have changed, but as recently as a year ago I helped British student who was been given a real run around, was ripped off, given the bowling speech, as someone who was a danger to herself and others and who was impossible to train. I sorted her issues out very quickly, and she has now done over a hundred jumps. Safely."

Have done the same for a student from NZ, so what? There are wankers everywhere, no place is immune to this. BUT that does not tar the whole association with the same brush.

I can't be chewed looking through all you "many" posts but I'll find it and show you where you professed to "countless".

It is easy to criticise without the facts and having no intimate knowledge of the evidence then you are no better than the tabloids recurgitating second hand information. You can have no access to impartial evidence so where are you getting it from apart from the Press.

And you haven't read my profile, I am rated by the BPA, USPA and NZ and know there are good an bad with all. So it's not my beloved BPA but an understanding that it is no longer as you describe.

As a point of interest when was the last static line course in NZ?
Journey not destination.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do understand, I am merely commenting, not making a case for or against either party. I find it interesting, no more no less. You don't have to take it as a personal attack because I question some of what I've seen.

Its clear you have a leaning towards Cilliers guilt, that is fine. I probably concur, but need a little more convincing, that is all. An expert making a judgement on a photo, or photos of a "similar parachute" with lines detached is not evidence to me. Are such photos good enough for you?

I think I have clearly said that I'm going on what is reported. Of course I have no first hand knowledge or evidence, how can I? I am nowhere near the UK.

Are you saying some of the quotes I have seen were not made? Did I imagine them? Quotes are not evidence.

And evidence proving Cilliers sabotaged the gear seems to me to be no more than circumstantial. The preponderance of circumstantial evidence should be enough to convict him though.

Of course I expect the prosecution evidence to be biased in their favour, as has been pointed out, that's how courts work. I just don't see opinions as necessarily facts. Do you?
I think the prosecution could make a good case without some of the embellishment, that's all.

Quote

I can't be chewed looking through all you "many" posts but I'll find it and show you where you professed to "countless".



I won't hold my breath then! You'll be looking for a long long time....
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You said "I am uncomfortable with some of the expert testimony. Some of that comes directly from the BPA. "

Unless you are in court you cannot rely on the testimony of tabloid reporting. Simple as.




BPA does not testify. A person with an assumed amount of integrity, who happens to have credentials from BPA sits on a witness stand. He answers questions from the prosecutor to the best of his ability. He is then cross examined by the defense.

The press sits in the public gallery and takes notes. They report a few quotes from the testimony. Without giving the full context. Then you turn around and attack BPA on the basis of this press report.

I am no lover of the autocratic organization that BPA is. But they have done no wrong here that I can see.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't make up stuff, so I would suggest you do hold your breath.

I can put you in touch with the defence if you feel you can offer expert evidence?

I can't see where I have sided with either arguments? But hey.

It's all about facts but reasonable doubt is also a factor. The outcome can be decided on what law teams don't reveal as much as what they do. Therefore it is easy to quarterback without detailed knowledge, which is what I am saying you do.

So, when was the last static line course and when you were back i the UK did you do any rigging?
Journey not destination.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skydog

I wouldn't make up stuff, so I would suggest you do hold your breath.

I can put you in touch with the defence if you feel you can offer expert evidence?

I can't see where I have sided with either arguments? But hey.

It's all about facts but reasonable doubt is also a factor. The outcome can be decided on what law teams don't reveal as much as what they do. Therefore it is easy to quarterback without detailed knowledge, which is what I am saying you do.

So, when was the last static line course and when you were back i the UK did you do any rigging?



Quote

I wouldn't make up stuff, so I would suggest you do hold your breath.



Put up then. I'm waiting.

If you look at the first couple of lines of my first post on this thread, you will clearly see I am commenting on reports from the BBC.

Nowhere have I said I am in possession of new facts about the case, apart from the fact there was an incident that may involve sabotage.

I assume the defence team will already have an expert or two to rebut some of the prosecutions statements. Its prolly a bit late to enter the courtroom fray at this point. You have my permission to point the defence team at this thread though.

I am merely commenting on aspects I see as weaknesses in the prosecutions argument. Its my opinion, OK.

You do understand what an opinion is?

You enter the thread all guns blazing calling me out, questioning my credibility and knowledge, to which I replied, outlining some of my history in the sport.

Why go on the offence? Seems like a rather defensive posture on your part. Are you just trying to shut me up? Why might that be?

Can we not discuss an incident which has generated a lot of interest around the world? Especially after the Stephen Hilditch case a few years ago. Apparently you don't want to allow that.

To me that points to you being firmly in the "under the bus" camp. My opinion of course.

And yes, it is all about reasonable doubt. That was my original point. We agree.

I'm not interested in arguing with you any further. Please allow me to watch the case unfold, and express my opinion if I choose to do so.

Is that OK with you? Or do I have to tug my forelock, while bowing and backing slowly away as well.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

but from my experience following media one spouse rarely gets away with knocking off the other one.




Yet they try. Over and over again. It's the same old story. It's always the spouse, and usually the male spouse. Because they are the ones who have a motive. And some people just convince themselves that they are so very smart and can get away with it.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obelixtim

You do understand, I am merely commenting, not making a case for or against either party. I find it interesting, no more no less. You don't have to take it as a personal attack because I question some of what I've seen.



As a third party, merely commenting after reading your posts with no axe to grind, I'm going to say that I don't believe for a second that you are capable of being impartial in anything to do with the BPA.

Because of that, any comment you make that relates to the BPA I automatically assume carries a bias.

Maybe you should consider this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obelixtim

[Especially after the Stephen Hilditch case a few years ago. Apparently you don't want to allow that.



Hilder

And I can tell you that the reports you read on that one don't get across all the details of that day, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let's get to the crux Tim.

What current instructor ratings do you hold? Bearing in mind I do have contacts in the NZPF and NZPIA.

Have you ever been a tandem or AFF instructor?

When was the last static line course in NZ?

I ask, not to shut you down, but check the credibility of your opinion.

You re opened a thread about this matter for what purpose?

We can all have an opinion but I feel yours is more based on some historic acrimony towards the BPA and therefore negates some of the good points you make.
Journey not destination.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obelixtim

******

Just yesterday, the victim was quoted as saying a reserve malfunction was a "one in a million thing". That is just absurd. I can see how a lay jury would believe that BS though. I can't believe she actually said that.



Is this really so outlandish? If the reserve is needed on around one in 700 jumps, and if a reserve malfunction occurred at the same rate per use, a reserve malfunction would occur on one in 700 x 700 = 490,000 jumps. Technical reasons (e.g. system design, reserves packed more carefully) should mean the chances of a reserve malfunction are considerably lower than a main malfunction. If half as likely, a reserve malfunction can be expected on one in 700 x 1400 = 980,000 jumps and that looks like a reasonable (albeit very much over-simplified) basis for the one-in-a-million claim.

I realise that raw incident statistics won’t come out like this because a reserve malfunction is (often? nearly always?) a consequence of the main malfunction. So a lot on the precise definition of “reserve malfunction”. But if thinking about situations where the main malfunction does not contribute to the reserve malfunction (e.g. bad maintenance/rigging of the reserve, sabotage of the reserve), the one-in-a-million claim does seem reasonable to me.

BTW, I agree with you completely that the expert opinions should steer well clear of anything sensational, misleading, or plain wrong. I’m just not sure this one-in-a-million thing is a particularly good example.

Very happy to learn if I’m grabbing the wrong end of the stick here. B|

I'm not sure about your maths, but I've seen a few reserve malfunctions, and I certainly haven't seen a million reserve deployments.

I suspect what she really meant, was malfunctions caused by slinks breaking/incorrectly assembled, i.e. specifically in her case. That would be more believable, but even then, one in a million strikes me as being too high. The media have prolly jumped on part of her statement.

A malfunction can occur to any parachute, perfectly packed or not. Reserve or not. Bad body position can cause a malfunction.

I had a reserve malfunction on my 6th jump (a round reserve), which inverted completely and burnt about a hundred small holes in it. I landed safely, but the reserve was destroyed. Square reserves are more reliable than roundies however. So for me personally, its 1 out of 2.

But, a jury is liable to interpret her statement literally...as in: out of a million reserve deployments, you'll only get one malfunction. They will most likely take her statement at face value, more so because she was the injured party.

That puts the defendant in a very deep hole.

IMO the reserve malfunction rate would not be far from the main malfunction rate, probably a bit more....its just that reserve deployments are comparatively rare anyway.

I just want to address your point on the one in a million statement, I'm pretty sure the actual statement the victim made was that to have BOTH the main and reserve fail was a 'one in a million' chance. Now that is a generic saying meaning its very rare indeed, not impossible but rare. So when it happens something catastrophic has happened, and it raises peoples suspicions.
The CI in question, is more than capable. In fact he is very knowledgeable, and has the same kind of history and ratings as you Tim. My thought on his statements is he's breaking it down to try to explain it to people who have no idea about skydiving, think KISS. Maybe the defense lawyer has asked him to do it this way, or MAYBE the reporter has no idea what he said and is paraphrasing?
I happy to say the BPA has changed, it has new blood in the driving seat. Im happy with the person at the top, and the council underneath. So it's time to let bygones be bygones and maybe re look at how you perceive everyone at the BPA and instructors as we are by your account totally unprofessional because of one bad apple. I did a tandem in 2001 in Australia, totally ripped off. Bad instruction and service, by your logic all APF instructors and DZ's are just the same. But no, Ive gotten over it. Maybe you should too?
At long last the light at the end of the tunell isnt an on coming train!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andym148

My thought on his statements is he's breaking it down to try to explain it to people who have no idea about skydiving, think KISS. Maybe the defense lawyer has asked him to do it this way, or MAYBE the reporter has no idea what he said and is paraphrasing?



I made a similar point earlier that the confusion over what is being said, may be for a variety of reasons, since we aren't reading the full transcript.

So the argument sounds a bit like:
Point A: "Boy, the testimony makes the instructor sound like an idiot."
Point B: "OK but we don't know the full context."

And then we may just have leave that issue open, because Point A may be true in someone's opinion, but Point B is true too.

(As for the BPA, it is a long-standing tradition to laugh at them, and it might take another generation or two of skydivers before that is no longer a thing. Who knows.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You re opened a thread about this matter for what purpose?



It is an interesting case, nothing more than that. I was also interested in the Stephen Hilder (Hilditch?) case, and the one in Europe where there was a bit of a love triangle. Skydiving murders are pretty rare.

Some of the quotes from various individuals seemed to me to be a bit less than balanced in this case. (And I did read the BPA report)

I've stated clearly that BPA is not my flavour of the month, hasn't been for many years, not sure why people get their knickers in a twist over it. It really isn't a big deal.

I'm still waiting for you to produce the quote from me stating I've witnessed many deaths in skydiving. I've stated what I've seen, but you haven't produced the evidence you promised.

I'm very glad I haven't been holding my breath.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typical bluffers tactic......

Smoke and mirrors. What instructor ratings do you currently hold (Have you ever been a TI or AFFI) & when was the last static line course?

I won't be holding my breath.
Journey not destination.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skydog

Typical bluffers tactic......

Smoke and mirrors. What instructor ratings do you currently hold (Have you ever been a TI or AFFI) & when was the last static line course?

I won't be holding my breath.



I can answer your questions. But not yet. Right now, I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claim first. Who is the bluffer here?

I ask you again...put up. Two can play at that game.

As to the trial, IF you want to discuss it, did I read it right that Victoria has said that the main might not have actually malled, but she had severe line twists, and might not have needed to chop it? Chopping from severe twists is not unusual of course.

I wouldn't blame her from being unsure on that point, after going through what she did. I had a friend who went through a similar hard impact that should have killed him, and he has no memory at all of what went down.

I can see the defence leaping on that one.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blah Blah.

You are a Walter Mitty.

I can substantiate my experience but you are a massive bluffer.

I may not be able to re-find where you "claimed" seeing countless incidents but that is not the centre of this matter.

You re-opened this thread to show your Poirot like investigation into the case after it was shut down. What you have shown is that your claims of experience are clearly fake.

Bluff on Walter.
Journey not destination.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1