Getting a bit OT for the thread here ...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by APS
1) Why didn't the defense select the "I-couldn't-see-over-the-22-foot-bow-on-my-36-foot-Baja-offshore-because-my-trim-tabs-and-my-drives-were-misadjusted-at-night" Theory?
Because they sell GFBLs?
|
Why oh why would the defense not opt for such a brilliant line of reasoning ? Hmmm I can't say for sure but I suspect it just may have been the I-didn't-trim-therefore-am-a-moron-and-didn't-operate-my-boat-properly-so-convict-me reason. But that's just my guess.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by APS
2) At the calculated <30MPH, or <20MPH net, why weren't the boat or passengers struck by GFBL propellers?
|
A good question. Perhaps you could ask the MP to release the photos of the stern of the Wellcraft and then reconstruct the accident from the impact marks where the outdrives hit. Without knowing what outdrives were used in that Baja I can't say how much they would have kicked up on impact and how long they would have taken to return to a down position.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by APS
3)What normally happens when a "slow" impact from a multi-ton boat overwhelms a one-ton 24-footer?
|
Don't know, how slow is your "slow". A more Madrasah-like answer would be "Oh, so you consider that
normal !?!
"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by APS
4) If he "soared" after striking an errant wake (at a speed we can't even imagine), wouldn't that account for the reduced impact "appearance"?
|
Continuing in form from #3 .... This would be the errant wake from the "third boat" ? How unlucky that the wake occured just where it did so the Baja didn't just soar, at some unimaginable velocity, right over the Wellcraft completely. Then again I guess the "flip" side of the grassy knoll ... errr ... errant wake theory is that it could have been worse and had the Baja return to lake at just the wrong spot.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by APS
Even Physics can't answer those questions: reenactment is the only resolution.
|
I'm not so sure about that, the modeling for the 2 boats and water (putting aside errant wakes and snakehead fish and alien abductions) wouldn't be as hard as has been done for other things. Given the computing power readily available these days and finite element analysis* I'd bet a good simulation (aka physics digitized) would yeild as good a result as re-enactment. Via the model you get to play and replay differing scenarios and see the range of possibilites that yeilds the same physical results. Even so I like the idea (re-enactment).
That said I'll doubt you'll ever see either simulation or re-enactment done by the defense. I believe it would blow holes in the "it was just a minor bump" statements. On the chance I'm wrong re: bump severity, the defense should have jumped for a re-enactment. Though it wouldn't make a difference in the basic facts of the case it would have lended credence to the defense's story as to why he motored away afterwards. Ooops I forgot my M-like response ... "Why you could re-enact but it might be hard to find volunteers to sit in the Wellcraft
".
*I'd bet a simple rigid body model would suffice for the boats and still be accurate enough.