Costa Concordia SINKING!

[Milaandra]

According to this article in the Repubblica today the divers found the items:

 

I can't tell what her response was based on the google translation, but if it's true they were having an affair and she left stuff in his quarters, it leads me to two thoughts: 1. I don't envy him being in house arrest and 2. I would have to question his intelligence...he was in his cabin before leaving the ship...he should have just tossed her stuff overboard :D

 

I can't wait for decent translations of all the testimony. Il Repubblica had a link to Schettino's entire testimony, but it was set up in such a way, I couldn't even get a google translation.

[dmwnc1959]

Just interested, how did you know that?

 

Did a screen grab of the webcam image by right-clicking on it and copying the image to the Paint accessory. Saved to desktop as a jpg then downloaded to Cruise Critic photo albums. Then copied the URL to this thread by bracketing it between . May be a shorter way but that's the only way I know how.

[cruiserfanfromct]

Do you still have the link to the testimony? Is it being updated? If so, could you post. Thanks.

 

I can't tell what her response was based on the google translation, but if it's true they were having an affair and she left stuff in his quarters, it leads me to two thoughts: 1. I don't envy him being in house arrest and 2. I would have to question his intelligence...he was in his cabin before leaving the ship...he should have just tossed her stuff overboard :D

 

I can't wait for decent translations of all the testimony. Il Repubblica had a link to Schettino's entire testimony, but it was set up in such a way, I couldn't even get a google translation.

[Uniall]

I can't tell what her response was based on the google translation, but if it's true they were having an affair and she left stuff in his quarters, it leads me to two thoughts: 1. I don't envy him being in house arrest and 2. I would have to question his intelligence...he was in his cabin before leaving the ship...he should have just tossed her stuff overboard :D ..............

 

Are you jesting or do you believe the Captain should have engaged in a cover up and destroyed evidence linking him to a laison that might have been a cause of the accident or lack of passenger safety?

[Uniall]

Oh Boy.....the plot thickens!! Truth or made up lies? Anyone's guess?!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9056642/Costa-Concordia-Moldovan-dancer-says-she-was-in-love-with-Captain-Schettino.html

 

Indeed, the plot does thinken, almost like a "Rue" (cook's thickening agent OR deep regret) :D

 

"There are none so blind and those who will not see." ;)

 

John

[Enigm@]

Indeed, the plot does thinken, almost like a "Rue" (cook's thickening agent OR deep regret) :D

 

"There are none so blind and those who will not see." ;)

 

John

 

Lol, isn't the thickening agent a 'roux'? Or is that just us, I know the US/UK differ in a few of our spellings? :D

 

Edited to add: Yes though, they do sound the same however they may be spelled. :)

[Cuizer2]

Her belongings were found in the captain's cabin by divers so there's no way of getting around that. :eek:

 

It could have been planted there by fish hired by the plaintiff lawyers to make the captain look bad. You have no idea what some plaintiff attorneys will do to win a lawsuit.

[Uniall]

Lol, isn't the thickening agent a 'roux'? Or is that just us, I know the US/UK differ in a few of our spellings? :D

 

Edited to add: Yes though, they do sound the same however they may be spelled. :)

 

A little poetic license, please. ;)

[Cuizer2]

Are you jesting or do you believe the Captain should have engaged in a cover up and destroyed evidence linking him to a laison that might have been a cause of the accident or lack of passenger safety?

 

There is a smiley at the end of the post.

[Uniall]

There is a smiley at the end of the post.

 

That's true but I didn't want to misinterpet the meaning of the comment or the "smiley". That's why I did not delete the "smiley" when quoting her comment and I asked a sincere straight forward question without comment or innuendo. I suspect she was jesting but I wanted to make sure I correctly understood her thinking.

[Milaandra]

Do you still have the link to the testimony? Is it being updated? If so, could you post. Thanks.

 

I don't...I'll try to find it, but it might take a while. It was a link in a La Repubblica story. I had been trying to check someone's testimony, and had looked up a phrase in Italian so I could do a search on the newspaper's webpage. I just tried "testimony" and that didn't work. I can't think of the words I used.

 

When the story was in google translation and I clicked the link, it wasn't complete. When I clicked on it in Italian, it came up, but it was like a pdf-type format within the page and I couldn't grab the text to translate it...it kept turning the page like a book.

[Milaandra]

Are you jesting or do you believe the Captain should have engaged in a cover up and destroyed evidence linking him to a laison that might have been a cause of the accident or lack of passenger safety?

 

Coronika's testimony said the distraction of the purser and head waiter might have been a factor. I think that's a cheesy excuse anyway. If the route was similar to those taken in the past and the rock wasn't on the electronic map, then it was an unfortunate accident. If the captain's orders weren't adhered to and he's taking the blame, that's actually pretty noble. If the instruments malfunctioned, that's another unfortunate accident, with overtones of possible issues with the ship design and possibly corporate involvement. If Schettino was doing something he knew was dangerous and didn't pay attention, I don't care why he wasn't paying attention...he's negligent and I certainly don't think anyone should go after the maitre d', the purser or the ex-employee if she was there.

 

I ran a red light once. :eek: I was distracted talking with my passenger, and hadn't noticed that the facing traffic had an advance green. I saw traffic coming on the opposite side of the street, waited until the intersection was clear of people turning and drove straight through without checking the actual colour of the light. If I had been pulled over, it would have been me who earned the ticket, not my passenger!

 

So...if he was having an affair with her, it isn't relevant to the case. (Yeah, I'm curious...we humans have an insatiable curiosity about all sorts of things that are none of our business.;))

 

So...if it isn't a crime to have an affair, then it isn't a crime to destroy evidence of an affair, is it?

 

Would I encourage someone to destroy evidence of an affair? No, because I believe in honesty above all, but many would disagree depending on the situation. (I can acknowledge that it might be kinder to cover it up, but it just goes against my nature. That's the whole "do unto others" thing...I wouldn't want to be deceived, so I would find it excruciatingly difficult to try and deceive anyone else.)

 

However, if he had an affair and if he wanted to lie about it, then I have to wonder why he wouldn't take a moment to ditch the evidence!

[Milaandra]

it could have been planted there by fish hired by the plaintiff lawyers to make the captain look bad. You have no idea what some plaintiff attorneys will do to win a lawsuit.

 

lol!

[SomeBeach]

 

 

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/02/02/paris_prosecutor_to_probe_italian_cruise_grounding/

[bluesy]

Coronika's testimony said the distraction of the purser and head waiter might have been a factor. I think that's a cheesy excuse anyway. If the route was similar to those taken in the past and the rock wasn't on the electronic map, then it was an unfortunate accident. If the captain's orders weren't adhered to and he's taking the blame, that's actually pretty noble. If the instruments malfunctioned, that's another unfortunate accident, with overtones of possible issues with the ship design and possibly corporate involvement. If Schettino was doing something he knew was dangerous and didn't pay attention, I don't care why he wasn't paying attention...he's negligent and I certainly don't think anyone should go after the maitre d', the purser or the ex-employee if she was there.

 

I ran a red light once. :eek: I was distracted talking with my passenger, and hadn't noticed that the facing traffic had an advance green. I saw traffic coming on the opposite side of the street, waited until the intersection was clear of people turning and drove straight through without checking the actual colour of the light. If I had been pulled over, it would have been me who earned the ticket, not my passenger!

 

So...if he was having an affair with her, it isn't relevant to the case. (Yeah, I'm curious...we humans have an insatiable curiosity about all sorts of things that are none of our business.;))

 

So...if it isn't a crime to have an affair, then it isn't a crime to destroy evidence of an affair, is it?

 

Would I encourage someone to destroy evidence of an affair? No, because I believe in honesty above all, but many would disagree depending on the situation. (I can acknowledge that it might be kinder to cover it up, but it just goes against my nature. That's the whole "do unto others" thing...I wouldn't want to be deceived, so I would find it excruciatingly difficult to try and deceive anyone else.)

 

However, if he had an affair and if he wanted to lie about it, then I have to wonder why he wouldn't take a moment to ditch the evidence!

 

I think that the prosecutor is trying to gather statements from witnesses who were on the bridge when the accident occurred and its aftermath.

The only reason that an affair might matter, as far as I see, is that an affair could affect the credibility of the witness, especially if the witness claimed to be in love with the captain.

If lies are being told about the events that evening, then who is lying, what are they lying about, and why are they lying?

[Milaandra]

I expect that any deputy mayor from a village where everyone primarily makes their living from fishing and boats (and tourism) would be able to find the bridge which was plainly visible from the water when approaching the ship from the town.

 

My opinion is that the translator used the word "bridge" instead of "deck". Both words are translated to the same Italian word "ponte".

 

When you hear the deputy mayor's story with that change, it all makes more sense. He says he searched around for about 20 minutes and even went to higher "decks". You could definitely search around and go to a deck or two higher in 20 minutes, but I think it would be impossible to search around, then go up the stairs from the deck he was on (Deck 3? I can't remember) to Deck 8 and find the bridge in that amount of time. It explains the use of the plural. It also makes sense when later in the story, the deputy mayor says he ran into a junior officer on the "deck". If it really was "bridge", why would he stop in the middle of rescuing passengers to go back to the bridge he had found empty earlier?

[Uniall]

There is a smiley at the end of the post.

 

That's true but I didn't want to misinterpet the meaning of the comment or the "smiley". That's why I did not delete the "smiley" when quoting her comment and I asked a sincere straight forward question without comment or innuendo. I suspect she was jesting but I wanted to make sure I correctly understood her thinking.

 

Coronika's testimony said the distraction of the purser and head waiter might have been a factor. I think that's a cheesy excuse anyway. If the route was similar to those taken in the past and the rock wasn't on the electronic map, then it was an unfortunate accident. If the captain's orders weren't adhered to and he's taking the blame, that's actually pretty noble. If the instruments malfunctioned, that's another unfortunate accident, with overtones of possible issues with the ship design and possibly corporate involvement. If Schettino was doing something he knew was dangerous and didn't pay attention, I don't care why he wasn't paying attention...he's negligent and I certainly don't think anyone should go after the maitre d', the purser or the ex-employee if she was there.

 

I ran a red light once. :eek: I was distracted talking with my passenger, and hadn't noticed that the facing traffic had an advance green. I saw traffic coming on the opposite side of the street, waited until the intersection was clear of people turning and drove straight through without checking the actual colour of the light. If I had been pulled over, it would have been me who earned the ticket, not my passenger!

 

So...if he was having an affair with her, it isn't relevant to the case. (Yeah, I'm curious...we humans have an insatiable curiosity about all sorts of things that are none of our business.;))

 

So...if it isn't a crime to have an affair, then it isn't a crime to destroy evidence of an affair, is it?

 

Would I encourage someone to destroy evidence of an affair? No, because I believe in honesty above all, but many would disagree depending on the situation. (I can acknowledge that it might be kinder to cover it up, but it just goes against my nature. That's the whole "do unto others" thing...I wouldn't want to be deceived, so I would find it excruciatingly difficult to try and deceive anyone else.)

 

However, if he had an affair and if he wanted to lie about it, then I have to wonder why he wouldn't take a moment to ditch the evidence!

 

 

It appears Cuiser2 and I were both wrong when we assumed (hoped) you were jesting.

 

If Captain Coward and Inamota Domnica were both on the bridge at the time of the collision, the nature of their personal relationship is evidence if was causally connected to the collision.

 

The crime is not the personal relationship but rather the gross negligence, possibly arising from allowing the entertainment of a girl friend interfere with the safety of the ship and passengers.

 

Under the outlined circumstances, Captain Coward could be charged and convicted of tampering or destroying evidence for elimination of evidence of the relationship.

 

Whether Inamorta Domnica could be charged as an accessory or accomplice in gross negligence depends upon specific facts. (e.g. did she know or should she have known that her conduct or activity immediately preceding the collision could threaten the safety of the ship or passengers?) But, that possiblity is very remote since the Captain would have been duty bound to order her to leave.

 

John

[Milaandra]

I think that the prosecutor is trying to gather statements from witnesses who were on the bridge when the accident occurred and its aftermath.

The only reason that an affair might matter, as far as I see, is that an affair could affect the credibility of the witness, especially if the witness claimed to be in love with the captain.

 

And I think Uniall likes to tease me because we have different ideas about truth, justice and innocence...his are those of the Law, mine are those of philosophy. :)

 

In the vein, I admit I don't even think that a romantic relationship makes testimony less credible. I think people promise to tell the truth under oath. A character evaluation may be biased, but then, so is one given from a rival or a good friend or an employee.

[Milaandra]

It appears Cuiser2 and I were both wrong when we assumed (hoped) you were jesting.

 

If Captain Coward and Inamota Domnica were both on the bridge at the time of the collision, the nature of their personal relationship is evidence if was causally connected to the collision.

 

You were serious?? I thought you were trying to get a rise out of me!

 

Wow...the purser, heroic as he was, had better watch out.

[Mercury]

 

So...if he was having an affair with her, it isn't relevant to the case. (Yeah, I'm curious...we humans have an insatiable curiosity about all sorts of things that are none of our business.;))

 

 

I don't agree. If, as Uniall has pointed out, their "relationship" is found to have a causal connection to the accident (eg in the form of negligence by the captain/showboating etc), it will be relevant to the case.

 

It goes beyond an "insatiable curiosity". I don't care if the Captain had many other affairs, I have no curiosity about those. HOWEVER, it's THIS potential affair that may have contributed to the cause of a tragic accident. We'll leave that to the Court to decide.

[bluesy]

And I think Uniall likes to tease me because we have different ideas about truth, justice and innocence...his are those of the Law, mine are those of philosophy. :)

 

In the vein, I admit I don't even think that a romantic relationship makes testimony less credible. I think people promise to tell the truth under oath. A character evaluation may be biased, but then, so is one given from a rival or a good friend or an employee.

I would imagine that Domnica Cemortan was truthful with the prosecutors during yesterday's "chat." :)

 

As far as Schettino goes, he may be begging to go to jail and be released from "house arrest" by now. I wonder if dishes aren't crashing and breaking at his home just as they did on the Costa Concordia? :eek:

 

Costa Concordia: cruise ship rep's clothing found in captain's cabin

 

Rescue workers find Moldovan woman's dresses and underwear in Francesco Schettino's cabin on capsized liner, reports say

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/costa-concordia-cruise-ship-rep?newsfeed=true

 

 

[Hebersgyll]

I don't agree. If, as Uniall has pointed out, their "relationship" is found to have a causal connection to the accident (eg in the form of negligence by the captain/showboating etc), it will be relevant to the case.

 

It goes beyond an "insatiable curiosity". I don't care if the Captain had many other affairs, I have no curiosity about those. HOWEVER, it's THIS potential affair that may have contributed to the cause of a tragic accident. We'll leave that to the Court to decide.

 

Spot on, Mercury. Its just that Millandra is finding it so hard to come to terms that 'distraction', especially that distraction of Miss Moldovia's pervasive presence, might be a large factor in explaining the bizarre conduct of her 'noble' captain on the fateful night!

[Cuizer2]

It appears Cuiser2 and I were both wrong when we assumed (hoped) you were jesting.

 

John

 

:o :o :o :o

[CruisersNC]

I'm amazed at how some people here seem to be trying to vindicate Schettino (as bizarre as that seems)....and at the same time calling into question the actions of people like Bosio, DeFalco and the Deputy Mayor Pellegrini. There are some facts that are pretty darned clear!

 

Did the ship sail too close to Giglio and strike a rock that caused a fatal wound to the Concordia?? Yep

 

Who is responsible for this tragic accident?? Captain Schettino

 

But what if he is "covering" for someone else who was at the helm at the moment of impact?? Well in that case Schettino is still the man responsible for the accident AND he's also a liar! He has stated more than once he was at the helm and got too close to Giglio. "I was navigating by sight, because I knew those seabeds well. I had done the move three, four times."[36] "But this time I ordered the turn too late and I ended up in water that was too shallow. I don't know why it happened." He was just a really crappy driver that night.

 

But what if Costa ordered him to "salute" Giglio?? Well I don't think they wanted their captain to sail too close to the Island at a high rate of speed and destroy their 1/2 billion dollar ship, place over 4000 lives in jeopardy, and put them into a legal nightmare....the buck still stops at Schettino's door.

 

What if he was having an affair with that woman and was showboating when the accident occured?? Schettino is still the man responible AND may soon be getting divorced.

 

Were the proper officials and Coast Guard quickly made aware of the problem? No

Were the passengers and crew givin timely accurate information and instructions?? No again

 

Who is responsible for these failures?? Captain Schettino (he's the captain right?)

 

What if Schettino thought that withholding the information would keep the passengers from panicking? He thought wrong! (He did a LOT of wrong thinking that night!)

 

Did the ships Captain properly coordinate and supervise the evacuation of the ships passengers? Nope

 

Why not? He tripped and fell into his lifeboat, was unable to get back off the lifeboat and onto the ship, even after repeatedly being ordered to do so by that meany De Falco. He was however able to find his way ashore....get some dry socks.....and do a quick interview saying he was the last one off the ship.

 

As for Bosio, De Falco, and the Deputy Mayor Pellegrini.....who cares how they climbed up decks or if they spoke harshly (ahem) on the phone to try and motivate Schettino to do his job, or how many men were in the lifeboat with them when they went to the ship.......they are the good guys......they are the ones who's thoughts and efforts were with the passengers......why are you trying to cast doubt on their actions? If it wasn't for them its quite likely many more would have died.

[Cuizer2]

I'm amazed at how some people here seem to be trying to vindicate Schettino (as bizarre as that seems)....and at the same time calling into question the actions of people like Bosio, DeFalco and the Deputy Mayor Pellegrini. There are some facts that are pretty darned clear!

 

Did the ship sail too close to Giglio and strike a rock that caused a fatal wound to the Concordia?? Yep

 

Who is responsible for this tragic accident?? Captain Schettino

 

But what if he is "covering" for someone else who was at the helm at the moment of impact?? Well in that case Schettino is still the man responsible for the accident AND he's also a liar! He has stated more than once he was at the helm and got too close to Giglio. "I was navigating by sight, because I knew those seabeds well. I had done the move three, four times."[36] "But this time I ordered the turn too late and I ended up in water that was too shallow. I don't know why it happened." He was just a really crappy driver that night.

 

But what if Costa ordered him to "salute" Giglio?? Well I don't think they wanted their captain to sail too close to the Island at a high rate of speed and destroy their 1/2 billion dollar ship, place over 4000 lives in jeopardy, and put them into a legal nightmare....the buck still stops at Schettino's door.

 

What if he was having an affair with that woman and was showboating when the accident occured?? Schettino is still the man responible AND may soon be getting divorced.

 

Were the proper officials and Coast Guard quickly made aware of the problem? No

Were the passengers and crew givin timely accurate information and instructions?? No again

 

Who is responsible for these failures?? Captain Schettino (he's the captain right?)

 

What if Schettino thought that withholding the information would keep the passengers from panicking? He thought wrong! (He did a LOT of wrong thinking that night!)

 

Did the ships Captain properly coordinate and supervise the evacuation of the ships passengers? Nope

 

Why not? He tripped and fell into his lifeboat, was unable to get back off the lifeboat and onto the ship, even after repeatedly being ordered to do so by that meany De Falco. He was however able to find his way ashore....get some dry socks.....and do a quick interview saying he was the last one off the ship.

 

 

As for Bosio, De Falco, and the Deputy Mayor Pellegrini.....who cares how they climbed up decks or if they spoke harshly (ahem) on the phone to try and motivate Schettino to do his job, or how many men were in the lifeboat with them when they went to the ship.......they are the good guys......they are the ones who's thoughts and efforts were with the passengers......why are you trying to cast doubt on their actions? If it wasn't for them its quite likely many more would have died.

 

After all of that - I blame the rock. :D