Insurance and Intrigue

The final witness of the day was David Wyman, the man who surveyed Bounty for the owner to satisfy the insurance underwriter. Wyman was not only a veteran sail captain, but also a naval architect and an accredited marine surveyor with decades of experience. He had even started his career in maritime as a Coast Guard inspector. Surely, he would provide solid answers and insight.

Carroll: “Mr. Wyman, please detail your history and interaction with the vessel Bounty.”

Wyman: “I did a survey on her after Mr. Hansen had just bought her in 2001. During that shipyard period and subsequent yard periods I did design on some of the vessel rebuilds.”

Carroll: “Survey in what capacity; for the insurance?”

Wyman: ”Yes.”

Carroll: “Is that normal, for an architect to design parts of a boat and then also to survey them?”

Wyman: “It is for me.”

Investigators probed Wyman concerning the bilge system he designed (and later surveyed) and the hull repairs and modifications he planned (and later surveyed) and he detailed the eleven years he spent as Bounty’s go-to Naval Architect and primary surveyor for insurance purposes. When asked again if he felt this may have constituted a conflict of any kind, Wyman answered, “Not to me.”

If there was a conflict for the surveyor/architect, it may have had more to do with his relationship with Captain Walbridge than anything else. Asked about how he came to first work on Bounty, Wyman spoke of his 25 year friendship with Bounty’s captain. They had sailed together seven years before Walbridge came to Bounty. Wyman claimed he spoke to Walbridge “every two or three weeks.”

When asked to describe a situation that would be a conflict of interest, Wyman told his own sea story about a time when his son-in-law was purchasing a boat and Wyman did the survey, but not without telling those involved that he was related to the purchaser, and that it was a conflict.

Wyman: “A survey for my son-in-law is a conflict.”

Carrol: “What about a survey for a friend, is that a conflict?”

Wyman: “No, not to me.”

If his answers were bothering investigators, they were doing a good job of keeping it to themselves. They would only pause, write notes, and press on. But when Bounty’s final survey was discussed, the one done days before she sank, that appeared to change. The only evidence of his one-time visit to Bounty was after she went back in the water at Boothbay just before leaving for New London. He hadn’t checked any of the ship’s systems, he didn’t run engines, he didn’t run or test generators, he didn’t test the bilge system. When asked if he was told of rotten frames and if he inspected the hull, he said, “From the inside.”

Carroll: “What could you see by looking at the inside?”

Wyman: “I saw what I could see.”

Wyman expressed that this was just an initial walk-through survey and not at all complete. He would continue the survey at a later time, but he hadn’t worked out when that would be or where that would be, and he didn’t recall if they had discussed continuing the survey with anyone on or associated with Bounty. For the first time, the lead investigator appeared at least a little agitated.

Carroll: “Why didn’t you tell me in Boothbay in December that you didn’t feel you completed the survey?”

Wyman: (pause) “I didn’t really think about it at that time.”

Carrol: “A boat sinks at sea, you were the last one to look at the boat and you didn’t think about the survey?”

Wyman: (pause)

Carroll: “When did you determine that you weren’t finished the survey?”

Wyman: “When I left the ship.”

Carroll: “Wait – did you communicate that to the owner or Captain Walbridge?”

Wyman: “I don’t know that I did.”

If Wyman’s cagey answers and poor memory underlined any untruthfulness on his part, what happened next would be even more confusing. There were a lot of questions about Wyman’s handwritten notes that he took on the one-day survey visit to Bounty in October of 2012: who had seen them, who did he give copies to, or not, who had seen the document or hadn’t. Wyman denied that anyone had seen the document – that everything was verbal (or not) and that he had given the document directly to Carroll. But the lead investigator pressed Wyman about some numbers (apparently not in his hand or Wyman’s) written at the bottom of his notes. Jacob Shisha – attorney for the Christian family – clearly smelled something and asked Carroll if he might pose a question to Wyman.

Shisha: “At any time before coming to this hearing did you speak to the lawyers for the Bounty organization?”

Wyman: (another pause) “Yes. (pause) A couple of weeks ago…they called me.”

Carrollsquared his shoulders and leaned into his microphone.

Carroll: “In a Coast Guard investigation where you were subpoenaed as a witness, you were on a conference call with a party in interest?”

Wyman: (pause) “Yes.”

Carroll: (pause) “ Thank you Mr. Wyman. You are released. You are subject to recall. (pause) We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 0900.”

Yes, we will.

http://gcaptain.com/illusion-experience-bounty-hearings/

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 501