Hawaii Official Who Died After Crash Wore Infant Life Vest

AssociatedPress ^ | May 5, 2016, 8:31 PM ET | Jennifer Sinco Kelleher

[butterdezillion]

What you posted does not make the question go away: What happened to Jake’s ponytail and the large amount of straight, black hair sticking out under his hat in the images we have of him shortly before the camera moved?

Rx brought up another question that nobody seems to be addressing: how likely is it that Jake moved his butt over on the seat in the fraction of a second that it took for the camera to similarly move? That’s what would have to happen, for the blue-capped person to be sitting straight up in the seat on both the right and left sides of the neckrest, before and after the camera quickly shifted.

But I’ve noticed something on this thread. Nobody is really addressing the actual evidence. Nobody has explained whose dangling right hand could be that high and at that angle. Can’t be Rosa, Jake, or Puentes. Too fat to be Hollstein’s and he wasn’t there anyway, in that narrow aisle that already had 3 sets of feet showing in the image. Whose hand is it, and how would they even have room to be there, unless they were above the 3 people whose feet show on the floor?

Nobody has explained who the USCG actually pulled out of the water with one CO2 cartridge still intact. Can’t be Fuddy; both her lifejacket chambers were inflated so both her CO2 cartridges were punctured. There’s no way to make a punctured cartridge go back to being intact. So it couldn’t be Fuddy. Who was it then, and why did the USCG claim that it was Fuddy if it wasn’t a Dolly made to look like her, complete with curly reddish hair at the nape and pudgy hands as we see in the cabin images that you and your buddies are trying to call Jake?

The voices here are not addressing the substance of the evidence presented. You posted a lot of bandwidth that doesn’t change or even address the substance of the argument. We don’t need more bandwidth that distracts from the central questions.

I’ve asked these questions many times. How long will it be before somebody actually answers them?

[butterdezillion]

I don’t see any reaching and grabbing. The images you say show reaching and grabbing are partial images and the blurriest of the lot. The images that are clear show a hand with fingers in constant position relative to each other, with the pointer finger slightly more forward than the others. Early in the sequence you can see more of the other fingers than later, so the hand swung slightly while maintaining the same positioning of the fingers.

Whose hand was it? Rosa’s? Jake’s? Puentes’? Whose hand?

[rx]

"But I have never been guilty of creating graphics from bits and pieces of disjointed visuals and then badgering and harassing the audience by telling them they are blind idiots, or criminal conspirators."

It seems you were trying to win me over by putting false words and actions in my keyboard/mouth.

And yes, that's Leftist claptrap.

[rx]

It also looks like only the top cell is inflated. The bottom cell is flat, not inflated." (4Z's example as it plays its childish "game".

The game you're playing is, "I can (try to) obstruct everything you're doing here, and I'm darn good at it."

"Good" would have a highly-contextualized meaning, of course. The only "friends" you'll have left on the playground that want to play with you are not worth having.

[WildHighlander57]

Butterdezillion,

The sequence I posted here can be saved and clicked thru to animate it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3428362/posts?page=330#330

It shows a person with long black pants and a black shoe standing near Rosa Key, and the hand is reaching, curling the fingers in as to grasp, and extending.

It comes —into— the field of view, from upper right, while the field of view is not moving/turning too much, and goes across, forward toward the camera lens, rotates about the long axis of the wrist —without the camera rotating— and then backs off.

The hand is also shown in rx’s post here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3428362/posts?page=258#258

Which corresponds to pic —#20 & 21— in my sequence.

The legs also move toward the center of the field of view.

The cabin scene posted by Rx and where the passengers are id’ed, shows Yamamoto with long dark pants:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3428362/posts?page=117#117

Therefore the hand belongs to Yamamoto.

A mannikin cannot flex, curl, make grasping motion, reach out, rotate about the long axis of the wrist, or back up.

The sequence of posts I did show the context of the single image in post #258.

Again, not a mannikin, but Yamamoto’s hand.

[LucyT]

Vexatious Litigation

A legal action or proceeding initiated maliciously and without Probable Cause by an individual who is not acting in Good Faith for the purpose of annoying or embarrassing an opponent.

The U.S. legal system permits persons to file civil lawsuits to seek redress for injuries committed by a defendant. However, a legal action that is not likely to lead to any practical result is classified as vexatious litigation. Such litigation is regarded as frivolous and will result in the dismissal of the action by the court. A person who has been subjected to vexatious litigation may sue the plaintiff for Malicious Prosecution, seeking damages for any costs and injuries associated with the original lawsuit.

Litigation is typically classified as vexatious when an attorney or a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without an attorney) repeatedly files groundless lawsuits and repeatedly loses. Under the Common Law, the frequent incitement of lawsuits by an attorney constituted the crime of Barratry. In modern law, however, barratry is viewed as an archaic crime and is rarely enforced. Attorneys who encourage vexatious litigation are subject to discipline for violating rules of professional conduct and may be suspended from the Practice of Law or disbarred.

Sometimes pro se litigants who have lost their initial lawsuits file new actions based on the dispute contained in the original suit. Because the judgment of the original case is dispositive, a court will ultimately dismiss these new actions. To avoid the expenditure of court resources, as well as the costs associated with the defendant’s defense of repeated frivolous claims, a court may issue an order forbidding the pro se litigant to file any new actions without permission of the court.

Vexatious litigation is a type of malicious prosecution that enables the defendant to file a tort action against the plaintiff. A plaintiff in a malicious prosecution must prove that a legal proceeding (or multiple proceedings) was instituted by the defendant, that the original proceeding was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, that there was no probable cause for the original proceeding, and that malice, or a primary purpose other than that of bringing the original action, motivated the defendant. A plaintiff in such an action may recover, for example, the expenses incurred in defending the original suit or suits, as well as resulting financial loss or injury. A plaintiff may also recover damages for mental suffering of a kind that would normally be expected to follow from the original action.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

[4Zoltan]

You can download the higher resolution video here:

https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdmss/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=58552&CurrentPage=2&EndRow=25&StartRow=16&order=1&sort=0&TXTSEARCHT=

If that link doesn’t work go here:

https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdmss/

click search

enter WPR14FA068 in the NTSB Accident ID field. The two Puente’s videos are on the second page.

[4Zoltan]

Some screen shots

Image 1

Notice what is missing in Image 1? The head of the "manikin" is not visible over the top of the headrest.

Image 2

Notice what is missing in Image 2? Jake's head is missing and the edge of "manikin" head is beginning to show where the headrest meets the top of the screen.

Image 3

Jake's head is still missing but the top of the "manikin" head is clearly visible over the top of the headrest. Remember in Image 1 the "manikin" head was not visible over the top of the head rest.

Image 4

Image 5

In image 4 & 5 the head of "manikin" is more visible. Bright sunlight completely washes out the color in the headrest edge. Jake's pony tail could be hidden by the seat back.

[WildHighlander57]

Thanks!

Can you grab what’s between your #1 and #2?

[4Zoltan]

There is a a lot of footage between the two. Puentes pans to the left and that is where Image 1 ist aken. Then he holds more or less on Rosa Key for several seconds and then pans right (Images 2 through 5).

Watching the video in slow motion gives a real sense of how the plane was buffeting about.

[4Zoltan]

Another image taken just before Image 1 posted above.

Again no "manikin" head over top of headrest.

[WildHighlander57]

Yep, they had a rough ride & were lucky to survive.

[Fred Nerks]

...Arguing with rx is like arguing with a book author he usually wins.

He's the one arguing, I'm just asking questions. I've been saying I can't see a dummy. I've been saying, show me. Has it occurred to you it's maybe possible the lifevest with Fuddy's name on it was mislabelled?

I'll skip the book author reference, there's one on the market with the title Dreams From My Father that is unravelling...

[WildHighlander57]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3428362/posts?page=351#351

And that little pip of light on the top of the seat back, to the left of the headrest, is the space between the cap bill and the seat back, given keys’ head angle and the camera perspective.

The hat is at the left 1/3 of the headrest per the camera angle.

and past it to the right there is —nothing— that looks like a mannikin head....we can see the window.

[Fred Nerks]

...With all the outlandish focus you've collectively put on just this one detail, it's clear you don't wish to deal with the wider aspects, apparently because you have nothing substantive to say about them.

I might have a lot more to say if we could just see that dummy. Outlandish focus? You're kidding me. Dummy is your most important piece of evidence.

[Fred Nerks]

...Most of us have probably been to visitations where the deceased didn't look very much as they had in real life.

ok, so a hundred or so people at the funeral were fooled into believing they were paying their last respects to a relative, or workmate, a friend, and what was in the coffin was a Madam Tussaud look-alike. (Had it been a blow-up doll, they would have noticed.)

Now you just might need to explain why the need for a plastic replica on the aircraft. Why not make the switch in the ambulance? Whoops! That would mean the priest on the island was in on it...

It's your baby, you fix it. I'm inclined to think it's possible the life-vest she wore was removed after she was taken out of the water dead, and it might have been mislabelled.

[Fred Nerks]

...There is a source for rx’s claims and its impeccable...

Show it.

[Mr. K]

Obamacide

[4Zoltan]

I think the pip of light is the sun shining on the bottom of the bill of his cap. Look at Image 1. The underside of the bill is brightly lite up.

[Fred Nerks]

Good shot that. Now let me tell you what really went on. Dummy was concealed in a plastic bag and brought on board by Jacob Key. You can’t see her because she’s still in the bag. At the sound of the alarm, which was a signal to inflate the dummy, Jacob blew her up, dressed her in the identical clothes Fuddy was wearing, put a red wig on her head, a blue helmet over the top...and put the infant lifejacket on her. The dummy ended up in the water with Yamamoto, Fuddy stayed in the aircraft, and an hour or so later, the rescue operation took Fuddy away. The Dummy ended up in the ambulance, the priest gave it the last rites and an autopsy was fabricated to read arrhythmia.

The ‘body’ in the coffin wasn’t the same dummy, it was a lifelike wax replica, and no one noticed.

That’s my story and I’m not sticking to it. Now I just want to know what happened to the blue helmet and what was it’s purpose?