Begin at # 101 and read through to # 122. - Be careful & don't step in anything.
.
Yeah, they would. There is a lot at stake.
But this theory is that one of the survivors drowned her or otherwise killed her. That doesn’t work if the plan was to kill everyone.
The extra people in the water seem to be hanging around each passenger as if the goal is to keep them safe. I believe this was planned specifically to keep everybody safe but to provide an excuse for Fuddy to end up “dead”. Her heart is healthy, according to her brother, so if they wanted it to be a heart attack, etc they had to have some kind of traumatic cover story. Or they could claim that she was caught in the fuselage. It seems like they got their cover stories screwed up though because they tried claiming both.
And the media reported a death before anybody could have known that. At 5:17 the USCG was calling somebody in “critical” condition. That’s right around the time they reported that all the passengers were accounted for on shore, and Fuddy was the last passenger picked up by the UZSCG, according to the news interviews with the rescue swimmers (although the USCG case report doesn’t fit that account either). And around that time they kept saying that 8 were non-critical. So unless they’re admitting to 10 people on board, that “critical” person had to be Fuddy. There’s no way the people involved would have LEGITIMATELY reported to the media that one was dead by 4:40, when that media report came out.
And I won’t even go into how mixed-up the claims of who picked up who are. Like I’ve said before, almost EVERY detail of this story is contradicted at least once if not several times in the official records and the accounts by the “eyewitnesses”.
I’ve had a very experienced pilot tell me that if his conscience would allow him to do it he would have no problem faking an engine failure, and this is precisely the layout he’d use if he wanted everybody to survive. (BTW, the NTSB says that about 8% of all the plane crashes they investigate are ruled to be deliberate - either for insurance fraud or for more nefarious reasons. And with the NTSB-investigated engine-failure crashes this Cessna 208B has had (2 in the 30 or so years before 2011, and 2 within 50 days of each other in 2011), there were no casualties until this one, and this one isn’t even claimed to be from injuries from the crash).
You can make it look like an engine failure by turning off the fuel (creates a warning) and/or going slowly enough that the stall warning goes off (which is what is most likely heard in the Puentes video). He’d do it right after takeoff, close to shore, and get as close to shore as possible so the people who were supposed to survive could make it to shore (as did Hollstein, and there’s another gal behind Puentes who is awfully close to shore, and the reports from the Molokai lookout tower and from medics on-scene at the airport are that more than just Hollstein swam to shore - indicating that even they knew there were extra people out there in the water. In fact, one of the CAD communications says that flat-out, that he didn’t think everybody on shore was among the people listed as on the plane...)
This being a planned ditching, with extra people on board in the cargo area and/or delivered to the area by aircraft present at the time, to keep the other passengers safe, would explain the things we see - that don’t make sense if this was a real accident. Most of all, it fits what’s in Puentes’ actual video, heavily edited and aired by ABC.
Begin at # 101 and read through to # 122. - Be careful & don't step in anything.
.