(Welcome back member
Magnum P.E.)-the unidentified
person is more likely to be that which member
JaneGaGa
suggested;
The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)
Missing Person / NamUs #MP73779 Richard Jack Cobler .
The Honolulu County Medical Examiner may or may not
be able to locate any remains of Unidentified Person/
NamUs #UP6909
in the present day under their leaky roof, but their file
surely still contains whatever dental records they used
previously to try to identify that unidentified person;
Code:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/hi-hauula-barnacle-bill-up6909-19-25-scuba-suit-bought-in-tacoma-nov82.144556/page-2#post-12516351
notwithstanding that that Unidentified Person/
NamUs #UP6909
had most of their teeth missing post mortem;
Code:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/hi-hauula-barnacle-bill-up6909-19-25-scuba-suit-bought-in-tacoma-nov82.144556/#post-6906309
It is not clear from the reports on Richard Jack Cobler
if the 'boat drill' they conducted on the R/V Wecoma was
actioned as a routine drill, or if it was actioned in
response to someone noticing that Richard Jack Cobler
was missing. If the former, it could be theorized that
Richard Jack Cobler donned one of the ships exposure
suits (as may be the normal procedure for a 'boat drill'
for a ship based out of Oregon) and arrived on the
(life)boat deck before the other crewmembers. An
exposure suit limits your dexterity - he could have
slipped on the deck and smashed his face on a deck
fitting, then fallen overboard stunned or unconscious.
If he got sucked into the propeller wash, his left arm
about the left elbow could have been sliced or
amputated as a result of that (maybe the facial damage
also?). The police report of the discovery of the suit &
human remains should detail if the suit found was
ripped open or missing the suit part below the left
elbow. I suppose a shark could also be responsible
for the amputation (sometime after death).
There are pictures of the R/V Wecoma, appearing to
showing barrel like, clamshell containers containing
(inflatable?) liferafts i.e about the left middle deck
of that ship;
Code:
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/photos/of/ships/shipid:357177/ships
It is not clear if those type containers were present in
1979. In about 1994 the R/V Wecoma underwent a refit,
so if someone can find pictures of the R/V Wecoma prior
to the 1990's, to see what was present then (more basic
actual hard lifeboats with inplace ship safety railings?)
and to see where the lifeboats were situated in 1979 on
the ship, that would be of interest.
The R/V Wecoma was retired & went to the ship breakers
circa 2012. Considerable information about it still exists
online;
Code:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101229082639/http://www.shipops.oregonstate.edu/ops/wecoma/
Given that the R/V Wecoma was a proper ship, no doubt
with a quartermaster and a requirement for records to be
kept regarding the safety equipment on board, there exists
the possibility that the University of Oregon may have
records from that period detailing purchases and listed
inventory of the R/V Wecoma - i.e. possibily had Bayley
Suits with notations as to serial numbers.
Some information as to which Offices or which personnel
were involved in the administration of the R/V Wecoma
during this century are noted here;
Code:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720024239/http://www.shipops.oregonstate.edu/ops/wecoma/cpm.html#Section I
------------
Another avenue of enquiry is that Bayley Suit Inc was the
subject of a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission
and the subject of a Consent Order, which may be able to
be viewed at this link by scrolling up & down;
Code:
https://books.google.com/books?id=I58Gs64dLVIC&pg=PA1291&lpg=PA1291&dq="Bayley+Suit+Inc."+california&source=bl&ots=CEYNPaPAtW&sig=ACfU3U3Wm5-jKmkmd2HYICsQcjZ2HPXp-g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjy4ZDkirDwAhWFxzgGHdmFD0kQ6AEwBHoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q="Bayley Suit Inc." california&f=false
Quoted from the above link;
" Federal Trade Commission Decisions
Docket C-3117, Complaint, Sept 30, 1983-Decision, Sept.
30, 1983
"consent order requires the Fortuna, Calif. manufacturer
of the "Bayley exposure suit," among other things, to
publish advertisements, sent notices, and use its best
efforts to locate and notify users of the suits that the
bladder hose assembly used to inflate the flotation
pillow requires a safety modification. The manufacturer
must send to each BayleySuit user who requests it, a
retrofit kit, together with understandable instructions
to permit easy repair of the suit. If, by July 15, 1983,
80% of BayleySuit users have not requested a retrofit
kit, the manufacturer must search dealer records, ship
registeries and listings, and the rolls of fisherman's
unions to obtain the names and addresses of retail
purchasers, so they can be notified by letter of the
safety hazard and provided with a repair kit request
card."
"
---
Therefore, it is possible that if 80% of BayleySuit users
did not request the mentioned 'retrofit kit' (for a suit
manufactured before June 1980), then in the records of
the FTC may exist a Bayley Suit Inc provided list of
purchasers of the Bayley Suits (possibly including suit
serial numbers).
The lawyer that appeared for the FTC in the matter of
that complaint, Dennis D. McFeely, that lawyer being
noted from the Consent Order above, is likely the ~88
or 89 year old currently living in Seattle and findable
online.
Even if it eventuates that Bayley Suit Inc did not end up
having to provide the FTC with a copy of such a list, it
is possible that Bayley Suit Inc may have produced such
a list in advance readiness and provided such a list to
their lawyers in the matter, that lawyer being noted from
the Consent Order as Richard D. Warren, still apparently
in practice as his public résumé shows;
Code:
https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/94707-ca-richard-warren-318225.html
----------
As a general note, readers may be able to view a circa
1980's, later model of a Bayley exposure suit at this link;
Code:
https://books.google.com/books?id=XJl7F8MllngC&pg=RA3-PA316&lpg=RA3-PA316&dq="Bayley+Suit+Inc."+california&source=bl&ots=3OixtTiXkK&sig=ACfU3U264OhivTCm1iX_ZqqatZu0iritbw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="Bayley Suit Inc." california&f=false
Note that in the picture seen in the above link, the
flotation pillow is shown inflated - it acts to keep
the face above the water surface. I assume that even
when uninflated (if the wearer has not inflated it),
the pillow and suit itself have sufficient buoyancy to
float at the water surface interface, or at least just
under it.
