KS - Caleb Schwab, 10, dies on 17-story Schlitterbahn waterpark slide, Aug 2016

[Hatfield]

At the top gate in one of the videos I watched, as it opens there is a camera there mounted right on the gate. If you were seated in the raft you would be staring right at it while looking ahead.

That got me to thinking that there are probably several other cameras, as a matter of fact if I was the betting kind, I'd BET on the idea that there are other cameras mounted on this ride.

I haven't seen this brought up yet. Ideas?

I think I saw that footage too of the camera at the top. This is a good question.

I know some parks like to have cameras in strategic locations of a ride to sell pictures to the people riding the ride. What they sometimes will do is when you get to the bottom there sometimes is someone there advertising that they take a picture of each time the ride or coaster hits the critical point where most people are at their most vulnerable point to get the best expressions on peoples faces.
They charge a fee for the pictures and if you want to buy one you usually can come back later to see how the photos came out to decide if you want to buy one or not. Its of course a money making thing for the park but it does allow the guests to bring home a photo memory of their experience.

So you bring up a great question. Could they have captured photos of the incident at just the right time and maybe there is documented proof of what happened.

If so, I wonder if those photos may have already been intercepted by the owners of the park or put in a secured location where they are now "lost forever".

If it was an idependent photographer that was allowed to run a small business at the park and pay the park a portion of the sales then there is a chance those photos maybe available to investigators.

Its a great question.

 

[AmyPond]

I don't believe there is an on-ride photo for purchase on this ride.

But I do wonder if there are surveillance cameras or something pointed near it.

 

[neesaki]

exactly....so why put yourself in a situation that you might feel to be unsafe?

is anybody forcing people to jump on this ride?

What ? So you're saying that the Park and the persons that designed this dangerous ride aren't responsible for the dangerous ride that they constructed? So instead it's the innocent people that trust that the rides are safe, are responsible ? Please, give me a break. What planet are you from? Oh, wait, you must be a defense attorney. That could explain it.

 

[jjenny]

This slide DID show a design flaw immediately, when rafts went flying off of it.

They placed a net over the slide to prevent the rafts from flying off. But did nothing to prevent injury of riders if the rider came in to contact with the net, which is what happened here.

And most likely the reason the rider came in contact with the net is because the raft came off the slide.

And we have arrived full circle back to the original design flaw, only this time there's a dead child because of it.

I don't think the ride came off the slide. If the whole ride came off, then presumably all three people in it would have received serious injuries, and the boy wouldn't be the only one who was "decapitated." I think the child came off his restraints and flew into the net. Restraints were velcro type and seem very poorly suited for this type of ride.
"According to numerous witnesses interviewed by PEOPLE, ride used restraints made from hook-and-loop fastener material, (similar to VELCRO®). Martin says such material should never be used for this type of ride."

http://www.people.com/article/amusement-park-regulations-by-state

 

[neesaki]

I don't think the ride came off the slide. I think the child came off his restraints and flew into the net. Restraints were velcro type and seem very poorly suited for this type of ride.

Well there were several reports according to other riders, that the raft became airborne when they were riding it. If it became airborne in this instance, then the chance of this light weight child being lifted up from the seat would be quite great. And then there's the only thing to hold him in place, those flimsy Velcro straps, which also had a history of coming undone, according to other riders. So, with an airborne raft, then this poor boy also became airborne. How heartbreaking. :cry:

 

[jjenny]

Well there were several reports according to other riders, that the raft became airborne when they were riding it. If it became airborne in this instance, then the chance of this light weight child being lifted up from the seat would be quite great. And then there's the only thing to hold him in place, those flimsy Velcro straps, which also had a history of coming undone, according to other riders. So, with an airborne raft, then this poor boy also became airborne. How heartbreaking. :cry:

There were no reports that it became airborne in this instance.

 

[neesaki]

There were no reports that it became airborne in this instance.

Ok, the post I remembered was not referencing this specific incident of an "airborne" raft, so you're quite correct.

That said, I personally believe the raft would have gone airborne in order for that child to have been ejected from the raft. IMO, It's a matter of physics. Why else would he have flown out of the raft ? I welcome any other explanations ? That aside, we will all wait and see when the attorneys for this ******* company are forced to provide this vital information. JMO

 

[Rocco]

Ok, the post I remembered was not referencing this specific incident of an "airborne" raft, so you're quite correct.

That said, I personally believe the raft would have gone airborne in order for that child to have been ejected from the raft. IMO, It's a matter of physics. Why else would he have flown out of the raft ? I welcome any other explanations ? That aside, we will all wait and see when the attorneys for this ******* company are forced to provide this vital information. JMO

1. Because the restraints were worn due to age and didn't close properly

2. Because the stitching/fasteners in the restraints came apart and they came off

3. Because the restraints weren't fastened tight enough and he flew out of them

Even if the raft had gone airborne, if the restraints would have properly held him, he still would have been in the raft when he landed at the bottom.

 

[jjenny]

Ok, the post I remembered was not referencing this specific incident of an "airborne" raft, so you're quite correct.

That said, I personally believe the raft would have gone airborne in order for that child to have been ejected from the raft. IMO, It's a matter of physics. Why else would he have flown out of the raft ? I welcome any other explanations ? That aside, we will all wait and see when the attorneys for this ******* company are forced to provide this vital information. JMO

Restraints are supposed to hold him in the raft as the raft is moving at high speeds. Without restraints, what is going to hold him in?

 

[JohnPaul]

(Big sigh) You conveniently left off the last part of my statement...that is why in my state we also draw a BLOOD SAMPLE. Rock solid. Can't get loose from that. He was driving drunk, he DID commit a crime and killed someone.

going by your story you can not say if he was driving drunk or not, the equipment malfunctioned, so he could have been under the legal limit to drive, and should not be charged with the crime,

here is your original story.....

An example would be a man with a long history of driving while intoxicated convictions and he killed someone while driving drunk. But because the calibration on the field sobriety test was just a tad off that night, his lawyer fought, (and won) that these results were inadmissible. They know he was drunk, they know he did this but they are trying to get him off the hook. This is disgusting and despicable behavior. This is also why; in my state we draw a blood sample.

Trying to get off because of a technicality as I already clearly explained, is what is wrong with the 'system'.

malfunctioning equipment is not a technicality, that is very viable evidence this man could have been innocent

say you got a speeding ticket for going 30mph over the speed limit and you dont think you were speeding at all, your lawyer finds out that the radar gun was defective and the reading may not be accurate, should you be charged with that ticket?....would you be happy if you were charged?.....going by your logic, you are guilty and should be charged

police / LE do make mistakes, a heck of a lot of them actually, just because you are charged with a crime, that doesn't automatically mean your guilty.....lawyers are out there to protect innocent people, not just to get guilty people off the hook.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Interesting line of thought. So are you thinking camera's mounted along the track or other supports to record the actual ride? Or cameras mounted on the rafts?

Yes that's exactly what I'm thinking. Some rides at other parks have cameras mounted that take photos of you as you ride and then you can buy the photos when you get off the ride. I don't know anything about this ride but it's certainly a possibility. I find it interesting that I haven't seen this in any news reports ect...

 

[IBsleuthin]

going by your story you can not say if he was driving drunk or not, the equipment malfunctioned, so he could have been under the legal limit to drive, and should not be charged with the crime,

here is your original story.....






Malfunctioning equipment is not a technicality, that is very viable evidence this man could have been innocent

say you got a speeding ticket for going 30mph over the speed limit and you dont think you were speeding at all, your lawyer finds out that the radar gun was defective and the reading may not be accurate, should you be charged with that ticket?....would you be happy if you were charged?.....going by your logic, you are guilty and should be charged

police / le do make mistakes, a heck of a lot of them actually, just because you are charged with a crime, that doesn't automatically mean your guilty.....lawyers are out there to protect innocent people, not just to get guilty people off the hook.

moving on...:coffeews:

(You know, when I make a quick remark on a subject and then just give a simple example; I'm not in front of the class reading my dissertation on the technical aspects of equipment failures in the judicial process. The equipment malfunction is a case by case situation as you obviously very well know and in this particular case yes, it was won that the EQUIPMENT failed, NOT that he wasn't drunk. Equipment failure does not mean that the man was not intoxicated as was revealed by the very accurate and undisputed blood draw.

* Of special note; the equipment failure did not show that he was under the legal limit as you have ASSUMED. The equipment failure only showed that the exact calibration wasn't accurate and so the results themselves were thrown out due to inaccuracy not because it showed him to be under the limit.

<modsnip>

 

[JohnPaul]

The equipment failure only showed that the exact calibration wasn't accurate

if the calibration was not accurate then there is a possibility he was under the legal limit to drive...

innocent till proven guilty

Of special note; the equipment failure did not show that he was under the legal limit as you have ASSUMED

a defendant does not have to prove they are innocent....the defendant does not have to prove he was under the legal limit,

the prosecution has to prove he was OVER the legal limit, and they cant do that using faulty equipment

so yes in a court of law it IS ASSUMED he was under the limit, unless PROVEN otherwise

 

[AmyPond]

Ok, the post I remembered was not referencing this specific incident of an "airborne" raft, so you're quite correct.

That said, I personally believe the raft would have gone airborne in order for that child to have been ejected from the raft. IMO, It's a matter of physics. Why else would he have flown out of the raft ? I welcome any other explanations ? That aside, we will all wait and see when the attorneys for this ******* company are forced to provide this vital information. JMO

When going over that second bump...the only thing holding a body in motion into the raft, would be the velco seat belt and the riders hands holding on. So if the restraint came off and if the child wasn't strong enough to hold himself in....his body would stay in motion and fly out of the raft.

 

[K_Z]

At the top gate in one of the videos I watched, as it opens there is a camera there mounted right on the gate. If you were seated in the raft you would be staring right at it while looking ahead.

That got me to thinking that there are probably several other cameras, as a matter of fact if I was the betting kind, I'd BET on the idea that there are other cameras mounted on this ride.

I haven't seen this brought up yet. Ideas?

Way back in post 206, I wondered the same thing about cameras along the ride itself (maintenance, etc), as well as other cameras that could have a view of the ride:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-park-slide-Verruckt&p=12741073#post12741073

One thing I was thinking about today is how many security cameras in the park may have a view of the Verruct. Some coaster attractions where we live have many cameras along the route, for security as well as monitoring and maintenance. I have to think there are a couple cameras in that park that could be reviewed to see if the accident was documented. Investigators will be looking for that, I'm sure. As well as interviewing ride operators and witnesses.

I'm equally sure that if there is footage of that ride, with the accident, that it will be months before the park lawyers and spokespeople admit to that.

I don't want any video to be on the web, if it exists, but I do want investigators to have all the evidence available. They need to know for certain precisely what happened. The family deserves that, too, as does the public.

 

[beach]

if the calibration was not accurate then there is a possibility he was under the legal limit to drive...

innocent till proven guilty



a defendant does not have to prove they are innocent....the defendant does not have to prove he was under the legal limit,

the prosecution has to prove he was OVER the legal limit, and they cant do that using faulty equipment

so yes in a court of law it IS ASSUMED he was under the limit, unless PROVEN otherwise

As an ABA certified paralegal who has worked for an attorney who defended DUI offenders and used this same argument to get MANY charges dismissed, I agree that your argument is valid in most jurisdictions.

That said, Websleuths is not a court of law and there are no judges here. Members here are permitted to form logical opinions based on the totality of circumstances.

Basically, I agree with the point you make, particularly per case law authority. However, it's a different venue here and this is one of those times when it is best for those with opposing views to agree to disagree and move on.

Thanks in advance.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Way back in post 206, I wondered the same thing about cameras along the ride itself (maintenance, etc), as well as other cameras that could have a view of the ride:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-park-slide-Verruckt&p=12741073#post12741073

Great minds!!!

 

[IBsleuthin]

:bath: :coffeews:

 

[angelainwi]

Raft Carrying 10-Year-Old Water Slide Victim Caleb Schwab Was 15 Pounds Underweight, Police Report Confirms

https://www.yahoo.com/news/raft-carrying-10-old-water-180923160.html

 

[NewMama]

Raft Carrying 10-Year-Old Water Slide Victim Caleb Schwab Was 15 Pounds Underweight, Police Report Confirms

https://www.yahoo.com/news/raft-carrying-10-old-water-180923160.html

It seems like the margin of error would have been at least 15lbs. But what do I know? (Rhetorical.)

I would be interested to know what the safety margins were, if any. Of course there's the speculation that the straps failed. What were the engineers' worst case scenarios and why?

All JMO. There's been great discussion in this thread by folks clearly more educated on the subject that little ol' me. My former corporate life was in risk management and it seems like forever ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk