Stacy Moxon Meyer Electrocution Death - Outpoints in OSHA Report

From: ethercat <[email protected]>
Subject: Stacy Moxon Meyer Electrocution Death - Outpoints in OSHA Report
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:14:01 GMT

p/m to Keith Henson

The newsgroup seems to be lacking in new threads of any substance tonight, maybe this will help out...

On 7 Aug 2000 04:44:44 GMT, Chris Sutor <[email protected]> wrote in message-ID <[email protected]>:

>Keith Henson <[email protected]> spake thusly:
>: Page images (7) are posted at parishioner.org/osha

>: My reading of this leaves me still confuesed. The transformer vault
>: size has varied from 6 by 6 to 10 by 10 and is not consistent even in
>: this report.
>
>If official agencies are reporting different sized rooms in their
>individual reports, might it be that each was shown a different sized
>room? Would Gold Base be likely to have more than one of these vaults?

Andre Tabayoyon wrote of a 12,500 volt one, and the report said this was a 7200 volt one. The report says this one was used to power lights, irrigation, and wildfire supression sprinkler pumps. The power was knocked out to the north side of the facility. and that this vault was manufactured by Associated Concrete Vault Co on 9/30/94. (http://www.parishioner.org/osha/osha5.gif) It's not possible this one was constructed by that company under the supervision of Andre Tabayoyon, because Andre's affidavit is dated April 4, 1994, and it looks like it was made available to the public on August 19, 1994, just several days before the plan for this vault was approved. I find this timing interesting, but it may be meaningless. I would conclude there was more than one, and that the 12,500 volt one was the larger one, unless for some reason the one built by Andre was dismantled soon after his affidavit was made.

http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/tabayoyon2

A few things bother me about the report and the story as it was reported.

It seems most of the questions asked on ars have been addressed, with answers using almost the same words that were used on ars. I'm getting the impression, as Arnie mentioned elsewhere, they're taking tips from us on constructing their shore stories. All our concerns seem to have been carefully and specifically addressed.

osha5.gif

The squirrel's electrocution knocked the 230 lb. cover off. I suppose Stacey's electrocution would have knocked it off too, if it had been on and she had been imprisoned. If she had removed it, it would likely have been laying more neatly near the hole (so she wouldn't have to move it so far). I wonder what the positioning of the cover was when the authorities arrived... I wonder if there were any dents in the ground where the cover would have hit if the cover was blown off...

osha5.gif

According to the report, there were 5/16 screws found close to the vault, and it said that indicated the cover had been put in place unsecured. When was the cover put back in place? Wouldn't it have been off when Stacy went down into the vault? I wouldn't think she would have put the cover back on while she was in the vault. The report said the site had not been disturbed since the accident, so why wouldn't the inspector have thought Stacy would have removed them when she took the cover off, as would be normal? Why did he indicate in the report that the cover had been put back in place without the screws? When was the cover put back in place without the screws???

I guess someone would have put the cover back on after the squirrel was removed, but was that when the screws were left off, or did Stacey have to remove them too? If Stacy did not have to remove them to get the cover off, why were they not put back in after the squirrel incident? It says that Golden Era staff electricians last inspected the vault on June 4, 2000 following the squirrel incident. Doesn't an inspection mean also making sure the vault is properly secured WITH screws?

If Stacey were imprisoned, the cover would have been heavy enough to prevent her from getting out, without having the screws in place. Were the screws replaced after the squirrel was removed, and then removed again when Stacey was put in, put back on without the screws and the cover blew off when she was electrocuted? Did someone mess up by not putting the screws back in after Stacy went into the vault?

osha5.gif

If they had put screen over the ducts after the squirrel electrocution, as the report says, why would Stacy have thought there would be a squirrel in the vault?

osha3.gif
osha5.gif

The report states that the transformers are the pole type, meaning they have uninsulated connectors, instead of being the insulated underground type, yet the proposed actions make no mention of fixing this. Is it not a violation to have inproperly configured transformers? If the transformer connections had been insulated as they should have been, would Stacey have lived? And I suspect one of these uninsulated connectors was responsible for the squirrel's death, so it had to be known that they were dangerous. It says, "the squirrel contacted an uninsulated engergized conductor and was electrocuted."

It says "the installation was designed by a registered electrical engineer, with plans approved on 9/30/94 by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety." Why would a registered electrical engineer design the vault with improper transformers? And why would the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety approve an unsafe and improper installation???

And finally, what sounds like a conspiracy theory, but remembering who we're dealing with, I'll include it:

http://www.parishioner.org/osha/osha4.gif

Some of the wording in the report seems really stilted to me. The line, "I walked to the secured accident site and photographed the area that was not disturbed since the accident," sounds peculiar written that way. (Maybe English was a second language for the author, but it sounds a lot like some of the sock puppets we get around here.). The typeface looks different on that line, but that ~could~ be a scanning problem... Does it look funny on the original? This is not the only funny looking text I see... Is it possible this is an altered document? Would it be possible to contact Terry D. Saville (the first signator) and verify that this is the way he wrote it originally?



|\__/,| (\ _.|o o |_ ) ) ---| ethercat |-------(((---(((----------(ascii art by Mike Rosulek)



From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Stacy Moxon Meyer Electrocution Death - Outpoints in OSHA Report
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:32:49 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

In article <[email protected]>, ethercat <[email protected]> wrote:

> p/m to Keith Henson

snip

There a *lots* more outpoints. For example, there are 4 stories given by people re Stacy being in that vault due to squirrels. The hand written stories are inconsistant.

About 60 pages of this stuff, including some really gory descriptions of how badly burned she have been scanned in. They lack a home on the web, and perhaps people to OCR them and post. (The hand written material will have to be typed.)

And regarding an earlier victim, does anyone have a pointer to the post or web page where the police recommended 3 people be indicted for murder 3? I am almost certain I saw it once and cannot find it now. Email please as my reading here is spotty.

Keith Henson