21 October extract · 23 October morning · 2026
The families speak.
The aftermath matters.
The inquiry turns to the people who waited for news, searched for loved ones and sought answers. Their testimony adds a different part of the record: what happened to families before and after the collision.
On this pageWhat changes
The evidence in context
More of the aftermath. No new view of impact.
The chair addresses the public response.
Justice Mario Michel thanks passenger witnesses, recognises their trauma and addresses criticism of questioning, representation and broadcasting. Ireanius Pascal reads an approved statement of grief and condolences.
Three relatives give evidence.
Charlene Charles, Deborah George and Kaitha Paul describe their loved ones, notification, identification, efforts to obtain information and support. None witnessed the collision.
Who keeps a family informed?
The accounts make family liaison, reliable updates, search coordination and support referrals part of the reform discussion. They provide specific experiences to test against records and agency explanations.
The earlier evidence about lights, speed, lookout duties, equipment and rescue remains available. These sessions do not settle the collision angle, fault or the adequacy of the whole emergency response. Read the Day 2 analysis and compare attributed claims.
21 October · Procedure and public responsibility
Michel draws a distinction between passengers and operators.
The chair says the passenger witnesses deserve appreciation, rejects attempts to demonise them and acknowledges that traumatic experiences can produce differing recollections. He distinguishes the owners and surviving operator, whose possible contribution remains a matter for the inquiry. They may be recalled as further evidence arrives.
Michel acknowledges vigorous questioning and explains it as reflecting police questioning methods. He also describes the offers of legal representation made at earlier sittings. Those are the chair’s explanations of the process, not a finding that every question was appropriate or that every disputed account is resolved.
On broadcasting, he invokes section 23 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and the appointment instrument’s public-hearing direction. He argues that public access includes following the proceedings live online. We attribute that interpretation to him; the transcript does not establish a separate statutory requirement to livestream.
Late summons delivery affected attendance. The extract ends with an adjournment to 2 p.m.; it does not establish what happened that afternoon. The chair’s numerical passenger recap and references to earlier weekdays do not reconcile cleanly with the existing source set. They remain flagged in the reading notes.
23 October · The people behind the names
Three family accounts, each with its own perspective.
Charlene Charles
Mhakeida Nestor’s mother · Community health nurse
A daughter with plans.
Charles describes Mhakeida as her firstborn, a teacher and a student in teacher education at Sir Arthur Lewis Community College. She remembers her ambition, enthusiasm, friendships and care in how she dressed. The family also called her “Z”.
She says her first notification came from her sister at about 1:42 a.m. on 19 July. At Soufrière Hospital, a doctor confirmed the death and she identified her daughter. She says the inquiry later explained parts of the journey and rescue she had not previously known.
Information and support need separate checks.
Charles describes seeking updates herself, including contacting the investigating officer, who responded. She says she had not received counselling, while also describing supportive nursing colleagues and leave offered by her workplace.
She reports that someone said Dylan wanted her number, and that she declined to share it. Her account therefore should not be reduced to a blanket claim that nobody tried to contact her. Her criticism of enforcement is her assessment; the relevant agencies’ detailed evidence is still to come in this supplied record.
Deborah George
Debbie Dolor’s sister and caregiver · Teacher
An artist, a sister, a presence at home.
George remembers Debbie’s skill with paint and colour, her help with classroom art and the paintings she left at home. She describes a lively sister who brought laughter and dancing into the family.
She says she saw Debbie leave home at about 10:30 p.m. That is a home-departure recollection, not a measured boat-departure time. She later describes the family’s efforts to find and identify her.
The public response is part of the harm.
George describes distress at jokes and memes about the hearing. The chair acknowledges her loss and stresses that those reactions do not represent the whole country. The Commission pauses the hearing and resumes with her testimony.
Her demand is practical: routine maritime checks and enforcement. Her concern about small boats is a family perspective, not a technical determination that this vessel class is inherently unsafe. The incoming-call time in the automated text is garbled and is not used as a reliable timestamp here.
Kaitha Paul
Sister of the deceased referred to as Tyrone Paul · Self-employed
A brother, a father and a close family bond.
Paul describes a loving brother who visited her shop, made relatives laugh and was close to his young daughter. She spells her own first name K A I T H A, resolving several automated variants.
She confirms a last sighting around 11 p.m. and describes seeing Dylan, Bradley and three women near the Soufrière waterfront. She expressly says she did not see the group board the boat. This adds pre-departure context, not a launch time or complete manifest.
Seeking help, searching and a further bereavement.
Paul says she sought help at Soufrière police station and was told an officer could not help. Questioning establishes that she did not know what the officer already knew. She describes joining an SMMA search trip, with no Marine Police or SLASPA personnel aboard that particular trip; she does not know the wider coordination.
She also reports her mother’s death on 4 August and says she had received no counselling. The hearing does not establish a medical causal link between the collision and that later death. We do not add a fifth collision fatality.
A chronology to verify
Family recollections can anchor the next records search.
These times describe different events and come from different witnesses. They are not synchronized logs. The linked recording offsets locate testimony; they are not times of day.
| Reported time | Account | What it can establish |
|---|---|---|
| 18 July · about 10:30 p.m. | George sees Debbie leave home. | Home departure, not the boat’s departure. |
| 18 July · about 11 p.m. | Paul’s last sighting of Tyrone. | A recalled sighting; she did not see boarding. |
| 19 July · about 1:42 a.m. | Charles receives her sister’s call. | Her first reported notification, not the first emergency call. |
| 21 / 22 July · unresolved | Paul places recovery/notification on Tuesday 21 July. The police-attributed release says the two men’s bodies were recovered on 22 July. | Check audio, recovery logs and identification records. Do not silently merge the dates. |
| 22 July | Charles and George describe postmortem/statement procedures. | Their experience of identification and police statements; not a published pathology finding. |
A question about rain at 10–10:30 p.m. prompts George’s agreement. It is local recollection, not a weather observation at the collision point. Likewise, claims about agency responsibility require the agencies’ records and response.
From family experience to policy · SLPA analysis
A safety system must also work for the people waiting ashore.
A named family contact
Who was responsible for contacting each family, confirming identity and giving updates? A practical reform would assign one contact, a backup and a clear update process, including when there is no new information.
A shared search record
Which agencies and community boats searched, where and when? Compare dispatch records, SMMA logs and recovery positions. One witness’s trip cannot describe the whole operation.
A clear route through identification
How were relatives told where to go, who could identify the deceased and what happened next? Reconcile hospital, police and postmortem records without publishing unnecessary personal detail.
Support that reaches people
Was counselling or other support offered, accepted, declined or unavailable? The new testimony supports examining proactive referrals and follow-up, alongside help already supplied by families and workplaces.
Enforcement that can be demonstrated
The families call for prevention. Match existing rules to actual checks of licences, lights, equipment and voyage arrangements. Their concerns should guide questions, not substitute for proof of a particular breach.
A hearing people can safely participate in
Late summonses, travel and distress affected these sessions. Adequate notice, transport arrangements, breaks and support persons can improve both participation and evidence quality.
Michel says police and fire responders, the Marine Unit, SMMA and SLASPA’s Maritime Division are expected to give evidence. Their testimony is prospective in this file. These sessions contain no final Commission recommendations or finding of legal liability. Connect the evidence to the inquiry’s remit and SLPA’s independent Maritime Act proposals.
Keep the record checkable
Original words, reading corrections and unresolved details.
Both originals are preserved. The reading layer repairs only context-supported names and places, with a correction log. “Michelle” becomes Michel; recurrent Soufrière, Anse Cochon and Cazorla variants are normalised. Mhakeida Nestor and Debbie Dolor follow the official published names; Kaitha follows the spelling she gives.
Unclear times, numerical discrepancies and uncertain names remain unresolved. The transcript’s weekday recap is not used to rewrite the dates of the earlier source files. The term “source offset” always refers to the recording, not a clock reading.
The supplied 23 October morning record ends while the Commission is awaiting Marley William’s sister. Her absence from this file is not evidence that she declined to participate. A message in the hearing suggests she may have been travelling to the sitting.
Search all ten supplied files and download the originals →