Yeah, the on break lifeguard would be culpable, too. I think maybe third -- if she actually was on break and not just brushing off the kid -- but definitely should have done more.
This photo of Marie Joseph in the pool (on June 26th) explains some of the "murk" issue -- you can barely see the kid's bodies under water.
I had been thinking the murk was more like brown, this looks pool-colored just with a lot of particles in it.
You know, I've seen this picture and to me it doesn't say anything about the actual appearance of the water.
Could have been the angle, where the sun was positioned in the sky, the quality of the camera, glare, etc.
Look at the girl in the upper left of the pciture. You can't even see the top of her swimsuit or arm 1/2 inch below the surface. I can believe that people would be swimming in water that you couldn't see 1/2 inch below the surface.
To me, it looks #1 like that picture is overexposed.
I've read where someone (city official, park guy, I don't know) said he couldn't see the regulated sized black disk at the bottom of the pool.
However, in the aerial picture I posted before, you can make out the swim lane lines.
When was that picture taken, after the body was found? If so, how much later did the inspector make his vision test? Could the water have grown murkier over the time the pools been closed, not being tended to maybe?
I haven't read anything re the layout and varying depths of the pool. How deep is that deepest visable swim lane in my picture.
You can't see the peoples bodies/legs in this picture, yet you can see swim lanes from above in the other one.