Search titles only
Search titles only
Search titles only
Search titles only
Install the app
New media comments
Reply to thread
New On ET
ET Research Articles and Features
Articles on Technical Matters
Chronology - Sinking of the Titanic
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
[QUOTE="Tad G. Fitch, post: 58901, member: 145275"] Hello again George, In regards to your second blog, about the aft port boats, you wrote: "The significance of this can’t be overstated. Boats 9 and 11 off the ship, Boat 13 lowered to A deck, Boats 16, 14, and 12 still on the davits, Boat 14 starting to load crewmen preparatory to being lowered." In previous discussions here on the ET message board, the flaws in your conclusions here were pointed out, but you have chosen to ignore them. You rely on Crowe's testimony that seems to place Murdoch at No. 14. While Crowe was sure the "senior officer" was present at that boat, he only guessed that it might have been Murdoch. Crowe was a member of the victualling department, and would have had little contact with the ship’s officers in the course of his day-to-day duties. In light of the other accounts from members of the deck department who knew the officers and who mention Wilde specifically by name as being at this boat, and considering that there is not a single other witness, including his fellow officers, to suggest Murdoch was at No. 14, it is clear that Crowe was wrong. You base your entire premise of No. 9 leaving before No. 14 on Crowe's questionable information (and an invented link from Collyer's article supposedly supporting it, more on that in a minute). However, you ignore the evidence given by Seamen Scarrott and Haines that ABS McGough stood by the falls of No. 14 as it lowered, and was subsequently rescued in No. 9, indicating the latter left later. Unlike Crowe, who didn't work with Murdoch in the course of his day-to-day duties, these two seamen knew McGough personally, having served in the same starboard-watch deck crew under Fourth Officer Boxhall with him. The evidence that McGough left in No. 9 is ironclad, being given by multiple eyewitnesses. You wrote: "When I posted a version of this article on Encyclopedia Titanica, I was met with a virulent attack...The attack wilted when I introduced Charlotte Collyer...she positively identifies First Officer Murdoch at the boat, corroborating Crowe’s testimony." George, with all due respect, this is a gross twisting of not only Collyer's account, but also what transpired in the previous thread with you on this topic on ET. As one can see by reading the thread and archived portions of it ([url="https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/6584/125539.html?1215743713"]https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/6584/125539.html?1215743713[/url]), you brought up Collyer's account, and suggested it mentions Murdoch as having been at No. 14, when it does not, which is why we didn't bring it up in the discussion. When I pointed your error out, along with a summary of Collyer's account which disproves she referenced Murdoch in relation to No. 14, you claimed you were "flabbergasted" that I knew about this account and hadn't told you, and accused me of attempting to deceive you. When this accusation was proven wrong, you never apologized, and did not post again in the thread. As such, it was you that "wilted" from the discussion, not the people objecting to your conclusions. In regards to Collyer's account, here is what she actually describes. I am refraining from typing the entire passage relating to this word for word as not to bore the readers here since this account is well known, but if you dispute that this is *actually* what she says, I could always post the entire section to prove otherwise. Collyer's account, which was heavily ghost-written, describes her husband and her being in their cabin when the collision came. After going to the "second cabin promenade deck" to see what was wrong, her husband was told by an officer, either Lowe or Murdoch, she claimed she didn't know which, that there was no danger. While they were at that location, she alleges a stoker with his fingers cut off came on deck, warning of the danger, which she says shook her up. Collyer estimated that between "ten and fifteen minutes" after this, she saw Murdoch place guards by the gangway to prevent others like the stoker from coming on deck. (I find the detail about stokers being barred from coming on deck by Murdoch extremely dubious, in any case, her mention of Murdoch is not in connection with No. 14) Only *after* describing this encounter with Murdoch does she describe being "herded" toward the "nearest boat deck" by those in charge. Then she describes the order to lower the boats being given. After giving more details of the scene on deck, she describes seeing the "first lifeboat...quick filled and lowered." She then describes the lowering of the "second boat." She says that Lowe was the officer in charge, Murdoch having moved to the other end of the deck. (Still no mention of Murdoch in connection with No. 14). Collyer says there were two more boat after those at that part of the deck. She claims to have seen Lowe arguing with Ismay. She says the "third boat" was half full when her daughter was pulled away from her husband and her, and thrown in. She refused to go, but was dragged in by some men, and encouraged by her husband. The "third boat" she describes is No. 14, which she was rescued in. Again, for emphasis, Collyer's account *does not* say, nor indicate in any way that Murdoch was at No. 14. I hope that this message finds you doing well. All my best, Tad [/QUOTE]
I which year did the Titanic sail?