Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Yuri Singleton, post: 218095, member: 146581"] Cal, I have to disagree. I just don't see the strings on Beauchamp leading to the White Star Line puppet-masters, like I do for some other witnesses. I'm not saying Beauchamp is a saint with a halo, but I doubt seriously he was coerced in his testimony. I hate to say it but Beauchamp was a nobody as far as the WSL was concerned. My opinion is that running from the water in BR6, or staying and drawing fires with the men, either way Beauchamp's testimony does little if anything to help or hurt the image, or affect the liability of the WSL. And where is his motive to lie? Beauchamp has no interest in protecting the WSL. His only interest is himself and whatever money he can earn or hustle up. He would probably work for Cunard, or Leyland, or White Star or any other paying company that had an opening for a stoker. So I don't see him lying to the British Wreck Commission to protect the company out of loyalty. And I haven't seen any suggestion that he was paid off by anyone. So in my mind there goes any motive for him to lie. That's my take on the integrity of Beauchamp. Though I don't think he was trying to be deceptive,he may have likely been confused about the when and where of events that night. He wouldn't be the only person who had that problem. (But then again, he could be spot on. Which is why I find his testimony about staying so long in BR 6 after the impact so interesting.) I think this is a 6-beer topic and I'm only on my first. So I'm sort of at a disadvantage here. ;-) Yuri [/QUOTE]

Verification: In which year did the Titanic sail?