A Shot in the Dark

[Jason Bidwell]

Steve and Michael-

Clarification wasn't really necessary because I had already said as much in earlier posts:

"In the book it is my understanding, based on the quote given earlier from your book, and by your own account, that you only report the claim."

"I take your word for it that in your book you only reported what Stevens claimed."

As I said repeatedly, I was debating with Steve Santini on this BOARD, and arguing with the comments he said on this BOARD, and answering to his criticisms of myself on this BOARD. To repeat: the BOARD. And it was on this BOARD that Steve went beyond mere reportage and advocating as fact that bullet-riddled bodies were recovered from the Mackay-Bennett: "I am not claiming, nor did Stevens, nor did any of his living relatives, that MANY or A LOT of the bodies had these wounds, only that SOME of them did." It was Steve's claim that "some" were historically recovered by the Mackay-Bennett that I was contending with. And he has never provided any adequate response to my criticisms. If that deficiency qualifies as "shooting the messenger," then consider yourself shot.

In Steve's defense my impression is that he has become embarassed by "some" of the statements he made on this BOARD, and so has been trying to retreat back into his book.

Frankly, I have no intention of ever reading Steve's book, but since I do want Steve's "good and common sense," if Steve wishes to continue this all he has to do is send me a verbatim copy by email of what he regards as the pertinent part of his book. Since I don't want Steve to feel he has been cheated out of any of his royalties, I will offer to pay him $3 via paypal, which ought to be more than sufficient for the amount of text pertaining to Stevens. Steve, you can contact me by my personal email at [email protected], and we can make the arrangements. Realize, however, that if you wish to continue our argument on this BOARD that your BOARD statements will be what shall be debated. No wiffling.

Maureen - anyone who may have been shot on the Boat Deck is just as likely as anyone else to have been sucked into a porthole, or grating, or anything else. It is simply ludicrous for you to say that this would "cause the statistics to be more in favor of someone shot being found over someone just left on the Titanic".

And if you have evidence that two-thirds of Titanic's crew and passengers were below decks when the ship sank, I would love to hear it.

Regards,
Jason

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Steve,

I'm taking your advice and buying your book before I comment on it. One question, though...does this one come with a toy gun?

I'm sorry, couldn't resist...my 3-year-old daughter and I still fight over your last toy.

Parks

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Jason, I have no sense that Steve was saying ANYTHING other then that it was POSSIBLE that some of the bodies had bullet wounds. He cited the source and very clearly qualified it as second hand (Stevens CLAIMED...(sic)) Steve reported what was claimed without trying to pass judgement on it one way or another. No more and no less.

You're skepticism is not a bad thing in and of itself, but with all due respect, in this case, I think you're straining on a gnat.(Otherwise known as making a mountain out of a molehill.)

To sum up; we know that the officers had pistols issued to them and that warning shots were fired. We know that some of the passangers were armed with personal weapons as well. Could they have used them in a moment of panic? Sure they could. Will we ever know as a 100% certainty? Not a chance. Perhaps we would all be wiser to leave it at that.

Steve;Glad to help out.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Jason Bidwell]

Michael, I would willingly agree with you that he only reported it in his book. But if you haven't noticed, Steve has been *arguing* for the story on this BOARD. If he had been doing anything less then there would have been no drawn-out argument between us.

Michael said:
***
To sum up; we know that officers had pistols issued to them and that warning shots were fired. We know that some of the passengers were armed with personal weapons as well. Could they have used them in a moment of panic? Sure they could. Will we ever know as a 100% certainty? Not a chance. Perhaps we would all be wiser to leave it at that.
***

It will be a sad day when it becomes wiser to wilfully remain in ignorance. Evaluating evidence is not "straining on a gnat." Nor is judging the reliability of a single piece of evidence. To do otherwise is to live in a world where Rigel the dog barks into the early morning sky to rescuers, and where a monkey assassinates Major Archibald Butt on the sloping Boat Deck.

Regards,
Jason

 

[Maureen Zottoli]

My Dear Jason Bidwell.

Thank you for your response. I hope and pray that Steve does not take you up on your pathetic request for a portion of his book for $3.00. His words are worth much more than that!

You have gone way beyond this board sir. Buy the book and read it. I do not quite frankly see that Steve is hiding behind his book, I see him as being a gentleman while you spout off.

And I take it that you are some sort of pathologist that you know the specifics of what a body would do? As I understand it, the alledged shootings took place while the life boats were being loaded, a full hour at minimum before the sinking. Currents would have taken the bodies away from the ship and away from the pull that would have been felt only very close to the ship. Of the people who stayed on the ship, I believe that many of them did not make it to the decks.

I will take this next week to research and come up with your proof for what I am saying here on the BOARD.

And regarding my statement about a third, that was my own opinion sir and I said that, but it is no more or less an opinion than your is to say that all 1500 were standing there ready to be saved.

And as to your questions about the coroners report. Due to religious and insurance reasons, I would say up until the 50's or 60's, that many death certificates were falsified when suicides or other "unusual circumstances" occurred that were "best left alone". A coroner discussing this between his peers was commonplace, but to admit it later would have meant that the coroner would lose his certificate or license, whatever.

But Jason, as I said to one other individual, this is just a message board and you are not coming across as being inquisitive, but plain all out mean. That may not be your intent, but it sure looks like that from where I am sitting.

What books have you written? Please share with us your famous accomplishments.
Maureen.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

Michael and Maureen: Does the segment from Mr. Santini's original posting of 10 January containing the lines "HA! had these "experts" bothered to study COUNTLESS period newspaper accounts of the disaster, they would have run into reams of print mentioning the gunplay on the Titanic...." strike you as being reported "without trying to pass judgment on it one one way or the other. No more and no Less." as Michael claimed? Not exactly non-partisan phrasing, is it? There is not a single instance in that posting in which the SLIGHTEST element of doubt was introduced.

You will find if you take the time to print out and read through the whole exchange, forgetting whatever relationship you might have with either party, that from the start it has been Jason who has conducted himself in a manner befitting an adult in a debate. It was Mr. Santini who introduced the topic of his book which, as Jason pointed out repeatedly, is an irrelevancy as it is not the book but the POSTING which is being discussed. At no time did he refute Jason's valid point, which is that a second hand story told DECADES after an event is not the best evidence one can find to back up a statement or theory. What he DID do was introduce irrelevant tangents (Ken Marschall and Don Lynch) convoluted logic (that segment in the posting of 10 January containing the lines "....crew members of the Mackay Bennett told reporters that the bodies they found were 'in good condition and with no gunshots on any' NO GUNSHOTS! What Is this?....", and continuing, is a classic example of this) an improper statistic (about the Grand Staircase debris) used in an attempt to refute a VALID one concerning the probability of finding any one particular body, and a tone of increasing condescension ("You seem like a very interesting fellow...." and wasn't THAT a classic line! 11 January) all of which combined to make the classic "smokescreen" used by people cornered in a debate with an unsupportable argument. Yes, there may have been gunfire. Yes people may have been killed. And NO there is not a single shred of evidence supporting the Stevens/Snow claims. Funny, isn't it, how Jason was able to give detailed rebuttals to all of Mr. Santini's increasingly off-subject remarks, while Mr. Santini could offer only protracted bluffing!

MAUREEN: No, "calling out" someone who has made an unsupportable claim in what is supposed to be a forum pertaining to history and then defending your position isn't "Plain All Out Mean!" What IS mean is your snide closing remark. Just because Jason may not have written a book does not negate his right to question or criticise the statements of someone who HAS, just as my inability to cook does not negate my right to question the chef in a restaurant when I am served rancid food. You have introduced an inappropriate personal element unwarranted by anything Jason said in any of his postings.

 

[John M. Feeney]

Maureen: For once, I don't agree with you. I've given this thread a VERY careful front-to-back review just now, and I think Jason's arguments have a great deal of merit, vis-a-vis the subject at hand -- which really IS Steve's *elaborations* on that tiny segment of the book HERE. The segment itself, as reproduced here, is indeed relatively innocuous. But Steve has subsequently seemed prepared to defend to the death the correctness of this purportedly minor account, which has yet to be cast within a meaningful framework, time-wise.

Steve: With all due respect, I think you may giving insufficient credence to the objections raised and raising irrelevant ones yourself, perhaps from an emotional knee-jerk response. I agree with you that playing "what are the odds?" games are speculative in the extreme. After all, what were the perceived odds in 1912 that Titanic would sink on her maiden voyage?? But Jason's other comments regarding your arguments in support of Stevens are certainly not without validity.
(And please see below.)

Inger: I'm amazed at your exceedingly gentle sortie into this. As I recall, you recently seemed bound and determined to wipe the floor with someone else whom you insinuated had frivolously published unsupported second-hand allegations. Yet in this instance, you appear to have no problem! (Though I couldn't help but notice your apparently partisan nod to the idea that Wilde's potential ranking in the list of possible officer suicides might be enhanced by an acceptance of this account.)

Steve: If you'll bear with me then, I'd like to present some annotated excerpts from your early posts in this thread -- with the obvious questions that arose in my mind -- that may illuminate from whence the confusion and doubts arise. (Much of this probably stems from a real ambiguity with regards to timeframes, leaving the reader yearning for a much clearer description.)

CONTINUED

 

[Jason Bidwell]

Maureen, you have a nasty habit of sticking your nose in arguments for no other purpose than to insult and slander one of the parties. You did this before with Senan Molony, and got the response you richly deserved.

You won't get the response from me that you ought to. One of us has been mean and uncivil, but I don't think it is myself. However, if you think you have a case against me, report me to the board moderator. I have nothing more to say to you.

Jason Bidwell

 

[John M. Feeney]

Steve: Here goes -- all are from your earlier posts with my annotations in brackets:

Many years ago (WHEN?), when I lived in Nova Scotia, I met a man named Sep Bonner ...

...who had at one time (WHEN?) lived in Hampton, New Brunswick.

Bonner told me that one of his next door neigbours had been a man named Thadeus Stevens ("Thad" for short). As it turned out, Bonner and his children sort of "looked after" Thad prior to his placement in an extended care home. (WHEN?)

Bonner told me ... (WHEN?)

Stevens went on to tell Bonner that he had a personal experience(as well as oral history related to him by undertaker John Snow) of bodies which bore the evidence of gunshot wounds. He went on to say he was "advised" not to mention this to anyone or to talk about it at all. This promise he kept until over alomst 70 years later (DOES THIS IMPLY 1982?? -- 1912 + 70?).

...a New Brunswick newspaper story about his life that came out many years later (WHEN? -- BETWEEN 1982 AND 1985?) mentioned his involvement in the work on Titanic victims

...in 1985 (AFTER THE ABOVE, RIGHT?), an article appeared in a Halifax newspaper which featured Stevens and his story of the shootings. The article, titled, "Were Titanic Victims Shot?

one of the late Stevens' relations told me that he later (WHEN??) claimed he had also seen evidence of gunshots; not just John Snow.

Stevens should know what a gunshot wound looked like because in World War 1 he served as a medical assistant overseas (AFTER THE FACT ASSUMPTION -- WORLD WAR I WAS LATER.)

Thad Stevens told his story of the gunshot wounds to Sep Bonner BEFORE the discovery of the wreck in 1985. (WHEN BEFORE?)

Please tell me, why would a man who was obviously there have an reason to make up such a sensationalistic story prior to the wreck's discovery when very few people had ANY interest in Titanic at all? (PRIOR SCHEMES, e.g., CUSSLER? OTHER FILMS? ATTENTION?)

...the surviving relations of Stevens remember him relating the SAME INFORMATION even before Sep Bonner became his neighbour. (NEW INFO HERE -- WHEN??)

...many years ago I told Ken Marschall about my research into Thad Stevens and the shootings. He then went on and mentioned my research to Don Lynch. (WHEN, VIS-A-VIS CAMERON's FILM?)

According to relatives of Stevens, he related the stories about the gunshot wounds on victims a LONG time before the 1980's. (WHEN??)

As a matter of fact, I have a letter from a relative of his that states she heard the same stories as a very young girl. (WHEN?)​

See what I mean, Steve? Without much more of a chronological framework, it all sounds frighteningly like "Once upon a time ..." I mean no offence, but these "many years ago" ambiguities just muddy the water tremendously. Can you address these questions?

Thanks!
John Feeney

 

[John M. Feeney]

One more note:

Please, PLEASE, can we all now take a deep breath and relax? This debate potentially has real merit (I think), but it will achieve very little sitting in the "Closed Threads" drawer, as has happened with some others that got nasty of late.
(Though we might well differ on who threw the first punch.)

(Yeah, yeah, I know -- "Let him who has not sinned ...")

Regards!
"Gauntlet-Wielding John"

 

[George Behe]

Jason wrote:

>Maureen, you have a nasty habit of sticking your >nose in arguments for no other purpose than
>to insult and slander one of the parties. You >did this before with Senan Molony, and got the
>response you richly deserved.

Hi, Jason!

I disagree. I don't wish to reopen old wounds, but Senan Molony used this bulletin board to publicly accuse other people of being a fraud, ridicule their former occupation and call them names in an attempt to discredit their research. Maureen took a stand against Senan's incredibly inappropriate behavior, and she deserves to be applauded for her integrity. (Granted, her response to Senan was emotional, but -- considering what Senan said about other people -- I think her response was understandable.)

But that's all in the past, and what's done is done. As far as the present thread goes, I hope everyone will step back and take a deep breath before the level of emotion increases any further. Phil Hind already has enough headaches without our adding to the pile.

All my best,

George

 

[Jason Bidwell]

Hi, George-

Believe it or not, I was on your "side" in that strange feud with Senan. However, I thought then and think now that Maureen's insulting intrusion was out-of-line and she got the response she deserved from Inger. She wasn't a hero then, nor is she a hero now: heroes don't dwell in the muck.

Regards,
Jason

 

[Encyclopedia Titanica]

It seemed that out of battle I escaped
Down some profoundly dull tunnel, long since scooped
Through granites which Titanic wars had groined.

With apologies to Wilfred Owen

This tunnel is indeed profoundly dull. Let's get out!

 

[Parks Stephenson]

By invitation, I visted the Titanic newsgroup for the first time last night. After listening in on a few conversations, I beat a hasty retreat, lest Dan Butler hurl an eloquently-worded insult my way. Phillip, you're doing a good job of keeping this forum out of the gutter, and I just wanted to let you know that you're appreciated.

Parks

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Jason, I'm coming into this a tad late (Computer troubles and all that. Long story.) Ahhh...no, I'm not advocating ignorance as bliss. The reason I suggested that we leave this alone is because this thread has...unfortunately...taken a rather acromonious turn without actually turning up or presenting new data. Mr. Santini has his opinion, you have your's, and others have theirs.

The problem is that the parties who would KNOW for sure whether or not there was any sort of gunplay on the Titanic beyond officers firing warning shots are a little bit dead, and therein lies the sticking point. Corpses are not an especially gabby bunch. If anybody...anybody at all...has hard and irrefutable evidence to prove or to disprove a firefight, I would love to see it. If not, I don't see the point in going on.(Shrug)

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart