I have read Beesley’s account of that night many times. I think there are some obvious errors in his account, and also some very accurate recollections. Not surprising given the circumstances. His accounts are rather contrived and too considered. Nothing about ‘I did this at this time’ etc. Rather refrained and refined. Not ‘raw’ if that makes sense.
Very true, but Beesley was giving statements from his own somewhat limited perspective as a surviving passenger. Being berthed in Second Class at the stern of the ship, by his own admission it took him some minutes to realize something was wrong. We have to consider how much he could have seen , heard and understood about what actually was happening the first time he went up on to the deck of the 882-foot
Titanic. He then returned to his cabin to put on warmer clothes, lifejacket etc and at some stage helped a couple of anxious ladies.....and so on before being eventually rescued on Lifeboat #13.
What I am saying is that while there are some very useful points in his narrative, it was mainly from his limited perspective of what he saw and heard before he found a place in the lifeboat. This would have been mostly what was happening around him on the stern section of the sinking
Titanic and later on board the lifeboat - like his helping with little Alden Caldwell etc. As for his account being "too considered and refined", IMO that was the result of his background; Lawrence Beesley was an educated academician and would have wanted to put down what he saw and heard, as well as his interpretations thereof, in a clear and precise manner and in doing so might have added some caveats.
One of the problems I have with Beesley is that he never gave any testimony on oath. One of the key witnesses who arguably should have been called as a witness to both Inquiries.
Beesley’s account is so well known, but not being tested under oath and subject to cross examination must be treated as having certain caveats added?
Yes, had Beesley been called in to testify, some more useful information might have emerged but at the time he might not have been considered as a 'key witness'. His main exclusivity was that he was one of only a dozen or so male passengers from Second Class who survived.
There is another point I'd like to make at this juncture. While I feel that had Beesley been called in to testify,
he would have given a clear and precise account of his experiences as he believed them, being under oath did not necessarily guarantee that the someone was being more accurate or truthful. Those who were called in made several mutually contradictory statements out of which at best only one could have been true and at worst, none at all. For example surviving officers like
Lightoller and
Boxhall made statements under oath the validity of which some of us are discussing and questioning over 110 years later in these forums.
www.encyclopedia-titanica.org
