Californian...a question.

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
586
106
53
Hi Julian,
It takes a Barrister to read the mind of another Barrister.
No Barrister is going to enter a court case blind.
The success of any Barristers to win his case is in the research beforehand to study the weak and strongest points. In the end of day you have to convince the public jury of your case. Which some cases doesn't always tell the whole true. As for the Titanic inquiry with no public jury, it must of been like taking candy of a baby for the Barristers!

Mike.
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
586
106
53
What are you referring to here, Mike? IMM's receivership---not bankruptcy---didn't come about until 1915 and had nothing to do with claims relating to Titanic.
Yes I should of said 1915. The finance of IMMC was in trouble before the Titanic loss. The loss of the Titanic was the final straw!
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
586
106
53
We hear IF ONLY they used the wireless on Californian to check on Titanic rockets. Would it made a blind bit of different! I have hear enough evident to show it would of not possible to reach Titanic in time.
Or are they gasping at straws for an excuses by using a legal law to say a ship must respond to distress rockets. If that is the case one must question if the distress rockets were as to the correct procedures?
Fired at short intervals of one minute? Nope
Could the shooting star explosion be hear from Californian? Nope
Could the height of the rockets be measured at 600 feet plus? Nope
Therefore technical from the Californian point of view cannot be counted as distress rockets!
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,224
664
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Julian,
I guess we view the word 'coaching' differently. You seem to view coaching as telling a witness what to say or not to say. I believe that is strictly not allowed in US courts as well. However, I view coaching as preparing a witness by going through the evidence and pointing out what pitfalls they should avoid.

As was written in my book 'The Sting of the Hawke':

>>What is troubling to us is the number of officers and others who testified for Olympic and said they saw Hawke come up from 2 to 3 points on Olympic’s starboard quarter from ¼ mile back on a parallel course separated about 300 yards from that of Olympic.https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/file:///C:/Users/Samuel/Documents/Documents/Titanica/Hawke%20collision/The%20Sting%20of%20the%20Hawke/CH09/CH09%20-%207%20x%2010.doc#_edn1 This was immediately after Olympic had steadied on her S59E courseline after turning the West Bramble buoy. It was as if all these eyewitnesses on board Olympic, who last took notice of Hawke just before Olympic commenced turning around West Bramble buoy, suddenly decided to look aft at the same time to get a glimpse of where the cruiser was after Olympic’s 11 point turn was completed. As noted in the court findings by the court president, Samuel Evans, “There was an extraordinary similarity, amounting almost to complete identity, about their [Olympic’s] evidence.”<<

The Right Honourable Sir Samuel Evans, president of the court trial in 1911, seemed to summarize it best in his final judgment statement:

'But general observation as to the distances, bearings, and speeds of two vessels turning at different points, at a considerable distance away, about the same time, and then angling towards each other is difficult and liable to great errors. Evidence of that kind requires to be submitted to a careful test; and tests are available in this case. None of the observers at the time were thinking of any collision, and none of them made observations with reference to any fixed objects or the land or otherwise. They may have made mistakes, and harbored inaccurate impressions.'

It appears that the witnesses for Olympic were well prepared to avoid certain pitfalls when being questioned, and if possible, to see to it that they were all in accord as to estimates of distances, bearings, positions and times of their observations, and in accord as to orders given and the sequence of events that took place. The hard evidence proved that Hawke could not have been where the witnesses for Olympic put her when Olympic completed her turn around the buoy. As you can imagine, witnesses for Hawke told a completely different story that held up well to analytical testing.

------
In addition to Captain Smith and Pilot George Bowyer making such claim, we also have Chief Officer Wilde who was stationed out on the forecastle deck, First Officer William Murdoch who was stationed out on the poop deck, Second Officer Robert Hume who was stationed up in the crow’s nest, Fourth Officer David Alexander who was on the forebridge working the engine telegraphs, Fifth Officer Adolphus Tulloch who was stationed on the amidships compass platform, and Sixth Officer Harold Holehouse who was on the forebridge recording events and taking the time from the wheelhouse clock.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,224
664
273
Chicago, IL, USA
If that is the case one must question if the distress rockets were as to the correct procedures?
Fired at short intervals of one minute? Nope
Could the shooting star explosion be hear from Californian? Nope
Could the height of the rockets be measured at 600 feet plus? Nope
Therefore technical from the Californian point of view cannot be counted as distress rockets!
Read the rules Mike.
1. The rules didn't and still don't define how short a short interval has to be. It's purely a judgement call when comes to rockets.
2. The rules do not require rockets to be heard, only seen bursting into stars.
3. The rules do not specify how high a rocket has to go.

2/O Stone admitted what he saw appeared to be signals of distress but he dismissed them because he said the steamer was changing her bearings from the time of the 2nd rocket. He said she turned around a was steaming away to the SW. He was even asked about seeing a stern light, to which he said: "From just about 1 o’clock to the time I lost her, I should say." Pure nonsense! This was an outright lie. Gibson first came back up on deck after the 5th rocket was seen about 1:15 by Stone's own timing and had this steamer under observation. She was showing a red sidelight until it disappeared which was after the 7th rocket went up, and Gibson said he never saw the steamer turn around nor did he see anything that looked like a stern light.

Bottom line is that Titanic's distress signals were seen from Californian and she stood still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,092
169
223
Yes I should of said 1915. The finance of IMMC was in trouble before the Titanic loss. The loss of the Titanic was the final straw!
Although IMM lost money in 1911 and 1912, in 1913 it had a profit of $1,929,947.75, nearly twice the losses of 1911 and 1912 combined, and had a year-end 1913 surplus of $5,716,958.97. Titanic's sinking was far from the "final straw" for IMM or White Star; see .White Star's Financial Postition
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
586
106
53
Read the rules Mike.
1. The rules didn't and still don't define how short a short interval has to be. It's purely a judgement call when comes to rockets.
2. The rules do not require rockets to be heard, only seen bursting into stars.
3. The rules do not specify how high a rocket has to go.

2/O Stone admitted what he saw appeared to be signals of distress but he dismissed them because he said the steamer was changing her bearings from the time of the 2nd rocket. He said she turned around a was steaming away to the SW. He was even asked about seeing a stern light, to which he said: "From just about 1 o’clock to the time I lost her, I should say." Pure nonsense! This was an outright lie. Gibson first came back up on deck after the 5th rocket was seen about 1:15 by Stone's own timing and had this steamer under observation. She was showing a red sidelight until it disappeared which was after the 7th rocket went up, and Gibson said he never saw the steamer turn around nor did he see anything that looked like a stern light.

Bottom line is that Titanic's distress signals were seen from Californian and she stood still.
Hi Sam,
If you are saying what is correct with the rules. They sound very wishy-washy to suit some ones argument!
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Apr 21, 2009
978
186
113
63
In the UK, 'coaching' of witnesses or defendant by the Barrister has never been allowed in either Civil or Criminal cases or even humble tribunals.

Cheers,

Julian
That's true, but in general there is a difference in perception of what constitutes 'law' between the UK and the US. It is not meant to be a criticism of either system but a simple statement of fact.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,224
664
273
Chicago, IL, USA
What I find "wishy-washy" is the tactics that Lord and Stone used to claim that what was observed that night were not signals of distress. Here is what I mean:
Asked why that ship was firing rockets:
Stone: "I thought that perhaps the ship was in communication with some other ship, or possibly she was signaling to us to tell us she had big icebergs around her."
Lord: "I thought it was acknowledging our signals, our Morse lamp."

Like little kids caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arun Vajpey

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
586
106
53
Although IMM lost money in 1911 and 1912, in 1913 it had a profit of $1,929,947.75, nearly twice the losses of 1911 and 1912 combined, and had a year-end 1913 surplus of $5,716,958.97. Titanic's sinking was far from the "final straw" for IMM or White Star; see .White Star's Financial Postition
Hi Mark,
There is a lot of loose talk of how the finance was formed for IMMC in 1902 by Mr JP Morgan. I be interesting how you see it. Wikipedia does cover some of it. I have books on JP Morgan too. But there is one book by Herbert Jefferson Viscount Pirrie of Belfast. In one chapter covering the subject of IMM and ones soon realise how complicated the share pricing arrangement gets. There is no dout Morgan has paid too much for the shipping companies and over valued the prices of the shares at $100 dollar each. The $120 million split into two. $60 million common shares and $60 million preferred shares. There is further $50 million to be paid out to those who do not want to join the combined. Then there is the agreement with the two big German shipping companies Hamburg America and North German Lloyd were Albert Ballin is the drive force behind the since. Morgan claim its was a profit sharing scheme? I would seem Ballin was the winner and not Morgan.
There is no doubt Morgan was a one of tycoon never been seen on the planet before, and very successful business man person. But end of day he realised he had been stitch up by others who knew dam site more of the shipping business.
He return to Liverpool 1903 hoping to change the deal! Sorry mate you have been had!
This I have say was extraordinary deal were Morgan could not own the British ships but own the companies that owned the ships!
The shares would not hold there price devalued and by the US inquiry in 1912 dropped down to $4-5 a share. Worst to come could not pay the preferred share dividends. He would run into cash flow problems, even though some of the shipping companies were making good profits!
By 1914 the game was up and the company was in the hands of receivership and the receiver had taken control of the company. Now I don't know if it when through a court order or a private company? O though the company did serve but the dream of dominating the Atlantic shipping routes was truly over.
It was certainty a complicated mess from the word go.
Now if got more information I please to hear about it.

Mike.
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
586
106
53
What I find "wishy-washy" is the tactics that Lord and Stone used to claim that what was observed that night were not signals of distress. Here is what I mean:
Asked why that ship was firing rockets:
Stone: "I thought that perhaps the ship was in communication with some other ship, or possibly she was signaling to us to tell us she had big icebergs around her."
Lord: "I thought it was acknowledging our signals, our Morse lamp."

Like little kids caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
Asked why that ship was firing rockets:? That does not say distress rockets?
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,092
169
223
Morgan claim its was a profit sharing scheme? I would seem Ballin was the winner and not Morgan.
Between 1903 and 1911 Ballin's Hapag paid IMM 1.5 million marks---50% of the amount of Hapag's profit in excess of 6%---under their revenue-sharing agreement.
By 1914 the game was up and the company was in the hands of receivership and the receiver had taken control of the company. Now I don't know if it when through a court order or a private company?
The receivership was a "friendly" court proceeding begun in April 1915 by IMM's bondholders to remedy the financial strain of a weak first seven months of 1914 followed by war. It had nothing to do with Titanic's sinking.
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
586
106
53
Between 1903 and 1911 Ballin's Hapag paid IMM 1.5 million marks---50% of the amount of Hapag's profit in excess of 6%---under their revenue-sharing agreement. The receivership was a "friendly" court proceeding begun in April 1915 by IMM's bondholders to remedy the financial strain of a weak first seven months of 1914 followed by war. It had nothing to do with Titanic's sinking.
Hi Mark,
I am intrigued were did you get that information from of Ballin's Hapag paid IMM 1.5 million marks? As mention Morgan and Ballin deal was in total secret on Morgan private luxury yacht in New York?
The receivership was a "friendly" court? Wow. As In any court hearing is not a friendly proceedings, especially not in Morgan case. Morgan had made himself an enemy to the British, German, French and USA Governments! The idea he was spending so much money outside USA did not meet there approval. Spend money in USA yes. Rather like to day President Donald Trump. Put America first!
In the book House of Morgan they mention. Titanic was the crowing disaster for his shipping trust. Titanic was the nail in the coffin of the dream to dominate the North Atlantic shipping routes.
Quite frankly the whole plan of Morgan in tempt to dominated the North Atlantic routes was an ill conceded poor business plan from day one. Resulting in putting many people under huge pressure to achieve his goal! Bankers do not run charity shops they are strictly in business to make money. Clearly Morgan got this one wrong and was the only major flop he had to remarkable successful career as a BANKER!
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
586
106
53
Julian,
I guess we view the word 'coaching' differently. You seem to view coaching as telling a witness what to say or not to say. I believe that is strictly not allowed in US courts as well. However, I view coaching as preparing a witness by going through the evidence and pointing out what pitfalls they should avoid.

As was written in my book 'The Sting of the Hawke':

>>What is troubling to us is the number of officers and others who testified for Olympic and said they saw Hawke come up from 2 to 3 points on Olympic’s starboard quarter from ¼ mile back on a parallel course separated about 300 yards from that of Olympic. This was immediately after Olympic had steadied on her S59E courseline after turning the West Bramble buoy. It was as if all these eyewitnesses on board Olympic, who last took notice of Hawke just before Olympic commenced turning around West Bramble buoy, suddenly decided to look aft at the same time to get a glimpse of where the cruiser was after Olympic’s 11 point turn was completed. As noted in the court findings by the court president, Samuel Evans, “There was an extraordinary similarity, amounting almost to complete identity, about their [Olympic’s] evidence.”<<

The Right Honourable Sir Samuel Evans, president of the court trial in 1911, seemed to summarize it best in his final judgment statement:

'But general observation as to the distances, bearings, and speeds of two vessels turning at different points, at a considerable distance away, about the same time, and then angling towards each other is difficult and liable to great errors. Evidence of that kind requires to be submitted to a careful test; and tests are available in this case. None of the observers at the time were thinking of any collision, and none of them made observations with reference to any fixed objects or the land or otherwise. They may have made mistakes, and harbored inaccurate impressions.'

It appears that the witnesses for Olympic were well prepared to avoid certain pitfalls when being questioned, and if possible, to see to it that they were all in accord as to estimates of distances, bearings, positions and times of their observations, and in accord as to orders given and the sequence of events that took place. The hard evidence proved that Hawke could not have been where the witnesses for Olympic put her when Olympic completed her turn around the buoy. As you can imagine, witnesses for Hawke told a completely different story that held up well to analytical testing.

------
In addition to Captain Smith and Pilot George Bowyer making such claim, we also have Chief Officer Wilde who was stationed out on the forecastle deck, First Officer William Murdoch who was stationed out on the poop deck, Second Officer Robert Hume who was stationed up in the crow’s nest, Fourth Officer David Alexander who was on the forebridge working the engine telegraphs, Fifth Officer Adolphus Tulloch who was stationed on the amidships compass platform, and Sixth Officer Harold Holehouse who was on the forebridge recording events and taking the time from the wheelhouse clock.
Hi Sam,
I question if this is right for a second officer duty? Second Officer Robert Hume who was stationed up in the crow’s nest,?
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,092
169
223
Hi Mark,
I am intrigued were did you get that information from of Ballin's Hapag paid IMM 1.5 million marks? As mention Morgan and Ballin deal was in total secret on Morgan private luxury yacht in New York?
That the Morgan interests---IMM had not yet been created---had come to an agreement with Hapag and NDL was widely reported in the early months of 1902, when Ballin and representatives of NDL and Holland America visited New York. I don't think I've seen any reference of a meeting between Ballin and Morgan on Corsair, though. Do you have a reference for that? (Both Morgan and Ballin were well-known in New York and the papers regularly reported on even mundane activities of the two. It would have been a major accomplishment for them to meet in secret, especially out in the open on Corsair.) The 1.5 million figure I got from Bonsor, I think. I'll have to check.
The receivership was a "friendly" court?
I said a friendly court proceeding, not a friendly court.