Californian Incident true of false

[Michael H. Standart]

Tracy, I'll second Randy's comments on this, especially since it's clear you've done a lot of research already. For all the heat generated when Lord's name comes up, it's amazing how little is known of the man himself. I haven't reached Stone's and Gibson's testimony in the American Inquiry yet, but I will be on alert for things that don't add up. I don't think I'll have to wait long.

I did skip up to donkeyman Gills, and frankly, I don't trust that guy for beans. I don't think anyone on either side of this thorny debate does. I don't trust blokes who run to the newspapers first, to offering damning information for money. Further, he was all too ready to offer hearsay as fact, and that always puts me on gaurd.

As to collusion to cover butts, I think it's a fair bet to say that was already going on everywhere befor the Titanic was even under water. No grand conspiracys mind you, just different people with vested interests to protect. In disasters of any patch, it happens all the time.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Californian Incident - true of false?

Obviously, false.

What was the question?

Parks

 

[Dave Gittins]

You'll be struggling to find Stone and Gibson in the US enquiry, Mike. They did not appear. Senator Smith hung Lord on quite flimsy evidence from Gill, Lord himself and some hearsay from Evans, plus some work by Captain Knapp. He may have known the evidence from Gibson and Stone by the time he wrote his report but Wyn Craig Wade tells me that this can't be proven.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Thanks for that, Dave. Looks like I'll have to look into some other leads.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Tracy Smith]

So far as Gill goes, he isn't even worth mentioning. It's obvious what his motive$ were.

I've seen his type before, especially when on the police force. Though law enforcement does make selective use of paid informants, such folks are not thought highly of, nor are they trusted. Any info gleaned from such sources is never accepted at face value, but checked out with a fine tooth comb.

Thanks, everyone, for your encouragement on my research about Stanley Lord. It means a lot.

 

[Jason Smith]

Hello,

In my previous posting, I made it clear that I believe that the evidence seems to suggest that the ship seen firing rockets from the Californian was indeed the Titanic. So I guess that makes me an Anti-Lordite.

That being said, I feel that the only thing Lord was guilty of was not investigating the mystery ship, when there was enough evidence to do so.

I don't think he was 'responsible' for the sinking of the Titanic as maybe some extremists may imply. And I don't doubt that he was competent and hard working

.

I do think that he should've been prompted to a more detailed investigation of the rocket firing ship, but he didn't. History has judged him harshly ever since

...

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Hi Jason, all this is what make Tracy's research so valuable IMO. With all the attention focused on Lord anytime this subject comes up, I have to wonder why his officers aren't scrutinised more closely. They need to be. At the very least, they should have been more assertive then they were.

About all Gill establishes reliably is that something was going on and the crew knew about it. In light of his jabbering for $$$$$$, I don't think he should have been allowed to offer testimony without corroberation from another source.

Tracy, my offer to help out still stands. Drop me a line if you need anything I can assist with.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Tracy Smith]

Stone, in particular, had some personal problems. He came from a dysfunctional family, and most likely was an abused child. It has been suggested that one of the reasons he went to sea was possibly to get away from his father.

Stone was, frankly, highly intimidated by Lord and probably went out of his way to avoid and/or limit direct contact with him. This is most clearly shown in that he sent Gibson down to notify Lord of subsequent rockets, instead of going himself and making sure that Lord had been thoroughly awakened and that he completely understood the message.

Lord was a strict disciplinarian, and though a fair man, he did not coddle his officers. He knew his job and he expected his men to know theirs. He was also a classic introvert, and thus, was not an outgoing man. His reserved nature was commonly mistaken for arrogance, as the concepts of extroversion/introversion were probably not well understood at that time.

So far as Gibson goes, he stated that he'd gone down to the chart room and had a conversation with Lord, but I have my doubts. For one thing, Lord doesn't remember any conversation. He remembered being half asleep and hearing the door open and close. He then called out "What is it", but got no reply.

In the book, "Ghosts of the Titanic", the author includes an excerpt of a letter to Walter Lord from a White Star employee, Brian Manning. Manning was acquainted with Stone. In this excerpt, Manning stated that Stone had told him that he'd told Gibson, "Let the b*st*rd sleep, then", presumably after Gibson had returned from going to the chart room to give Lord the rocket message. This indicates to me that Gibson didn't try to awaken Lord, probably because as a 20 year old apprentice, he was more than a little intimidated by Lord, too.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Here's something I want to toss into the piranah pool. It likely has nothing to do with the Californian, but I saw something really odd at the end of Day 6's testimony. A witness named Luis Klein was supposed to appear. Apparently, the bloke had been summoned, brought to Washington D.C., but just wasn't there when called for by Senator Smith. I can't find his name anywhere in the digest so my bet is he was never heard from again.

Does anyone know what the story is on this one?

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Dave Gittins]

Briefly, Mike, Luis Klein may have been a false name. His story was certainly false. It amounted to him being a crewman on Titanic who saw the berg and gave the alarm. Then he went to the crow's nest and found the lookout asleep. It was published in at least one paper.

There's more of the same in his full tale. He was brought to New York but was not well guarded and shot through from his hotel.

Why Senator Smith bothered with him is a mystery. I know Smith was no seaman but anybody could see the story was BS.

There was a bit of confusion over a man on Titanic who really was called Klein but he was a barber and did not survive.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Thanks Dave. Seems there was a lot of BS going on then, especially in the papers.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

All,

A friend has very kindly shared with me a copy of the letter Captain Stanley Lord wrote to the Assistant Secretary of the Marine Dept. on August 10, 1912, in which he asks for help in clearing his name. I'd imagine its contents are of general knowledge to those more versed in the story of the Californian.

However it's new to me. So bear with me guys (and gals) as I try to put down my reaction to this really remarkable account. I want to get Tracy's - and everyone else's - view on this but hope that none of the animosity of the past will be revisted in continuing this thread. I'm not an expert on this aspect of the Titanic story and don't pretend to be. I'll therefore be glad to hear from those who have studied the Californian incident closer.

I know the Californian debate is an eternal - and usually infernal - one; still, I'm moved to comment on this letter which to me reveals Capt. Lord to be in a pretty curious state of mind.

Like I said, I'm hardly in a position to judge the man so an analysis from me means little but for what my take on it's worth, here it is. First off, I get the impression from his immaculate handwriting that Stanley Lord was an extraordinarily precise and orderly man.

That said, I find his thinking decidely DISORDERLY at crucial points in this account which otherwise strikes me as a model document of tact, decorum, and clarity. Anyhow, Stanley Lord admits that his officers (Stone and Gibson)who were on watch April 15 didn't awaken him till the "mystery ship" that had loomed up in the night had been in sight for an hour, had fired a rocket, and appeared to be steaming away.

I don't know if I am at liberty to quote at length from this letter (as I've no idea to whom it now belongs) but, if I may paraphrase, Lord says:

...I DID NOT ANTICIPATE A DISASTER TO A VESSEL THAT HAD STOPPED FOR AN HOUR AND HAD IGNORED MORSE SIGNALS...

This seems an arrogant statement. He then says he asked his officer what color the rockets were and received the reply that they were company signals:

...I DID NOT THINK IT POSSIBLE FOR A SEAMAN TO MISTAKE CO. SIGNALS FOR DISTESS SIGNALS SO I RELIED ON THE OFFICER...

Yet Lord seems to have been convinced at the time of writing this letter that his officer was indeed mistaken about the rockets being company signals for he makes the following astonishing statement, which I have never before read:

...IT IS A MATTER OF GREAT REGRET THAT I DID NOT GO ON DECK MYSELF AT THIS TIME...

He further relates that he wasn't awakened again for another hour but that by then:

..I HAD FALLEN INTO A SOUND SLEEP AND WHAT MESSAGE WAS SENT ME, I WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY AWAKE TO UNDERSTAND...

Lord adds that it should have been evident to anyone that:

...I HAD NOT REALIZED THE MESSAGE BY THE FACT THAT I REMAINED BELOW...

He seems critical of his officers' failure to keep him informed - which is well justified.
Yet he relied on these same men's opinion that the ship they had been watching in the night was a tramp steamer, not the Titanic:

...THIS IS THEIR OPINION AT THE TIME WHICH IS MOST LIKELY THE CORRECT ONE...

It seems a very odd frame of mind for a skipper who had just admitted the negligence of his officers on watch to then depend on their observations on so critical a matter.

The final startling revelation to me is found near the end of his letter when Lord says in effect:

...IF YOU CONSIDER THERE WAS ANY LAXITY ON THE CALIFORNIAN...IT WAS NOT ON MY PART...

But Capt. Lord was IN CHARGE. The failure of his officers is HIS failure ultimately, isn't it?

Now, don't get me wrong, I truly feel more than ever that Capt. Lord was not supported by a crew worthy of serving him but I can't get over how even his own words, in a document meant to aid his position, strongly indicate his negligence and culpability.

Gibson and Stone may have been totally inane but Lord was definitely not up to par either. His own lassitude, even when taking into consideration the ineptness of the crew upon whom he relied, can't be ignored.

The question I'm left with is how did this happen to an otherwise thorough, just, and honorable captain?

Randy

 

[Michael H. Standart]

G'Day Randy, I hardly know where to begin with any of this and I don't have a lot of time right now. (Gotta run off to work. Something about bills to pay\o/)

I think that on this, Captain Lord found himself stuck between a rock and a hard place. Whether he really understood what was going on that night, I doubt any of us will ever know, but I agree that he was not well served by the Two Stooges up on the bridge. Still, He was the captain and the buck had to stop somewhere. On a ship, it always stops with the skipper. It has to.

I'll bet the man was a lot more careful about what oficers served on his ships though. Lessons learned and all that.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Jason Smith]

Perhaps it is a bit unfair to criticize Lord's officers too much. At the end of the day, they did communicate their observations to the Captain. Was it not Lord's responsibility to decide on an appropriate course of action, based on what was reported to him?

Although, you could argue that maybe they could of been more forceful about investigating the mystery ship they saw from the bridge. Where does the story about Lord being stern and intimidating to his crew come from?

 

[Fiona Nitschke]

Hello Randy,

Randy wrote:
"I want to get Tracy's - and everyone else's - view on this but hope that none of the animosity of the past will be revisted in continuing this thread."

Well, why not? In for a penny, in for a pound.

Randy again:
"I don't know if I am at liberty to quote at length from this letter (as I've no idea to whom it now belongs) but, if I may paraphrase..."

No worries Randy - I don't think this qualifies as 'readily available', but the full text of the letter is available in Reade and Harrison (just as a start). Though it's not in Lord's handwriting, of course.

"...I DID NOT ANTICIPATE A DISASTER TO A VESSEL THAT HAD STOPPED FOR AN HOUR AND HAD IGNORED MORSE SIGNALS...

This seems an arrogant statement."

Well, it could. But, if you include the end of the sentence:

"I did not anticipate any disaster to a vessel that had stopped nearly for an hour, and had ignored my Morse signals, and was then steaming away."

Voila! Lord's response seems more reasonable. A ship ignored Californian's attempts at communication, then steamed away with all, seemingly, being well. However, it's at that point that Stone reported this 'mystery ship' fired a rocket, although he first thought it a shooting star...

"...IT IS A MATTER OF GREAT REGRET THAT I DID NOT GO ON DECK MYSELF AT THIS TIME..."

I don't doubt that it *was* a 'matter of great regret' to Lord for most of his life. Several of his contemporary supporters also believed this, Lord's sin of omission rather than commission.

Michael and Randy, regarding your comments about Lord pointing the finger at his crew: some of his statements do seem contradictory. But, did Lord believe his officers inane or inept before this night? Groves, Stewart and Stone had sailed with Lord before and it would seem that they had functioned in a perfectly satisfactory manner up to this instance.

It is interesting that Stone in particular is singled out for criticism in the summing up of the MAIB re-appraisal (1992) and by Reade. Perhaps some of Lord's similar concerns were fair? Doubly so, given his trust of Stone up to that point? Various accounts make Stone out to be a promising young officer. Reade paints a grim picture of Stone's lack of confidence through his harsh childhood, mitigating circumstances perhaps in his inability to push an issue with his Captain - the weight of which he apparently carried for the rest of his life. But ultimately, Captain Lord was captain of Californian, just as Captain Smith was captain of Titanic: and there, as both of you have stated, the buck must stop.

I realise this is a matter of subjective interpretation, but I didn't see the letter as further indicating Lord's negligence or culpability. More, that it was the letter of a desperate man faced with losing his profession and still not comprehending how in the hell he got to that position. As I wrote immediately above, though, this is a subjective interpretation - mine this time.

"The question I'm left with is how did this happen to an otherwise thorough, just, and honorable captain?"

A few quotes came to mind while thinking about all of this:

"...there are no villains in this story: just human beings with human characteristics." Captain James de Coverley, Deputy Chief Inspector, MAIB.

"...the whole tragedy was built of trifles, added one to another in the hours that followed." Leslie Reade, in 'The Ship That Stood Still'.

Finally:

"...I admit there was a certain amount of 'slackness' aboard the Californian the night in question..." Captain Stanley Lord, October 1912.

FWIW,

Fiona