Hendrickson's reporting flooding

B-rad

B-rad

Member
Hendrickson testified that water was coming into the watertight tunnel, and when he went to report this he was told to get lamps, indicating that the lights had gone out in the boiler rooms at the time of his reporting. Barrett said that the lights went out after being ordered back to boiler room 6, going to boiler room 6 to find it too deep with water, heading back to boiler room 5, and then having the engine room call the boiler rooms to send men up.
Upon getting the lamps Hendrickson would then attempt to go to boiler room 6, but like Barrett notice to much water, and go to boiler room 5. He would put the lamps by the gauges and then be ordered to get men down. While doing this duty he would notice the tarpaulin of hold 1 bellying up but no water. Symons however said that by 11:55 water was around the coamings of hold 1. We also know that the firemen on G deck would be seen taking up their belongings around 12am due to their quarters being flooded.
The question is, is how could Hendrickson have accomplished all he had done between the lights going out after 11:50 and water being seen at 11:55? I don't have any answers off the top of my head yet and decided to see if anyone could offer insight!

Thanks!
 
Thomas C.

Thomas C.

Member
Hendrickson's testimony is generally very problematic. For example, he recalled helping to fill the port aft boats and then moved to help with the starboard boats forward. We know from other people that it was the other way around. Another thing is when he was in the engine room reporting the tarpaulin case, he noticed that both watertight doors were closed, but we know from Olliver that at least one of them was open when the lights in the boiler room were out. In my opinion, he got confused in his memories. This scenario makes more sense:

He sees the water in the tunnel and goes to the engine room to report it. There he sees a closed watertight doors. Then he returns to his quarters, sees the tarpaulin bellying up, and heads back to the engine room. This time he is stopped by an officer who orders him to bring lamps to the boiler room. He brings them in and does the rest of the things you mentioned.
 
B-rad

B-rad

Member
Hendrickson's testimony is generally very problematic. For example, he recalled helping to fill the port aft boats and then moved to help with the starboard boats forward. We know from other people that it was the other way around. Another thing is when he was in the engine room reporting the tarpaulin case, he noticed that both watertight doors were closed, but we know from Olliver that at least one of them was open when the lights in the boiler room were out. In my opinion, he got confused in his memories. This scenario makes more sense:

He sees the water in the tunnel and goes to the engine room to report it. There he sees a closed watertight doors. Then he returns to his quarters, sees the tarpaulin bellying up, and heads back to the engine room. This time he is stopped by an officer who orders him to bring lamps to the boiler room. He brings them in and does the rest of the things you mentioned.
Wow, That's exactly what I was thinking. I was going to suggest such but figured I would save suggestions and see what others thought first. Ps, I put you as a thank to in my book for your help in the past about Boxhall and the watertight door. Would love to include your last name instead of just Thomas C. if you don't mind sharing.
 
Top