Loading the rear boats

[Lester Mitcham]

A very interesting paper, but I have difficulty with:
"It was the better part of an hour between the time No.1 left the ship and the time Lowe appeared at No. 14."
For No 1 I have seen times of 1:05 or 1:10 and for No 14 I have seen times between 1:15 and 1:30. The generally accepted time difference being about 10-15 minutes.

I am also puzzled by: "and by the time Lowe showed up on the port side of the ship, Murdoch had loaded and lowered Nos. 9, 11 and 13." - I understand that those 3 boats are generally accepted as leaving between 1:20 and 1:30 or 1:35.

Lester

 

[Inger Sheil]

I agree, Lester - the timing of the loading/lowering of boats is always going to be a point of controversy, but the gap between the lowering of Boat 1 and Boat 14 is, I strongly suspect, not the better part of an hour.

I don't see Lowe at the aft starboard boats at all. I believe that he was in error when he stated at the NY inquiry that the first boat he assisted at was Boat 5 - an error he corrected first in his sworn affidavit before he left NY, then at the British Inquiry evidence, then in his last known sworn affidavit.

The written affidivats give a clearer picture of Lowe's movements, as the narrative flow is not interupted. In both these statements Lowe says that he began assisting at Lifeboat 7. In the 1913 statement he mentions that, after coming on deck, he walked aftward down the port side to "about amidships" and, concluding that those forward port lifeboats were being attended to, he crossed about amidships to where Boat 7 was being loaded (this is consisted with his British Inquiry testimony that he came abaft the second funnel).

At no point in any of the four occasions on which he gave sworn evidence did he ever mention attending to the aft-starboard boats, nor did any witness name him there.

Which "five boats" he had seen go away without an officer he never specified - he does not, however, state that they were actually boats he had assisted in loading. Pitman left in 5, of course, but this may have slipped his mind when he was speaking to Moody. Assuming his "five boats" was correct (and he may have been in error), we can count 7, 3 and 1. 5 is possibly one he was mistaken about, or he may have been referring to one of the port boats. I see no motivation for him to deliberately obscure his presence at the aft starboard boats if he had been there.

I also question the idea that Murdoch directly loaded and lowered Boat 13. While he was in charge of that quarter of the deck, there is a lack of specific evidence that places him at this boat. I believe it more likely, as per Lee's evidence, that it was Moody who oversaw this boat.

Matters might be clarified if George could give us the specific times he's working from to construct his narrative - i.e. exactly when he thinks each boat was launched.

 

[George Jacub]

Dear Inger and Lester:

Let me address some of your points...

1. I deliberately avoided the debate of specific launch times to concentrate, instead, on the order of launch. The many discussions on ET and elsewhere about launch times include a serious misunderstanding of the order in which the rear boats were lowered.

2. There is no possible way that Lowe went directly from Boat No. 1 to Boat No. 14. It defies logic and the evidence.

Lowe and Murdoch worked together to launch Boat No. 1. The distance from No. 1 to No. 9 is the same for both men and would take the same time to transit. Are we to assume that as Murdoch stopped to load No. 9, Lowe passed by No. 11, passed by No. 13, crossed over to port and arrived at No. 14 just as it was almost fully loaded? And the first person he spoke with was Moody, who obviously hadn't launched No. 13 yet?

That scenario only works if Boats No. 12 and 14, at least, were loaded well before No. 9. And the only argument for that possibility is that Lightoller abandoned his efforts at No. 4, before Murdoch started loading No. 1, and went to No. 12. But that still doesn't give him enough time, unless you accept that it took Lightoller and Wilde less time to load two regular-sized lifeboats with 30 or more people each than it took Murdoch and Lowe to load emergency boat No. 1 with 13.

As for the estimate of "the better part of an hour", that comes from Lightoller's testimony before the U.S. Senate. He said he estimated it took 15 to 20 minutes to load and lower a lifeboat. Taking the lower estimate I used 15 minutes for No. 9, 15 minutes for No. 11 and at least 10 minutes to load No. 13. That's 40 minutes to which you must add the time to walk from No. 1 to No. 9 and to cross from No. 13 to No. 14. Say, a minimum of 45 minutes. Given that No. 11 was delayed by the crush to get in and No. 13 by a search for more women, the better part of an hour becomes plausible.

The time link between port and starboard boats is Murdoch. Beesley sees him leave No. 13 to go to port, and Frederick Crowe sees him at No. 14, which is, coincidentally, directly across from No. 13. Each man made his observation independently of the other. No. 13 has just been ordered down and No. 14 was obviously still being loaded since Murdoch ordered Crowe to get in.

 

[Lester Mitcham]

Hello George,

Thank you for your detailed reply. Re point No 1 see here: Titanic: The Lifeboat Launching Sequence Re-Examined Specifically: Table 2 Launch Times Re-Examined

"And the only argument for that possibility is that Lightoller abandoned his efforts at No. 4, before Murdoch started loading No. 1." Surely he did. He moved on to boats 8 and 6, with 8 leaving before 1.

Why as per the above link could Moody not have gone from 16 to 13 and Murdoch from 13 and 15 to boat 10? Although I regard it as unlikely could Murdoch [if he was in fact the officer seen by Crowe(?)] have been at 14 prior to going to 9?

You say you: ". deliberately avoided the debate of specific launch times to concentrate, instead, on the order of launch. ..........." Appreciated but with what seems to be a greatly over-extended time-frame for the launching of the after boats I believe you now need to give times for all of the boats. In order to retain your best part of an hour it seems that unless you greatly alter the times for the forward starboard boats, that if 1 left at 1:05 then you now have 16, 14 and 12 leaving at close to 2am which leaves little time for boat 10 unless it replaces D as the last boat? Also you have to get Murdoch from 10 to C or was he at C before 10 and then back to A? and Lightoller from 12 back to 4, or would you have him go from 4 to 12 to D? - Rethink your hour calculation and might it be possible to have all of the after starboard boats launched before the after port boats? Seemingly only if they all left [as with the after starboard boats] within a 10 minute timeframe in order to get Lightoller forward for boat 4 and Murdoch to boat C.

Lester

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

When George Behe, Tad Fitch and I worked on our own lifeboat timeline, we first worked on the sequence of events, as George Jacub seems to be doing. At that point, we had to start to fit things into the existing time points we had.

That said, we do not see how it is possible for there to be an hour between 1 and 14.

As far as the 'That scenario only works if Boats No. 12 and 14, at least, were loaded well before No. 9. And the only argument for that possibility is that Lightoller abandoned his efforts at No. 4....'. No, the argument that shows that 14 was launched BEFORE 9, is the prescence of Seaman McGough at both, and leaving the Titanic in 9.

Also George - can you explain your statement that Archer came over to port later than Clench or Scarrott? Just because he lowered 3 boats on starboard vs. 1 each for Clench or Scarrott is not enough evidence to show he was later.

 

[Inger Sheil]

As always, an interesting discussion gentlemen (I remember spending hours on international phone calls with Kerri Sundberg regarding questions of the launch order). As I've said before to you, Bill, the reason I find your timeline so generally persuasive is that it resolves difficulties rather than creates them (for example, explaining Moody's movements). George, I'm afraid I'm not pursuaded by your construction of Lowe's actions. Why should we assume he passed 11 and 13 before crossing to the port side? I believe Murdoch and Lowe had separated at the loading of Boat 1, with Lowe probably remaining at 1 to see it all the way to the water while Murdoch went aft to begin preparing the aft starboard quarter boats. Lowe, already at the forward end of the boat deck, could have crossed over to the forward port side to see how the launching was progressing there - he knew it was already underway, as he'd seen operations at these boats when he emerged from his cabin. We know at some point he encountered Lightoller (where along the portside is not specific), who may have ordered him aft or ordered him to assist where needed.

He himself said in an affidavit that after Boat 1 he went to the port aft quarter because that was where the boats were currently being filled: "I went there because those appeared to be the boats which at the moment were being filled and I thought that I might be able to render assistance."

In order to believe that Lowe worked at the aft starboard quarter boats we would have to believe that he either decided to deliberately ommit this action in all four of his sworn accounts, or it completely slipped his mind. Is either scenario likely? I think decidedly not - what motivation could he have? Working on these boats would be rather to his credit than otherwise. Further, we have no witnesses that place him at these boats.

Using Crowe to place Murdoch at 14 is tenuous indeed - Crowe was from the victualling department and had never served with either Wilde or Murdoch. His identification of Murdoch is tentatively worded, and I suspect has a good deal more to do with Murdoch's high profile in accounts of the disaster than in actual personal familiarity.

I think the sequence of events as related by Lowe is an essential piece of evidence in determining the sequence of loading and launching, as he relates his movements around the deck and puts the loading of the forward starboard boats and the completion of the three very aft most port boats in relation to each other.

 

[George Jacub]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I had to swim through an ocean of notes to refresh my memory of the events surrounding the forward boats.
Lester, regarding when Lightoller left the forward port boats and went aft...
The best evidence for this comes from Lightoller himself, beginning with his testimony before the British Inquiry. Here are the relevant quotes:
"...if I may give it to you in the order that I was working. I swung out No. 4 with the intention of boarding all the boats from A deck. I lowered No. 4 down to A deck and gave orders for the women and children to do down to A deck to be loaded through the windows."
"But as I was going down the ladder after giving the order someone sung out and said the windows were up. I countermanded the order and told the people to come back to the Boat Deck and instructed two or three, I think they were stewards, to find the handles and lower the windows."
Lightoller estimated it took him 6-7 minutes to swing out and lower No. 4 and another 2-3 minutes to give the order for women and children to go to A deck, then countermand the order. Estimated time of the aborted effort to launch No. 4 is then at 8-10 minutes.
"That left No. 4 hanging at A deck so then I went on to No. 6." he said.
Q. What is the next one that you dealt with?
A. "Well, it was a boat further aft on the port side; it's actual number I really could not say with accuracy. I am under the impression it was No. 8."
But notice what he says next.
"I left the lowering to the Chief. He can along and, of course, being Senior Officer took charge and so I went then, I think, to No. 4 to complete the launching of No. 4."
In other words, Lightoller says he loaded No. 8, but Chief Officer Wilde was left to lower it to the ocean.
Something of great significance to the discussion happened around Boat No. 8. My read is that it happened before the loading of No. 8 started, although it's possible it happened after No. 8 was lowered. The 'when' doesn't really matter compared to the 'what'. Again, we must listen to Mr. Lightoller as he told the story in his book Titanic and Other Ships, six chapters of which were reprinted in The Story of the Titanic as told by its survivors, edited by Jack Winocour.
Lightoller writes about allowing Major Peuchen into No. 6 when the boat was halfway down.
"It was about this time that the Chief Officer came out from the starboard side and asked, did I know where the firearms were?"
"I told the Chief Officer, "Yes, I know where they are. Come along and I'll get them for you," and into the First Officer's cabin we went--the Chief, Murdoch, the Captain and myself--where I hauled them out still in all their pristine newness and grease."
When did the distribution of the guns happen? It happened after starboard boats No. 7 and No. 5 had been launched and as No. 3 was being loaded. Lowe was left alone for a time, obviously (in hindsight) during the minutes when Murdoch was getting his gun.
Newly armed, Lightoller either a) went to No. 8 and loaded the lifeboat before handing it over to Wilde to launch or b) went to No. 4. Remember, he had given orders to lower the windows. It's only common sense he would have checked that his orders were being followed. Although he testified to the Senate Inquiry that he "decided it was not worth while lowering them down", he ultimately loaded No. 4 through those very windows.
But don't overlook the importance of the timing. What's the absolute earliest Lightoller could have gone aft (even assuming he never went back to No. 4 to see what was happening)? It's after No. 7 is gone, after No. 5 is gone, and after No. 3 is half-loaded.
This takes us back to the cornerstone of my thesis.
The rear port boats--- No. 12, No. 14 and No. 16--- were loaded in an overlapping fashion. Only when all three were loaded were they lowered one by one. The rear starboard boats were loaded and lowered individually. Even granting Lightoller a head start of 1 1/2 boats, he could not fill the three rear port boats quicker than Murdoch could reach, load and launch No. 9.
*****
Bill...
The McGough hypothesis rests on a very slender reed (or two, to be exact.)
One is the testimony by Boatswain's mate A. Haines regarding Boat No. 9.
Mr. HAINES.
Yes, sir. I was in charge of that boat. That was my own boat, there being two sailors with me.
Senator SMITH.
What were their names?
Mr. HAINES.
One was named McGough , and there was one by the name of Peters. That was my boat's crew.

The other is the observation by John Scarrott at No. 14.

Scarrott: I know the man that was lowering the afterfall, it was McGough.

That's it. The sum total of the evidence. McGough is seen by two men in two different places. We have nothing from McGough himself to guide us. The most obvious answer is that one of the two witnesses is wrong. My guess is Scarrott.

Compare that to the Murdoch linkage. Beesley sees Murdoch leave No. 13 and go to port. On the port side a sailor sees Murdoch, exactly where he would wind up if he crossed the ship from No. 13 and at exactly the right time.

Was he headed for No. 10? And leave boat No. 15 empty? Not a chance. Why did he go to port anyway? Was it because he had run out of women on the starboard side? Plausible.

As for Mr. Archer...

Clench was unlacing a boat when sent to port. Boats had to be unlaced before they were lowered (by Archer).
Scarrot told the British Inquiry he was "the only sailorman" at No. 14, so he took charge.

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

George,

You are correct regarding McGough - that is the sum total of the evidence. However, I cannot see why you say it is 'obvious' that one of the witnesses is wrong. The two sightings are *not* mutually exclusive. And, as Inger says, it resolves difficulties instead of creating them.

No argument regarding Murdoch. We published that we agree that Murdoch headed to port for 10, after working on the aft starboard boats.

I still feel your reasons for believing Archer came over later than Clench or Scarrott are weak. We cannot assume that all boats were at the same point (unlacing vs. lowered), so one boat could be further advanced in the sequence than another. You could be right in your supposition, but you could also be wrong.

 

[Lester Mitcham]

Hello George,

This is becoming confusing. After giving up on boat 4 Lightoller moved on to 6 and then to 8? Or was it 8 and then 6? While he generally says 6 after the failed attempt on 4, in reply to Question 13926 he agrees to 8 [not 6] after 4 was on A-deck. - No mention anywhere of boat 12. - While in reply to Question 13929 he goes from 8 back to 4, so are you saying boat 12 after boat 4?
At both Inquires Lightoller says he went from 4 to the port collapsible. - Surely 12 between 8/6 and 4?
In Winocour he lowers boat 4 and at the same time sends the Bosun's Mate and 6 hands to open the gangway door abreast of No 2 hatch. He then passed to boat 6.
Given that you agree 5 and 7 had gone [and 6 as well ?] when boat 3 was being loaded are you now arguing for very early times for those boats in order to still claim the best part of an hour between 1 and 14? Also what is the time difference between 8/6 and 4? - You need to give times.

In you reply to Bill you again have Murdoch crossing over from 13 to 14 because that is "exactly where he would wind up if he crossed the ship from No. 13 and at exactly the right time." Surely unless Murdoch crossed over via the raised roof of the 1st Class Smoke Room he would have ended up at 16 or 10 or 12, but not 14?

Lester

 

[Inger Sheil]

Thanks for that response, George -

Compare that to the Murdoch linkage. Beesley sees Murdoch leave No. 13 and go to port. On the port side a sailor sees Murdoch, exactly where he would wind up if he crossed the ship from No. 13 and at exactly the right time.

I don't think the Murdoch linkage you've used to have him make a transition from 13 to 14 is strong at all. One passenger (who could not even be certain it was Murdoch he saw) observed an officer cross to port, and at 14 a steward (who, again, could not be certain) thought the officer he saw there was Murdoch. I doubt Crowe's identification of the senior officer at the initial loading of 14 for the reasons I've outlined above - I think that the identifications of Wilde as the officer involved are more viable.

I'm still not clear on your thoughts for what motivation Lowe might have had for concealing his presence at the aft starboard quarter. I think any attempt at reconstructing a timeline should take into account the consistent narrative sequence he puts forward of progressing from the forward starboard boats to the aft port boats, because that is where loading was taking place.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

If I may add an observation here. The aft starboard boats were the last to be uncovered and swung out. There is evidence that the uncovering processes started on the port side about midnight after Boxhall returned from his second inspection forward. The first boats that were worked on were boats 4 and 16, and those involved in uncovering suggested a sequence of 4,6,8 forward, and 16,14,12,10 aft. As these were being worked on, others coming up started to uncovered and swing out the starboard forward boats. Uncovering the aft starboard boats first began after boat 7 was already loaded and about to be lowered (see Ward). That work began at no. 9 and worked its way aft to 15 by boatswain's mate Haines and company. It also seems they were underhanded as Scarrott tells of crossing over to work on 13 after finishing with 4, 6, and 8 at the request of the boatswain if I recall correctly. He was later sent back to the port side by Wilde I believe.

Meanwhile, while these aft starboard boats were still being uncovered and swung out, we find that loading had started at boats 12, 14, and 16 over on the port side. I believe 10 at that time was uncovered but not swung out yet when the loading of 12, 14, and 16 began. It makes sense to find Lowe going to the port side as the aft starboard boats were not yet ready to be loaded. We also have from Lowe that these last three port boats were sent down about the same time. The apparent sequence from others was 16,14,12. The only boat on the aft starboard side that was loaded when those 3 were being lowered was no. 9, which apparently was sent down just after 14 if Haines and Scarrott were both right about McGough. Boat 9 was pulling away from the ship when 11 was still loading from A deck. As 11 reached the water, 13 was seen coming down with 15 about a minute or two behind. It would take about 1 minute to lower a boat 10 feet assuming that the falls can be played out at an average of 1 foot per second from the deck. From A deck, that is about 5 minutes to lower.

 

[George Jacub]

Bill...
As for Archer, the existing evidence is circumstantial but its all there is. You can't prove a negative. I can't prove, say, that Archer was at No. 14 before Scarrott but left before Scarrot arrived. Scarrott says he was the only sailor there so he took charge. Archer doesn't contradict him. Clench says he was the first at No. 12. Archer doesn't contradict him, either. Working with what evidence there is, I looked for anything that might confirm or challenge what they said. What they were doing when they were sent to port is slim confirmation indeed, but its all there is. Don't accept it, you're left with the uncontradicted statements of Scarrott and Clench.

Lester...
You've answered your own challenge. Titanic research is confusing. That's why I prefer to work with broad strokes, like the order lifeboats left the ship, rather than try to claim I know what happened with each boat within 5 minutes 96 years ago. Discretion is the better part of valour.

Lightoller did indeed go from No.8 aft to No. 12 and, as I showed, to the other aft port boats. He does give the impression in his answers to the Senate committee that he went from No. 8 to No. 4.
Why he was so reluctant to discuss what he saw and what he did at the aft boats is a mystery.


Re: the best part of an hour between 1 and 14?

I re-read Lightoller's Senate testimony. He said he estimated it took him 15-20 minutes to clear and lower No. 4, not each boat. Again, taking broad strokes, the crew lowered 9 boats on the starboard side of the ship in roughly 90 minutes. That works out to an average of 10 minutes a boat. Using that rough rule of thumb, it would be slightly more than half an hour between the lowering of No. 1 and the launch of No. 14.

As for finding Murdoch were he would be expected to be...an officer entering a fresh battlefield goes to the most senior officer he can find to be briefed. . In this case Murdoch went to First Officer Wilde--- at No. 14.

re: the indentifications of Murdoch.
When a witness says he thought he saw Murdoch, he's not saying he doesn't know who he saw but he'll take a wild guess and say it was Murdoch. He's saying he saw Murdoch, but if you say it wasn't Murdoch, he won't argue the point. What a coincidence then that two men independently picked Murdoch as the man they saw. I'm not a believer in coincidence.

Inger...

I'm keeping Lowe's likely motivation under my hat for the time being.

Samuel...
You wrote: "It makes sense to find Lowe going to the port side as the aft starboard boats were not yet ready to be loaded."

This is directly contradicted by schoolteacher Lawrence Beesley in his book The Loss of the S.S. Titanic. I quote from the book as reprinted in The Story of the Titanic as told by its survivors, edited by Jack Winocour

"The crew was now in the boats, the sailors standing by the pulley ropes let them slip through the cleats in jerks, and down the boats went till level with B deck; women and children climbed over the rail into the boats and filled them; when full, they were lowered one by one, beginning with No. 9, the first on the second-class deck, and working backwards toward 15. All this we could see by peering over the edge of the boat-deck, which was now quite open to the sea, the four boats which formed a natural barrier being lowered from the deck and leaving it exposed."

He writes of two women refused entry to the first-class deck. Then picks up the story.

"Almost immediately after this incident, a report went around among men on the top deck--the starboard side that men were to be taken off on the port side; how it originated, I am quite unable to say, but can only suppose that as the port boats, numnbers 10 to 16, were not lowered from the top deck quite so soon as the starboard boats (they could still be seen on deck), it might be assumed that women were being taken off on one side and men on the other..."

While there are some timeframe problems with Beesley's account that still need to be straighened out, his observation is clear.

 

[Inger Sheil]

re: the indentifications of Murdoch.
When a witness says he thought he saw Murdoch, he's not saying he doesn't know who he saw but he'll take a wild guess and say it was Murdoch. He's saying he saw Murdoch, but if you say it wasn't Murdoch, he won't argue the point. What a coincidence then that two men independently picked Murdoch as the man they saw. I'm not a believer in coincidence.

Hallo George -

I still find it very problematical that you're assuming that because one man thought he saw Murdoch go in one direction and another man thought he saw him elsewhere in that general direction that the two men *must* be correct, and base on this a time frame that you use to try to discredit the evidence of a man about his own movements. That doesn't work for me. Crowe said he wasn't sure "whether it was the Chief Officer or the First Officer", but it was his "belief" the man's name was Murdoch. Crowe, as I have already pointed out, was a member of the victualling crew and had never served with either Murdoch or Wilde before. However, in the wake of the disaster the name "Murdoch" had a higher profile than that of Wilde. Had Crowe known who he was with any degree of certainty I would have expected the same sort of unqualified response that Scarrott gave when he identified Wilde at the boat. His account is not without problems - he claims that "Murdoch" ordered him into the boat after loading women and children, and yet other witnesses such as Scarrott and Cameron have a senior officer, if present at all, only during the preliminary loading - indeed, Cameron emphasised the fact that there was no senior officer present, only two juniors (Moody and Lowe) overseeing the loading and lowering.

I'm willing to listen to any theory you might have on why Lowe would choose to conceal any involvement he had in the loading of the aft starboard quarter boats - I have to say that in ten years of researching the man I've never come across a hint of any motivation for doing so, but one should always be open to new information. However, until you can produce supporting data for your contention, I'll continue to argue that any motivation Lowe might have had would be to emphasise, not hide, a role in loading those boats as well.

 

[Lester Mitcham]

Hello George,

So the "best part of an hour" is now "just over half an hour"? - That gives back about 20 minutes.

Your order for the boats: 7+5, 6, 3, 8+1, then 9, 11, 13+15, followed by 16, 14, 12, with 2+10 at about the sametime followed by 4, C & D ? - Is that correct? Your main conclusion being the after starboard boats before any of the after port boats?

Lester

 

[Samuel Halpern]

George. If you look at the plans of the boat deck, you can easily see that the location on the starboard side from which you can see what was going on over on the port side somewhat was just ahead of the raised roof of the 1st class smoke room, near the forward part boat 11. It is also a crossover point from one side to the other where the aft boats were. The port side boats that would be partially visible from that location are the forward end of No. 12 and the aft end of No. 10. And we know that No. 10 was still "on deck" in its chocks until after 12, 14, and 16 had all left the ship. Beesley was making a few assumptions about what was going on over at the port side.

The description he gave of how the aft starboard boats were being handled was a general description, not an account from which you can develop a time line from. It doesn't mean that the incident with the two women who came over from the port side and were blocked entry to the first class space forward took place while the aft boats were being loaded. In fact, since these women apparently were trying to get to the boats on the starboard side forward, the time that this took place must have been while the forward starboard boats were still being loaded and launched.

The problem with all the evidence we have available is that little of it is very reliable. There is much contradiction with many highly unreliable subjective estimates of time or intervals of time. What people remembered weeks after the event cannot be trusted unless it can be supported by many. Beesley, for example, said all the aft starboard boats were lowered to the deck below before being loaded. Yet, boatswain's mate Haines, who was in charge of No. 9 was very clear about it being loaded and lowered from the boat deck. Ward back him up about that, and notice 11 being loaded from A deck after 9 reached the reached the water.