
Arun Vajpey
Member
Which in turn made it easier for others to exonerate Captain Lord and the crew of the Californian, even writing books about it.With the Californian, he should have left no stone unturned, but he left a number unturned
Which in turn made it easier for others to exonerate Captain Lord and the crew of the Californian, even writing books about it.With the Californian, he should have left no stone unturned, but he left a number unturned
Which in turn made it easier for others to exonerate Captain Lord and the crew of the Californian, even writing books about it.
Spot-on, Michael.Yes he was, but I think you're missing the point. With the Californian, he should have left no stone unturned, but he left a number unturned. You don't hear from Stone or Gibson until Lord Mersey ropes them in, and as the guys on watch, they should have been called from the start.
They weren't.
Am I right in thinking that in your opinion if there had been a more thorough investigation involving the Captain and crew of the Californian on both sides of the Atlantic and the information obtained from those testimonies collated and compared with related ones from other sources, we would have had a clearer picture about what happened between the Titanic and the Californian?Not being as thorough as he needed to be, Senator Smith missed an opportunity to get to the bottom of things.
Hello Julian.Hi Jim,
We know for sure that Evans misjudged how close the Birma was, but Evans was in very regular contact with the Birma as evidenced by the Baltic PV.
Sam's conclusions are sound, and I would suggest unable to be criticised.
Evans cannot have been referring to the Almerian. It was too far way. As Evans was never asked about the exchange in the Baltic's PV, there is obviously a degree of supposition, but I agree with Sam on the matter of the Almerian.
Hello Arun.Am I right in thinking that in your opinion if there had been a more thorough investigation involving the Captain and crew of the Californian on both sides of the Atlantic and the information obtained from those testimonies collated and compared with related ones from other sources, we would have had a clearer picture about what happened between the Titanic and the Californian?
we would have had a clearer picture about what happened between the Titanic and the Californian?
In respect of Michael's posts, for which I am grateful, and always read carefully, I am not too sure that if Stone, Gibson, Stewart, Groves etc had been called to give evidence to the USA Inquiry that we would know anything more about 'mystery ships' or anything else
Hello Julian.Gosh, a lot to catch up with!
In respect of Michael's posts, for which I am grateful, and always read carefully, I am not too sure that if Stone, Gibson, Stewart, Groves etc had been called to give evidence to the USA Inquiry that we would know anything more about 'mystery ships' or anything else.
Gill's affidavit provides details of disquiet amongst the Engine Room Officers as to what had happened. One of these Officers was a witness to his affidavit. The disquiet on board is confirmed by Evans in his USA Inquiry testimony - reluctantly extracted from him by Senator Smith.
I think myself that Senator Smith extracted enough damning evidence from Captain Lord and Evans that was arguably enough.
It is arguable that no more would have been forthcoming from Stone, Gibson, Groves, and Stewart at the time in the USA. They all had to steam back to the UK with Captain Lord! Groves then decided to partially 'spill the beans' as far as he did with quite a few 'ifs and buts' and didn't go to sea again with Captain Lord and the Leyland Line.
You all should bear in mind that Captain Lord witheld at the very least 2 vitally important statements to both Inquiries - those of Stone and Gibson of 18th April.
In that context, I think that Senator Smith did the best he could in the circumstances.
Hello Arun.I believe Captain Lord hinted in an interview after the disaster that there was a certain amount of animosity between some of his crew and himself. He did not elaborate though; I guess he was too proud a man to let things descend into a mud-slinging match.
But if investigations on both sides of the Atlantic about the Californian affair had been as transparent and thorough as Michael Standart indicated, one cannot assume that the outcome would have been what Lord's supporters - or his detractors for that matter - expected. In contemporary times, the argument would have continued just as passionately, only on slightly different lines.
Yes, Jim; but wasn't that lack of thoroughness that Michael commented on in his posts? I thought we were talking about a hypothetical situation IF the investigations about the Californian affair had been completely transparent and thorough. I did not claim that they actually were.It was anything but thorough.
Hello Arun.Yes, Jim; but wasn't that lack of thoroughness that Michael commented on in his posts? I thought we were talking about a hypothetical situation IF the investigations about the Californian affair had been completely transparent and thorough. I did not claim that they actually were.
That's right, but that is not the point being made.Birma did not arrive on the scene until Californian was on the east side of the ice barrier and beside the Carpathia - an hour after the latter had passed the stopped Mount Temple.