Mystery ship candidates

[Jim Currie]

Carpathia's first contact with Titanic was at 10:35pm NYT, not 11:35. Evans confirmed that at the BI. It was at that time that Boxhall's "corrected" CQD was being sent out. Ypiranga's PV confirms that as late as 10:28, the original distress position was being sent, Durrant's PV was not written down in real time. His note to Moore had the Smith position, not Boxhall's. He sent an amended position to Moore and when he wrote up his PV he put only the amended position in and never mentioned that it had changed.

Yes, I know about the note of the first distress position. Moore gave it to Smith and it is in your own National Archives.

By the time the British Inquiry came around, the PVs had all been 'adjusted'
However, there was little time to do anything with the Olympic's. PV. You are missing or ignoring the obvious, Sam.

The times shown on the official versions of the PVs do not fit.

Here is an extract from Bride's letter to his Traffic Manager before leaving New York. Note the date.

No. 294 WEST NINETY-SECOND STREET,
New York City, N. Y., April 27, 1912.
W. R. Cross, Esq

"The Frankfurt was the first to answer. We gave him the ships position, which he acknowledged by "OK, stbdi."
The second answer was from the Carpathia who immediately responded with his position and informed us he was coming to our assistance as fast as possible.

So Bride went into print with his Frankfurt first story.
However, that second response -we know - is a downright lie because, at that time, Cottam did not know Titanic was in distress and had no idea where his ship was. So how much more was a lie? The name of the first vessel to contact them?

Then we have his story about the Carpathia communication.

"These communications I reported myself to the captain, who was, when I found him, engaging in superintending the filling and lowering of the lifeboats."
The noise of escaping steam directly over our cabin caused a deal of trouble to Mr. Phillips in reading the replies to our distress call, and this I also reported to Capt. Smith, who by some means managed to get it abated."
(We know from QM Olliver, he took a message to the engine room before midnight)
"The Olympic next answered our call, but as far as I know, Mr. Phillips did not go to much trouble with her."

So we have Frankfurt, then Carpathia, then Olympic.
The first two did not provide positions when they made contact.

When Carpathia eventually supplied her coordinates and intentions - Bride took them to Smith and the two of them returned to the Wireless Room to find Phillips establishing contact with Olympic.
From Olympic's PV, we know that the time then was 11-10 pm New York time.
"NYT

11.00 p.m.	Hear Titanic sending out signals of distress, and I answered his calls immediately.
11.10 p.m.	Titanic replies and gives me his position, 41.46 N., 50.14 W., and says, "We have struck an iceberg." Reported this information to bridge immediately. Our distance from the Titanic505 miles.

This, from the US Inquiry:

"Mr. BRIDE: She [Carpathia} sent her latitude and longitude and told him she was coming along as quickly as possible. She turned around and was steaming full speed, or words to that effect.
Senator SMITH.: What was done with this message?
Mr. BRIDE.: It was taken to the captain, sir. I took it to the captain.
Senator SMITH.: What did the captain say when you delivered that message?
Mr. BRIDE.; He came back with me to the cabin, sir.
Mr. BRIDE.:He asked Mr. Phillips what other ships he was in communication with, sir.
Senator SMITH.: And what was said?
Mr. BRIDE: He interrupted Mr. Phillips when Mr. Phillips was establishing communication with the Olympic, so he was told the Olympic was there."

Once again, I point -out the obvious.
If Carpathia first contacted at 10-35 pm EST - why did it take until 11-00 pm EST for her to provide her coordinates so that Bride could take them to Captain Smith in the wheelhouse?
Mount Temple's PV seems to back-up Bride's evidence and that of the Olympic: The next record of communication between Titanic and Carpathia was recorded as:
"

10.59

M.G.Y. working M.P.A

"
"

 

[Julian Atkins]

Frankfurt was most definitely the first vessel to contact Californian and then. it was understood by Lord that her Operator told Evans that Titanic had sunk. It is in Lord's evidence.

I am very pleased to see that at long last Jim accepts that Captain Lord and Evans knew early that morning that Titanic had sunk.

I suppose that the small ship kept under observation by Captain Moore on the Mount Temple for many hours could have been semaphored to. And a Morse lamp can be seen too I presume both in daylight and in night time. Annoying that this small ship wasn't identified, but it cannot have been 'the mystery ship' in any event.

 

[john barrass]

Hi, John! Nice to see you here.

I was actually shocked at just how slipshod the U.S. Senate Inquiry was. Had something like this happened during my service with my ship implicated, there would have been all kinds if legal eagles...like the Naval Criminal Investigative Service along with a number of different investigative boards going all over the ship, looking for witnesses and interrogating ANYBODY and EVERYBODY known or suspected to have been on watch. It would have had a striking resemblance to a witch hunt.

Who did Senator Smith Interview?

Captain Lord...The suspect, whom they didn't bother telling he was a suspect.
Ernest Gill...The paid snitch that even Captain Lord's harshest and most unforgiving critics dislike and mistrust, and finally,
Cyril "Polly The Parrot" Evans: You know, they guy who didn't see diddly squat! All he knew was what he was told.

That's it.

Not very impressive.

The Mersey Wreck Commission wasn't much better but at least they had the sense to interview the guys on watch and the other officers as well.

Hey Michael.....i can have some forgiveness particularly for the American enquiry as this catastrophic event dropped into their lap, time was of the essence .......hell there was even conjecture that the Americans had the right to to subpoena British citizens to testify ......I think we would all agree the Poms would have bolted had Ismay had his way ......

The Americans did the initial hard lifting peeling back what really happened and calling on those who they believed who could shed light on the event . The English just sat back on their backsides , picked the eyes out of the enquiry and when it was their turn had already picked their scapegoat and went from there ...........leaving us all 100 years later none the wiser of who was where and when ......

 

[Michael H. Standart]

The Yanks didn't call everybody they should have and I think you're right about Mersey's happy bunch having made up their minds before even the first of the witnesses was called to the stand. It wasn't as if they were unaware of what was happening on my side of the pond. They had people there and they were getting the information. They knew very well what was being said and by who.

Fast forward a century and about all I can say with any certainty was that all the combatants in this rancorous debate proved they were no agreed upon time zones in 1912, and also that they didn't have GPS.

My own take is that Lord and Company dropped the ball, but the point where Captain Lord's critics and I part company is in the assertion of cowardice and indifference on the part of Captain Lord and his officers. Whatever their mistakes, it wasn't out of the malice frequently attributed to them. Having been out to sea and knowing how easy it is to get fooled even in supposedly perfect visual conditions, I understand all too well how they could be confused by what they saw.

There but for the grace of the gods go I and all that.

 

[john barrass]

The Yanks didn't call everybody they should have and I think you're right about Mersey's happy bunch having made up their minds before even the first of the witnesses was called to the stand. It wasn't as if they were unaware of what was happening on my side of the pond. They had people there and they were getting the information. They knew very well what was being said and by who.

Fast forward a century and about all I can say with any certainty was that all the combatants in this rancorous debate proved they were no agreed upon time zones in 1912, and also that they didn't have GPS.

My own take is that Lord and Company dropped the ball, but the point where Captain Lord's critics and I part company is in the assertion of cowardice and indifference on the part of Captain Lord and his officers. Whatever their mistakes, it wasn't out of the malice frequently attributed to them. Having been out to sea and knowing how easy it is to get fooled even in supposedly perfect visual conditions, I understand all too well how they could be confused by what they saw.

There but for the grace of the gods go I and all that.

100% with you on your thoughts .....you know the more books I get on the California and other ships perhaps in the vicinity the more confused I get . I've got about 5 and of course most have a certain ' bent" on which way they go. Paul Lees book I feel attempts to educate me but "fair dinkum" ( aussie saying) with all the charts and sketches its too much for my bonce ........

Ive often wished a book could be produced from the statements provided a type of "overlap" could be published so Titanic is there , California is there , Mount Temple is there etc etc ....so if witness A says this ship is in this direction with the co-ordinates .....like a cellophane page where each statement can go over the top of the last one ....

I'm not sure if I make sense but that is the best description I can give ....

A book that gives us all a chance to decipher the conflicting testimony

 

[Michael H. Standart]

The problem with trying to decipher the testimony is that the people doing the deciphering are advocates for one side or the other.

Paul Lee and Sam Halpern make the case for the prosecution, and Senan Molony makes the case for the defense. The thing is that it took Paul and Sam a lot of time to gather a centuries worth of research and put it all together.

I think Senan does a brilliant job of showing just what the defense could have done in 1912 to rip the state's case apart and establish reasonable doubt, which is really all the defense barrister even needs to do. I also believe that this was the reason that Captain Lord never had his day in court. The powers that be could have lost and they weren't about to risk it.

Win, lose or draw, Captain Lord should have had his day in court where he would have been able to make full answer and defense. This didn't happen.

He was tried and convicted without ever really being tried and convicted and afterwards had no recourse or appeal because legally, nothing happened. This, IMO, is the real injustice.

 

[Jim Currie]

I am very pleased to see that at long last Jim accepts that Captain Lord and Evans knew early that morning that Titanic had sunk.

I suppose that the small ship kept under observation by Captain Moore on the Mount Temple for many hours could have been semaphored to. And a Morse lamp can be seen too I presume both in daylight and in night time. Annoying that this small ship wasn't identified, but it cannot have been 'the mystery ship' in any event.

Nonsense, Julian.
Lord was 'told' that Titanic has sunk - that is not the same as 'knowing' she had sunk. Furthermore; no matter who told him such a thing - they could not possibly have known that she had sunk. Only Rostron knew that before the semaphore communication with the Californian.
In 1912,daylight signaling lights were as rare as hen's teeth and absent on merchant ships.
What would be the point in contacting the small vessel near Mount Temple - why didn't the small vessel contact Californian or Mount Templel?
It's a two=way street, Julian.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Nonsense, Julian.
Lord was 'told' that Titanic has sunk - that is not the same as 'knowing' she had sunk. Furthermore; no matter who told him such a thing - they could not possibly have known that she had sunk. Only Rostron knew that before the semaphore communication with the Californian.
In 1912,daylight signaling lights were as rare as hen's teeth and absent on merchant ships.
What would be the point in contacting the small vessel near Mount Temple - why didn't the small vessel contact Californian or Mount Templel?
It's a two=way street, Julian.

Well, for myself, if you are told that something has happened, then that constitutes 'knowing'/'knowledge', in the absence of any other information.

If both the Frankfurt and Durrant on the Mount Temple told Evans when he sent out his 'CQ' when woken up that Titanic had sunk, then I don't know what the point was of The Californian's dash to the rescue going in and out of the ice field twice.

Perhaps if around 5.15am on the 15th Cottam had heard The Californian's 'CQ' he could have answered don't bother/"stand by". But Cottam didn't transmit anything until around 8.35am, having been silent for some 7 hours.

 

[Jim Currie]

Well, for myself, if you are told that something has happened, then that constitutes 'knowing'/'knowledge', in the absence of any other information.

If both the Frankfurt and Durrant on the Mount Temple told Evans when he sent out his 'CQ' when woken up that Titanic had sunk, then I don't know what the point was of The Californian's dash to the rescue going in and out of the ice field twice.

Perhaps if around 5.15am on the 15th Cottam had heard The Californian's 'CQ' he could have answered don't bother/"stand by". But Cottam didn't transmit anything until around 8.35am, having been silent for some 7 hours.

The blind acceptance of information is one of the reasons why propaganda works, Julian; and you know my thoughts regarding assumption.
Ask yourself again: how did Frankfurt know Titanic had sunk, when, according to the Marconi version; when Frankfurt's Operator asked Titanic what was the matter, he was told to 'shut-up'?
According to Sam (Birma PV): Frankfurt called Birma at 4-10 am that morning and asked if the latter had heard Titanic. - the word 'sunk' was not used.
Is it a coincidence that- according to the Mount Temple PV - Birma and Frankfurt were in conversation 5 minutes before MT was in contact with the Californian? The latter time recorded was 3-25 EST. -5-11 ship time. But Birma's CV records that first contact as 6 am - a full 2 hours 35 minutes ahead of EST which is rubbish.
Heavens! Even our hero, Rostron thought she was still afloat an hour before he arrived on the scene.

As for Cottam? If, as you say he was silent until 8-35 am - how was the following not heard by the Mount Temple? It comes from Cottam's sworn evidence on Day 15 of the UK Inquiry;
"17116. Just let us follow what you did after that. Your ship is turned round and making for her. Did you endeavour to keep in touch with the "Titanic"?
A: - I did the whole time.
17117. The whole time?
A:- Yes.
17118. Could you overhear what the "Titanic" was trying to say to other ships?
A: - I was helping the "Titanic" to communicate.
17119. Would you explain that?
A:- Well, the "Titanic" told me when I had sent the position, he said he could not read signals because of the escape of steam and the air through the expansion joint, so I helped him with the communications."
Long noses and Pinocchio come to mind.

Californian charged through the ice to the rescue - whether it be ship or those left on the surface after the ship had gone. That's how it works, Julian.

 

[Jim Currie]

100% with you on your thoughts .....you know the more books I get on the California and other ships perhaps in the vicinity the more confused I get . I've got about 5 and of course most have a certain ' bent" on which way they go. Paul Lees book I feel attempts to educate me but "fair dinkum" ( aussie saying) with all the charts and sketches its too much for my bonce ........

Ive often wished a book could be produced from the statements provided a type of "overlap" could be published so Titanic is there , California is there , Mount Temple is there etc etc ....so if witness A says this ship is in this direction with the co-ordinates .....like a cellophane page where each statement can go over the top of the last one ....

I'm not sure if I make sense but that is the best description I can give ....

A book that gives us all a chance to decipher the conflicting testimony

It's on the way, John - the layman's guide to what really happened - complete with wee drawings.

 

[Jim Currie]

The problem with trying to decipher the testimony is that the people doing the deciphering are advocates for one side or the other.

Paul Lee and Sam Halpern make the case for the prosecution, and Senan Molony makes the case for the defense. The thing is that it took Paul and Sam a lot of time to gather a centuries worth of research and put it all together.

I think Senan does a brilliant job of showing just what the defense could have done in 1912 to rip the state's case apart and establish reasonable doubt, which is really all the defense barrister even needs to do. I also believe that this was the reason that Captain Lord never had his day in court. The powers that be could have lost and they weren't about to risk it.

Win, lose or draw, Captain Lord should have had his day in court where he would have been able to make full answer and defense. This didn't happen.

He was tried and convicted without ever really being tried and convicted and afterwards had no recourse or appeal because legally, nothing happened. This, IMO, is the real injustice.

The true crime was that they had all the necessary information on both sides of the Atlantic, and I can not believe for a single second that the Assessors on both sides were incapable of doing what anyone with a First Mate's Certificate could have done.
You are spot-on with your assessment of the reason for the persecution. I can tell you know, without fear of contradiction - that had the evidence of Lord been presented to an Admiralty Court - such a court would have found 100% unbiased in favour of Lord.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Jim,

If a policeman knocked on my door and told me that one of my daughters had been involved in say a road accident, that would be primary source evidence of what I had been told by him and the extent of my 'knowledge'.

If the same officer gave evidence on oath at a subsequent court hearing as to what he told me, the evidential basis of that 'knowledge' is proved. Whether his own basis for that information is correct or not is inconsequential - what he has told me is my 'knowledge' and is admissible as evidence.

That is exactly what happened between Evans and Durrant at 5.15am The Californian ships time and 5.11am Mount Temple ships time.

It is a tortuous legal nuance, but is what it is, and I suggest cannot be questioned.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

The true crime was that they had all the necessary information on both sides of the Atlantic

I'm not confident of that, Captain Jim. 112 years after the fact and we're still arguing over it, but then that's the problem, isn't it? For all the effort to clear things up, there are still points in controversy. Back then, the waters were a lot muddier, and that's all a defense lawyer needs to get his client a walk!

 

[Jim Currie]

If a policeman knocked on my door and told me that one of my daughters had been involved in say a road accident, that would be primary source evidence of what I had been told by him and the extent of my 'knowledge'.

If the same officer gave evidence on oath at a subsequent court hearing as to what he told me, the evidential basis of that 'knowledge' is proved. Whether his own basis for that information is correct or not is inconsequential - what he has told me is my 'knowledge' and is admissible as evidence.

That is exactly what happened between Evans and Durrant at 5.15am The Californian ships time and 5.11am Mount Temple ships time.

It is a tortuous legal nuance, but is what it is, and I suggest cannot be questioned.

Hello Julian,
Let's get back to the real world.
If a policeman knocked on your door and told you such a thing, you would immediately ask for details and clarification - you would most certainly find it hard to believe what you were being told.
Lord did exactly that. Here is his US Evidence concerning what he was told:

"I think the first message we got was, "Ship sunk." But I understand between the German and English operators they do not always grasp one another's messages; there is a little confusion about it. Apparently we did not get it. The first report I got to the bridge that morning, after I had sent down and had the operator called, the chief officer came back and said, "He reports a ship sunk." I said, "Go back and wait until you find out what it is. Get some more about it." So he went back, and I suppose 10 minutes afterwards he came back and said, "The Titanic is sunk, and hit an iceberg."
That could quite easily have been: "Ship sinking.....Titanic is sinking and hit an iceberg."
In fact, that is all that anyone except Rostron knew at that time - which is what I am pointing out to you.

 

[Jim Currie]

I'm not confident of that, Captain Jim. 112 years after the fact and we're still arguing over it, but then that's the problem, isn't it? For all the effort to clear things up, there are still points in controversy. Back then, the waters were a lot muddier, and that's all a defense lawyer needs to get his client a walk!

Back then, Michael, an Admiralty Court was unlike a civil court in that it was presided over by professional seamen who would have viewed the evidence from a practical point of view. Such a court would have sussed out the real pattern of events using the very same evidence that we have today.
As I see it: the main reason why there are so many different points of view today, is that although information-gathering has never been easier or better - the analysis of that information is often made for reasons other than the discovery of truth.

As a matter of interest - up until the 1960s, a Britsh MN Master along with other British MN Masters and one RN Officer, could convene such a court oversees. Then, such a court would have the power of the now-defunct Court of Quarter Sessions on Land