Mystery ship candidates

[Andrew]

".... the analysis of that information is often made for reasons other than the discovery of truth".

But Jim, that's simply your biased way of implying that anyone who doesn't share your interpretation of the evidence has some bizarre contemporary vested interest in nailing Captain Lord.
Your stout defence of a fellow seaman is admirable, but therein lies your own agenda.

The simple implausibility of two mysterious ships meandering around a perilous icefield at midnight (inexplicably ignoring a ship evidently in distress, and subsequently never telling a soul) is what leads everyone back time & time again to The Californian.

It isn't your credentials that anyone questions.
It's your interpretation of the evidence, and your motives for those interpretations.

 

[Jim Currie]

".... the analysis of that information is often made for reasons other than the discovery of truth".

But Jim, that's simply your biased way of implying that anyone who doesn't share your interpretation of the evidence has some bizarre contemporary vested interest in nailing Captain Lord.
Your stout defence of a fellow seaman is admirable, but therein lies your own agenda.

The simple implausibility of two mysterious ships meandering around a perilous icefield at midnight (inexplicably ignoring a ship evidently in distress, and subsequently never telling a soul) is what leads everyone back time & time again to The Californian.

It isn't your credentials that anyone questions.
It's your interpretation of the evidence, and your motives for those interpretations.

Not really, Andrew.

I do not view the problem as a seaman but as a Marine Accident Investigator which I was for over 25 years.
As such, the Investigator takes the evidence and applies it to the technical formulae which govern it. Thereafter, he produces an unbiased report and signs it "Without Prejudice". I also use exactlyt the same methods as were used in 1912...no Google or computers.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

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.

Really? In 1911 the Olympic/Hawke trial was presided over by Sir Samuel T Evans (1859-1919) who was a High Court Judge. He was the last QC appointed by Queen Victoria, rose to become Solicitor-General (1908-10), and then President of the Divorce, Probate and Admiralty Court (1910-18). He was not a professional seaman. During the Olympic trial he was assisted by a Capt. Thomson and Capt. Crawford.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I do not view the problem as a seaman but as a Marine Accident Investigator which I was for over 25 years.

That may be, but it does not automatically make you right. There are more than one marine accident investigators who disagree with you regarding the so called Californian affair.

 

[Jim Currie]

Really? In 1911 the Olympic/Hawke trial was presided over by Sir Samuel T Evans (1859-1919) who was a High Court Judge. He was the last QC appointed by Queen Victoria, rose to become Solicitor-General (1908-10), and then President of the Divorce, Probate and Admiralty Court (1910-18). He was not a professional seaman. During the Olympic trial he was assisted by a Capt. Thomson and Capt. Crawford.

The President of an Admiralty Court when held within the UK was appointed by the Crown, he chose his advisors. Not so, outside the UK.

 

[Jim Currie]

That may be, but it does not automatically make you right. There are more than one marine accident investigators who disagree with you regarding the so called Californian affair.

Now, where exactly did I say I was right?

That was not an Admiralty Court

The President of an Admiralty Court when held within the UK was appointed by the Crown, he chose his advisors. Not so, outside the UK.

PS and the Judge in question - no matter how high in legal esteem -needed the presence of the Mariners to make it an Admiralty Court. That was what was wrong with the Titanic Inquiries - the political appointees had sway over the proceedings. It was also the reason why Lord never was allowed to defend himself in an Admiralty Court - his Certificate was not at risk.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

That was not an Admiralty Court

Evans was president of the Divorce, Probate and Admiralty Court from 1910 through 1918.
That was the court in which the Olympic/Hawke trial was conducted. Prior to that event, which started in mid November 1911, the British Admiralty held their own "strict and careful enquiry” guided by Chapter XVIII of the King’s Regulations just a day after the collision in late September. They took statements from a number of Hawke eyewitnesses. Nobody from Olympic was called. You can easily guess what their conclusions were.

 

[Jim Currie]

Evans was president of the Divorce, Probate and Admiralty Court from 1910 through 1918.
That was the court in which the Olympic/Hawke trial was conducted. Prior to that event, which started in mid November 1911, the British Admiralty held their own "strict and careful enquiry” guided by Chapter XVIII of the King’s Regulations just a day after the collision in late September. They took statements from a number of Hawke eyewitnesses. Nobody from Olympic was called. You can easily guess what their conclusions were.

That remark was edited. It was meant to tell you that was not the Admiralty Court I was writing about. It was replaced by my post #200.
You might be interested to know that part of the training and subsequent examinations for Master Mariner FG (Steam) in the UK dealt extensively with the role of the Admiralty Courts - their jurisdiction and composition. I don't make these things up, but I might have to resort to Google to remind me of the minutiae.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

That remark was edited.

OK, I see that now.