New inquiry ?

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,988
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
Already been done. Titanic, a Centennial Reappraisal of the Evidence does exactly that.

Seriously, why is it that some of you all are thinking that a renewed formal inquiry is some sort of magic trick which is going to accomplish something above and beyond what a century of research hasn't already done?

What is the assumption here?
Have to say, Michael: there are as many holes in the basic conclusions of that appraisal than there were in the bottom of Titanic.
 

Moj

Member
Jun 16, 2018
24
5
13
Moj, you're contriving a strawman on one hand and missing the point on another.

1) Everybody wants to know "The Truth" but there's nothing magical about an official inquiry which would establish any such. That work was done 106 years ago. Forensics studies and historical researchers can do the same or better in the here and now, and in fact they ARE doing it without any need for the services of the lawyers!

2) In the matter of the inquiry and the ever popular "Justice For the Victims" appeal, you have the following issues which don't go away and cannot be argued around.
a) All the injured parties whether they survived the accident or not are now dead.
b) All the next of kin as well as any legal heirs and assigns who would have any possible legal standing to sue for damages are all dead.
c) All the potential witnesses are all dead.
d) All the parties who could possibly be held responsible are all dead.

Dead. dead. dead. dead.

Are we getting it now?
It seems to me from your tone that I have somehow offended you. I apologize for that.

1. No I personally dont think that everyone wants to know the truth . Probably there are very few who still care to know the truth on this matter or many other matters. In my experience dealing with people , they usually want to hear what they like to hear which usually isnt the truth. Also humanbeings like to forget and move on.
I really dont get the dislike for the lawyers which seems to get pointed out repeatedly here and there but I will not comment on that because it really is unrelated to the whole point of what I wanted to say from the beginning. Which has nothing to do with an actual court . What I said from the beginning was an inquiry of any sort. I myself am not sure of the correct name to put on it Maybe a book ? An investigation ? A hearing ? A complete documentry ? I dont know you name it. You cant just dismiss everything because it isnt perfect.

If scientists or forensics are doing research as we speek , there has to be a way to analyaze , discuss and publish it in a way otherwise its pointless.

2. Doesnt a grand daughter or a grandson count as a next of kin in a court ? Or even a son or a daughter during all these 100 years ? If they dont care thats an entirely different matter but they sure exist.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
Take the case of the up hill battle Leslie Harrison had in trying to publish his book. Titanic Myth. Were over the years faced threats and intimidation been placed on him. Even the publishes became nervous what he had to say! Final when published they still made changes to want actually wanted to say? I would love to read the book but yet to see a book going for a reasonable price.
Hi Mike,

You have the wrong book quoted and wrong author. It was Leslie Reade's 'The Ship That Stood Still' that had difficulty getting into print.

You ought to be able to get both Harrison and Reade's books from your local library via a request to other libraries for a nominal charge.

Given that one very major criticism of both Inquiries is the treatment of 'The Californian Incident', you really ought to read both the above books as an initial starting point.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
Incidentally, the current Grenfell Tower Inquiry has certain similarities with the 1912 Titanic British Inquiry is so far as both dealt with/are dealing with failings of a UK Ministry to update regulations. The Board of Trade in 1912 in having delayed and delayed revising the regulations for lifeboats etc as new ships got bigger and bigger.

The current Grenfall Tower Inquiry has already heard expert witness evidence that the relevant UK Ministry failed to update (delayed and delayed) the Building Regulations to cover 'high rise' residential blocks of flats being covered externally with aluminium coated plastic cladding with a void then highly flammable foam insulation attached to the concrete superstructure.

Moj, suggest you goggle 'The Marconi Scandal' and how Sir Rufus Isaacs was inextricably linked to 'insider dealing' via his brother, who was head of the UK branch of the Marconi Companies.

To my mind, Marconi operators Phillips and Bride should have been greatly criticised, and by inference also Marconi, and the Marconi Company, for ignoring navigational status messages of ice warnings and failing to take them to the bridge of Titanic. Instead, the dead Phillips was wrongly treated as a hero, and Bride as well, despite the overwhelming evidence against both. That they were not so criticised, is due to Sir Rufus Isaacs and 'The Marconi Scandal'.

Read Sir Rufus Isaacs' closing speech to the British Inquiry. Who does he single out at the end of his speech? Captain Smith? Boxhall? Phillips? Bride? Marconi? The Board of Trade?

No - he saves this for Captain Lord of the Californian who played no part in the reasons why Titanic hit an ice berg and sank whatsoever (except his 2 'ice warning messages' to Titanic were ignored by Bride and then Phillips).

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
1. No I personally dont think that everyone wants to know the truth .
Of course they do. What they don't want to do is fall in for some of your preconceived ideas of what it is which constitutes "The Truth" whatever they may be. It seems to me as if you're looking for that mystical and magical "New angle." Understandable since everybody wants to uncover something new but you appear to be over thinking the problem.

Word to the wise: Don't.

If scientists or forensics are doing research as we speek , there has to be a way to analyaze , discuss and publish it in a way otherwise its pointless.
They ARE publishing it by way of hundreds of books, position papers and documentaries. Some of them are even accurate and all of them are being challenged by somebody. That's just the nature of science.

>>What I said from the beginning was an inquiry of any sort. I myself am not sure of the correct name to put on it Maybe a book ? An investigation ? A hearing ? A complete documentry ? I dont know you name it. You cant just dismiss everything because it isnt perfect.<<

You really didn't offer me anything to accept or dismiss. Just vague generalizations and appeals to finding "The Truth" uses a lot of words to say nothing. And I never spoke to anything being perfect so this is another strawman.

>>
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
717
109
53
Hi Mike,

You have the wrong book quoted and wrong author. It was Leslie Reade's 'The Ship That Stood Still' that had difficulty getting into print.

You ought to be able to get both Harrison and Reade's books from your local library via a request to other libraries for a nominal charge.

Given that one very major criticism of both Inquiries is the treatment of 'The Californian Incident', you really ought to read both the above books as an initial starting point.

Cheers,

Julian
Hi Julian,
The book I have by Leslie Harrison. DEENDING CAPTAIN LORD A TITANIC MYTH Part Two.
He is very critical of Leslie Reade book The Ship That Stood Still which I have say, I am rather surprise as he thinks L Reade book is all about making captain Lord the guilty man for not coming to the rescues of the 1500 who died. As I don't see that way in the book. If any one is the guilty party is the two inquires! Personal I think Lord Mersey was a very intelligent man put in a no win situation.
He must of seen the failure of the Board of Trade not moving with times with lack of lifeboats and management procedures in the operations of lifeboats. I felt very sorry for the eight officers on Titanic who were suddenly confronted with the lifeboat rescue and overwhelmed with the situation on hand. No doubt they do there best and made mistakes by filling the early lifeboats less than half full. Mersey would of pick up on that and probably thought want sort of personal who are in charge of the BoT! Mersey made recommendations changes for the better, rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!
If want another point of view of the inquires. I have the book by Senan Molony TITANIC AND THE MYSYERY SHIP. He has read Leslie Reade book The Ship that Stood Still beforehand. His layout is different were try's to compare what one crew member said in the American inquiry and then what he said the British enquiry. The only problem I see here the two inquires were conducted on very different lines.
Mike.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,988
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of those. The point is that it's been done. No need for the help of legal counsel. ;)
I agree with you, Michael.

However, the fact that some of us disagree concerning the same items of evidence is in itself a good enough reason for a proper, forensic examination of that evidence.
Two such items immediately spring to mind. These are:
1. The evidence concerning Titanic's average speed between Noon and the time she turned onto her final course for New York and
2. The evidence given by Joseph Boxhall concerning the ship observed during the time Titanic was sinking.

I for one would be interested to hear the results of a Naval Academy analysis of these two items. However, in presenting the evidence, the bias should be removed by omitting the sources of the evidence.

Incidentally, I chose these two because I sincerely believe that if they were properly analysed, the final report of both the Official Inquiries would require a considerable amount of re-writing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael H. Standart
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
Incidentally, I chose these two because I sincerely believe that if they were properly analysed, the final report of both the Official Inquiries would require a considerable amount of re-writing.
Very possible. I've been watching a lot of the give and take on this issues here for years and in the end, I found myself agreeing with Captain David on this point: We proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they didn't have the Global Positioning system back in 1912.

I have a hunch that some parties think another official inquiry would somehow be objective and that one has me scratching my head in wonderment. It wasn't as if either Senator Smith OR Lord Mersey were completely objective and a lot of the players in the game had agendas as well.

All the principles involved in 1912 are gone now, but the new players in the game still have agendas.
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
717
109
53
Perhaps if the inquiries were as today standard which were miles apart as in the past and take up to 2-4 years not take just 3-4 months with proper experts. We wouldn't be in so many discussion trying to fill in the missing gaps, evidences and ones who could of well contribute to the investigation but never asked to come forward. I may be out spoken of the inquires but I am just appalled on who and how conducted for the truth for those 1500 who died. Yes they are all died now why bother? Those who have died still have living relatives contacted to the dead. I am afraid its in the human race to know about passed history! We as the human race have more interested in disasters than success. If wasn't for the Titanic her sister ship Olympic wouldn't got a lookin. Compared today inquires I could pick holes in those two inquires all day long. They were going wrong before even started! America picked a bunch of Senators who were no expects in the shipping world. British turned into a court hearing and not a investigation enquiry for the truth. Second officer Charles Lightroller who survive by the skin of his teeth couldn't have said a truly word A WHITEWASH!
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,064
596
143
England
What truth is missing though?

We can all pick holes in the inquiries but in the case of the British Inquiry for example, do you disagree with any of the recommendations set out?

Would it be more reasonable to say that in a call for a new inquiry, the word truth is being used as a substitute for the word blame?

Personally, I think that's why a number of people have issues with the inquiries. Yes there are problems with the accuracy with which the evidence was heard and scrutinised not finding the hull broke up for example, but it's the lack of culpability that seems to upset most.

Until recently, Crown organisations such as the Board of Trade were almost immune from prosecution so there was never going to be heads rolling.

The recommendations of the inquiries have stood the test of time. As a result of that, they then surely achieved their primary purpose.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
Hi Mike Spooner,

I find your approach a bit odd. If you go to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry official website page you can view by youtube all the witnesses giving their evidence. I did not start work today (well, now yesterday) till 4pm, so was able to watch Michael Dowden's evidence - the guy who was in charge of the incident from London Fire Brigade for the first hour of the fire. He had a very difficult time answering the questions put to him, most politely and carefully, and with frequent breaks, till it was decided that he could not continue giving evidence today. Today's evidence did not even get to when he was on the scene of the fire.

We have here lots of parallels with the Titanic and Californian evidence in 1912. Dowden's long pauses (up to 25 seconds before answering) came across very forcefully. His written section 9 statement is nothing like as detailed as the London Fire Brigade Response document.

In the UK we have before us almost daily an Official Inquiry at work into a major disaster, and with the marvels of the internet can follow it intimately.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob Lawes

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,064
596
143
England
I watched a bit on the news last night.

All those long pauses made me think every time he answered a question where he knew the answer would not look good, he needed a good length of time to ensure he could word it in the least damaging way.

I always feel that in reading the testimony from the Titanic inquiries we lose a lot by not being able to see and hear the people involved. How much more context to answers that would have given us.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
Mr. Spooner, I'm afraid you're straining on a gnat, assuming that somehow a renewed official inquiry would be some sort of magic trick to reveal some ever mysterious and undefined mystical "Truth"

Those who have died still have living relatives contacted to the dead.
I understand that. I know several of these people. Why is this a point?

There is nothing an inquiry can achieve which some of these relatives themselves haven't already done through research of their own and which they continue to do.

Again: what is so special about an inquiry? What is the assumption being made here?
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
I don't want to over stress this, but currently in the UK we have the Grenfell Tower Inquiry taking place, and has many parallels with the British Inquiry in 1912. The first witness at the Inquiry of the event, Micheal Dowden, is still giving his evidence today.

One can also compare with the above the deficiencies of the 1912 Inquiry so far, in so much as that the 1912 British Inquiry was hastily convened with no preliminary ground work or expert evidence obtained beforehand. (The same equally applies to the 1912 USA Inquiry).

Cheers,

Julian
 

Kas01

Member
May 24, 2018
149
41
38
24
Okay, but let's assume the British government convenes a proper inquiry with all of the requisite groundwork done and the number of witnesses called. I'm not even going to go into the forensic side of this but we have to remember that the inquiry would be operating with modern naval architecture and damage control in mind, not naval architecture that existed when Pirrie and Andrews were doing their blueprints.