No Excuse for Capt Lord's Inaction


Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,387
673
188
South Wales UK
I believe this would also apply to all of the survivors who testified at both inquiries, as their original testimony in America would be more fresh in their memory and perhaps treated with more credibility than their testimony in Britain.

Hi Aaron,

I have been following the Grenfell Tower Inquiry daily, and this last 7 days, residents have given testimony on oath as to what happened on 14th June 2017, so some 16 months on, and all these residents so far have been able to recall in considerable detail and accurately what happened that awful night.

In contrast, and much to my own surprise, the LFB firefighters' contemporaneous statements written up within 24 or 48 hours of the 14th June 2017, have been shown to be quite inaccurate, and stressed as such by the firefighters in their subsequent testimony to the Grenfell Inquiry June to October this year.

At some point I think we all need to look at Turnball's evidence and the British Inquiry record as to what was discussed by Counsel at the time and when Bride was recalled. Unfortunately, I do not have the spare time at present to revisit all this, but it is very telling and often overlooked.

Neither do I have the spare time currently to respond in detail to Jim's posts, and my failure to do so is I hope not taken by Jim as impolite.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
734
208
England
I must say, with a 22 year career in comms, both as an operator and an engineer, I'm really enjoying this line of discussion regarding the WT traffic.

It's an area I really should delve more deeply into as I think there may be some hidden gems still to be found buried deeply in the spoil.
 

Andrew

Member
Jan 2, 1998
38
15
238
44
"As for turning northwest...come off it, Sam! You dreamed that turn northward bit up to fit the stopped Californian on Titanic's port bow when she stopped."

Good heavens Jim, talk about pot & kettle!!
You yourself deny the northward turn precisely to fit your preconceived idea of Californian's 'out of sight' position. In order to do so, you have to disregard a huge amount of evidence (& you're fully aware of it all) that the Titanic was indeed facing northwards as she sank.
It's not an enviable standpoint you take, but your chutzpah in maintaining it is certainly to be admired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mike Spooner

Member
Sep 21, 2017
1,041
207
138
Rockets seen at what distances? If California is 18-20 miles away from Titanic and the inquires have got into there heads the California is less than 10 miles away! Surely with the curvature of the earth in mind doesn't that change how one see a rocket at the two different distances?
As I understand to define a distress rocket from a company rockets. Its goes at a greater height than a company rocket of 600-800 feet. White in colour with shooting stars and clap of thunder range of 10 miles, and fired ever minute! Well that didn't happen it would appear the rockets were firing between 4-6 minutes. The clap of thunder was not heard by any one on the California. The ship is stationary with no engine running and at the dead of night in calm weather, would of given them very good distance of sound. Then there is the height. How does one gauge the height and were from? The height I guest is what the manufacture has quoted. But were does one start the measurement from? Half mile or a mile from the ship? As I see it the further you are away from the ship with the curvature of the earth, the height does not look so great anymore. As crew members on the California remark the rockets look no higher than the ship mast! So I can see from captain Lord point of view must of been doubt in his mind if there were genuine distress rockets.
Then there is the Morse code lamp range of 10 miles. which both ships are using but cannot been seen by each other. Clearly they lamping at a ship no more than 6 miles away and moving as they are stationary. To me the evident is over whelming the two ships are at least 19 miles apart. So why did the inquires not see this?
Or have I missed some thing here? Seeing some of the comments are they base on 10 miles or 20 miles away?
Lord getting slatted for is not coming to the rescues of Titanic. Well he did so! He may of received the wireless message around 5 in the morning April 15 of the sinking.
He was to do some thing that no other captain did that day. With very limited experience of icefield, he took on the icefield three times without damage to the ship. Which is more than can be said for Mount Temple ship! Well done that man you deserve a pat on the back. Plus he assisted the Carpathia in looking for more bodies. Again that's more than other ships did like wise to.
As for the rescue how was he to known that the Titanic was lacking in numbers of lifeboats and nearly 500 empty seats?
As for his cargo ship his lifeboat capacity 218. With a crew of 55 and if 47 passengers on board plus further crew members severing the passengers. I guest that makes a total figure of about 120 on board. So why is a 10 old cargo ship so much better equipped with lifeboats capacity than a brand new super liner like Titanic was?
Mike.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,387
673
188
South Wales UK
Hi Mike,

If you post on here such generalisations without considering the primary source evidence, and the expert evidence researched subsequently, you will forgive me if you get 'shot down'! You also appear to singularly ignore any posts citing this primary source evidence and research!

Sam referenced my post 142 on this thread.

Stone and Gibson - watching the the white rockets 'bursting' (Stone), or (Gibson) 'exploding into white stars', with one particular rocket showing a trail from the ship it was fired from lighting up the deck, were both in no doubt that after the British Inquiry, they had seen distress rockets fired from another ship.

Given that the only known vessel firing distress rockets that night in proximity to The Californian was Titanic, because Titanic was sinking, there is no doubt that what Stone and Gibson witnessed were the distress rockets fired from Titanic.

(They also both saw together the Carpathia rockets being fired when Carpthia was some further way off Titanic's lifeboats, and further from The Californian than Titanic had been, when Carpathia was firing these rockets around 3.20 to 3.40 am. Harrison never mentioned this vital fact in his book 'Titanic Myth' though he must have known of this evidence, as he had all of the British Inquiry transcripts relating to Stone and Gibson's evidence from none other than Groves who loaned his copy to Harrison, plus Harrison had from Captain Lord in 1959 the statements of Stone and Gibson dated 18th April 1912).

Even Leslie Harrison accepted in 1962 and stated as much that The Californian had seen Titanic's distress rockets, and after meeting with Captain Lord on very many occasions between July 1958 and January 1962 and preparing his 1959 affidavit and recording the taped transcript interviews of 1961, and having then exclusive access to all of Captain Lord's surviving papers.

I am getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. In Groves' 'Middle Watch' essay he points out that all was not silent on The Californian that night, and I have postulated that in the freezing cold that night, Stone and Gibson were probably wearing scarves that may have covered their ears, and there is some evidence they were pacing about the flying bridge to keep warm that night. The flying bridge was exposed, but was also surrounded by a weather cloth as Gibson makes explicit reference to this when sighting the first rocket he saw fired by Carpathia around 3.20am (though his own timing of this is clearly wrong), and the weather cloth can be seen still in situ in the photographs taken from Carpathia as The Californian gets alongside around 8am or 8.30am on the 15th April 1912.

Leslie Reade got an expert opinion which he quotes in 'The Ship That Stood Still' that a rapport from Titanic's distress rockets exploding or being fired would not be heard beyond 5/6 miles. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever challenged this, and certainly his arch rival Leslie Harrison never did!

The question to my mind remains about the distance Titanic's sidelights could have been seen from The Californian.

Boxhall was quite sure he saw The Californian's sidelights though what he described makes no sense to me at all, despite Reade resorting to incongruities to explain all this, and similarly what Groves, Stone, and Gibson saw of Titanic's side lights remains to me equally inexplicable. I dismiss Groves and Boxhall's evidence, but Stone and Gibson's evidence of the sidelights of the other ship seen is very difficult to comprehend to my mind.

But there is not a shred of doubt that what Stone and Gibson saw were distress rockets being fired - even if they were not being fired as often and at shorter intervals as might have been expected - and for this we have to hold to blame Captain Smith and the hapless Boxhall for not firing off more rockets (Titanic had plenty in stock as we now know from the wreck pics) and at much shorter intervals.

Even if Boxhall was engaged, as he was in supervising life boats being lowered etc at the same time, he could easily have delegated to Rowe to fire off lots more rockets at more frequent intervals. Boxhall was yet another idiot in the drama that occurred that night. Hapless and incompetant and totally unable to cope with what was ensuing.

Except later on when in his lifeboat he fires off repeatedly green roman type candles - not exactly green flares as we would understand them today. That was pretty much all he did well that night; the remainder of what he did leading up to the sinking was to my mind, as stated already, hapless and incompetent!

One final 'pop', The Californian had no passengers on the voyage from London on 5th April 1912 to Boston. This is well documented in The Inquiries, and regularly quoted on here, and in the literature/books.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,589
1,364
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Dearie me!

Now, who was it on the Californian who saw a single light

It is only hard to tell how far off a single light is if it is right on or beyond the observer's horizon. The human eye is a crude sort of "range finder". It naturally focuses on the observer's horizon but lowers the gaze progressively as the distance between the observer and an object right on the horizon reduces.
Bridge officers are very good at this. When a bridge officer says a vessel is near on a clear night, you can be sure he means it is below his natural horizon, not on or beyond it.
When Lord, Stewart, Stone, Groves or Gibson said a vessel was between 4 to 6 miles away they would have been very close to the mark.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,589
1,364
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
"As for turning northwest...come off it, Sam! You dreamed that turn northward bit up to fit the stopped Californian on Titanic's port bow when she stopped."

Good heavens Jim, talk about pot & kettle!!
You yourself deny the northward turn precisely to fit your preconceived idea of Californian's 'out of sight' position. In order to do so, you have to disregard a huge amount of evidence (& you're fully aware of it all) that the Titanic was indeed facing northwards as she sank.
It's not an enviable standpoint you take, but your chutzpah in maintaining it is certainly to be admired.
Hello Andrew!

I am sure that you know that Sam is perfectly able to stand up for himself. You will note that he never argues against my observations.

As for me "fitting" anything? What utter rubbish! I simply read the evidence and interpret it in the same way as I would do when acting in my former occupation - an occupation which spanned very many years and which allowed me to act as a Marine Advisor on many occasions. What's your excuse?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,589
1,364
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Rockets seen at what distances? If California is 18-20 miles away from Titanic and the inquires have got into there heads the California is less than 10 miles away! Surely with the curvature of the earth in mind doesn't that change how one see a rocket at the two different distances?
As I understand to define a distress rocket from a company rockets. Its goes at a greater height than a company rocket of 600-800 feet. White in colour with shooting stars and clap of thunder range of 10 miles, and fired ever minute! Well that didn't happen it would appear the rockets were firing between 4-6 minutes. The clap of thunder was not heard by any one on the California. The ship is stationary with no engine running and at the dead of night in calm weather, would of given them very good distance of sound. Then there is the height. How does one gauge the height and were from? The height I guest is what the manufacture has quoted. But were does one start the measurement from? Half mile or a mile from the ship? As I see it the further you are away from the ship with the curvature of the earth, the height does not look so great anymore. As crew members on the California remark the rockets look no higher than the ship mast! So I can see from captain Lord point of view must of been doubt in his mind if there were genuine distress rockets.
Then there is the Morse code lamp range of 10 miles. which both ships are using but cannot been seen by each other. Clearly they lamping at a ship no more than 6 miles away and moving as they are stationary. To me the evident is over whelming the two ships are at least 19 miles apart. So why did the inquires not see this?
Or have I missed some thing here? Seeing some of the comments are they base on 10 miles or 20 miles away?
Lord getting slatted for is not coming to the rescues of Titanic. Well he did so! He may of received the wireless message around 5 in the morning April 15 of the sinking.
He was to do some thing that no other captain did that day. With very limited experience of icefield, he took on the icefield three times without damage to the ship. Which is more than can be said for Mount Temple ship! Well done that man you deserve a pat on the back. Plus he assisted the Carpathia in looking for more bodies. Again that's more than other ships did like wise to.
As for the rescue how was he to known that the Titanic was lacking in numbers of lifeboats and nearly 500 empty seats?
As for his cargo ship his lifeboat capacity 218. With a crew of 55 and if 47 passengers on board plus further crew members severing the passengers. I guest that makes a total figure of about 120 on board. So why is a 10 old cargo ship so much better equipped with lifeboats capacity than a brand new super liner like Titanic was?
Mike.

On the subject of rockets, Mike. There is a well-known bit of evidence which those who wish to deny the true distance between Californian and the sinking Titanic studiously ignore.

Everyone knows that at or near to 3-30 am on the morning of April 15, both Stone and Gibson saw rocket signals on, or almost on their horizon.
It seems highly unlikely that these were from any vessel other than the Carpathia which, at that time, would have been about 8 or 9 miles to the south-east of where the survivors were gathered in their lifeboats.

If, as some claim, the separation distance was 14 miles, then at 3-30 am, the distance between Californian and Carpathia was 14 + 8 = 22 miles and Carpathia's distress signals only rose to a height of about 150 feet above sea level which is totally absurd to say the least.
At a separation distance of 18 + 8 = 26 miles, Carpathia's distress rockets seen on Californian's horizon, would only have risen to 260 feet above sea level or about 200 feet above Carpathia's bridge.

However, if, the Californian was at 42-05'North, 50-07'West as Captain Lord said she was and Titanic's survivors were close to 41-45'North, 49-57'West, then at 3-30 am, Carpathia was at about 41-42'North, 49-49'West. She was bearing about 148 True from Californian, the distance between them was 27.3 miles and her distress rockets rose to a height of just over 280 feet above sea level. Carpathia had standard distress rockets which rose to about 300 feet above sea level and had a maximum range for survivors in boats of about 20 miles. Titanic had socket signals which rose to a height above sea level of about 600 feet and had a maximum range for folks in boats of about 28 miles.

There is also the notion that Stone and Gibson knew they were seeing distress rockets and recognised them as such. They did not. Even to this day, such mistakes are made:
From the BBC yesterday:
"RNLI called out after head torch mistaken for distress flare"
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,485
1,752
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
... an occupation which spanned very many years and which allowed me to act as a Marine Advisor on many occasions. What's your excuse?
You are being really rude to people Jim. As usual, you're trying to use your knowledge and expertise to justify your highly biased viewpoints instead of allowing that knowledge and expertise to lead you to objective conclusions.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,485
1,752
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
The question to my mind remains about the distance Titanic's sidelights could have been seen from The Californian.
Julian, there is a way to get an estimate for the distance between the two vessels based on some specific observed events. One of these has to do with the disappearance of the red sidelight of the vessel seen from Californian shortly after the 7th rocket was seen. As reported by Gibson in his written statement to Lord on April 18th while Californian was still at sea:

“Nothing then happened until the other ship was about two points on the Starboard bow when she fired another rocket [the 7th rocket seen from Californian]. Shortly after that, I observed that her [red] sidelight had disappeared, but her masthead light was just visible.”

The last distress rocket fired from Titanic (the 8th seen from Californian) took place sometime around 1:50am Titanic time. Between 1:40am and 1:45am, Titanic was down by the head about 5° and carried about a 10° list to port as lifeboat No. 10 was being loaded. Taking both trim and list angles into account, the height of Titanic’s red sidelight above the water at that time works out to be about 18 feet. With a height of eye on the bridge of Californian taken at 45 feet, the distance between the two vessels when this sidelight would seem to disappear works out to be about 12.8 nautical miles.

The disappearance of this sidelight took place while Stone and Gibson were talking about how strange the lights of the vessel they were looking at seemed to be. Although Stone later attributed the disappearance of her red sidelight to the vessel porting around to starboard, Gibson testified that he never saw the vessel turn around, nor did he ever see what looked like a stern light after that sidelight disappeared. It should also be noted that the sound from an exploding distress signal at a distance of 12.8 nautical miles away from an observer would take well over a full minute to reach the observer, and would be severely attenuated as to go unnoticed above the ambient sounds of ship at rest in a field of loose ice at that distance..
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,485
1,752
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Regulation distress socket signals that were supplied to steamships in 1912 typically went as high as 500 to 600 ft up (although one advertisement by Cotton Powder Co said 600-800 ft). According to Boxhall, Carpathia was firing what he called regulation socket signals that he notice from the boat about 45 minutes before being picked up. We know these signals were seen from the bridge of Californian as well as Evans messaging that that they were firing rockets at that time because his 'we are firing rockets' message was picked up by Mount Temple and Coronia about that time.

As far as the rules were concerned, even today there is ambiguity as to how often they should be sent up.
In 1912, the wording was: “Rockets or shells throwing stars of any colour or description, fired one at a time at short intervals.”
The current wording is: "Rockets or shells, throwing red stars fired one at a time at short intervals."

Although the words were changed to say red stars, the wording continues to say 'short intervals' which is a very subjective term. The every minute business applies only to the firing of guns or other explosive devices used to attract attention by sound.

When Stone was being questioned about what he saw that night:
8027. I suppose before you sat for that examination, you read something about signals? - I learned them.
8028. Do you mean to tell his Lordship that you did not know that the throwing up of “rockets or shells, throwing stars of any colour or description, fired one at a time at short intervals,” is the proper method for signaling distress at night? - Yes, that is the way it is always done as far as I know.
8029. And you knew that perfectly well on the night of the 14th of April? - Yes.
The Commissioner: And is not that exactly what was happening?
8030. (Mr. Scanlan.) You have heard my Lord put that question. That was what was happening? - Yes.

Stones excuse for not recognizing these signals as distress signals was:

8031. (The Commissioner.) The very thing was happening that you knew indicated distress? - If that steamer had stayed on the same bearing after showing these rockets -
8032. No, do not give a long answer of that kind. Is it not the fact that the very thing was happening which you had been taught indicated distress? - Yes.
8033. (Mr. Scanlan.) You knew it meant distress? - I knew that rockets shown at short intervals, one at a time, meant distress signals, yes.
8034. Do not speak generally. On that very night when you saw those rockets being sent up you knew, did you not, that those rockets were signals of distress? - No.
8035. (The Commissioner.) Now do think about what you are saying. You have just told me that what you saw from that steamer was exactly what you had been taught to understand were signals of distress. You told me so? - Yes.
8036. Well is it true? - It is true that similar lights are distress signals, yes.
8037. Then you had seen them from this steamer? - A steamer that is in distress does not steam away from you, my Lord.
8038. You saw these before this steamer steamed away from you? - I saw them at the same time the ship started to alter her bearings.
8039. (Mr. Scanlan.) But for a long time while this ship was stationary like your own, you noticed at frequent intervals that she was sending up rocket after rocket? - No.
8040. I thought that you told my learned friend that you had counted the rockets. Here is what you said. You said you had not your binoculars when the first rocket went up and you did not see the stars. Then you took your binoculars and you saw two other rockets and in each case you saw stars? - Yes.
8041. Did not those come in fairly quick succession one after another? - Yes.
8042. What do you mean by saying that you did not see them coming in quick succession one after another? - I said that the ship was altering her bearing from the time she showed her first rocket; she commenced altering her bearing by the compass.

He also was asked:
8048. When did you send word to the Captain that you noticed her steaming away.
8049. (The Commissioner.) It is 2 o’clock? - At 10 minutes past 1. I reported to the Master that she was altering her bearings, which was the same thing.

This was also claimed by Lord when he testified at the US hearings and later on. Yet we according to Gibson, who came topside after Stone reported to Lord, that the red sidelight of the steamer under observation that was firing these rockets did not disappear until after the 7th rocket was seen.

Someone or someones were lying.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,589
1,364
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
You are being really rude to people Jim. As usual, you're trying to use your knowledge and expertise to justify your highly biased viewpoints instead of allowing that knowledge and expertise to lead you to objective conclusions.
If I am being rude, Sam, then I had very good teachers on this site.
When someone, including you, accuses me of "fitting" something to suit a personal opinion, then I expect that "someone" to justify his or her accusations.
My opinion is the conclusion of analysing the evidence of the professional witnesses. Nothing more, nothing less. However, I am quite willing to justify my findings based on good practice.

By the way, I understand, Harrison, also referred to pre 1912 supplied signal rockets as reaching approximately the same height. There was an still is a reason for rockets reaching a minimum height. In any case, if Carpathia had rockets reaching 600 feet then it was not Carpathia that Stone and Gibson saw.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,387
673
188
South Wales UK
The last distress rocket fired from Titanic (the 8th seen from Californian) took place sometime around 1:50am Titanic time. Between 1:40am and 1:45am, Titanic was down by the head about 5° and carried about a 10° list to port as lifeboat No. 10 was being loaded. Taking both trim and list angles into account, the height of Titanic’s red sidelight above the water at that time works out to be about 18 feet. With a height of eye on the bridge of Californian taken at 45 feet, the distance between the two vessels when this sidelight would seem to disappear works out to be about 12.8 nautical miles.

Hi Sam,

Very many thanks for the above post and taking the trouble to reply to me.

It is a very important post.

I also share your concern that Jim deliberately chooses to ignore the contemporary evidence as to the height both Titanic's and Carpathia's rockets were fired. There is not a shred of evidence the Carpathia rockets fired from 3.30 am onwards only went as high as 150 feet as claimed by Jim. They fired their regulation distress rockets, and sent out a message via Cottam to warn other vessels they were not a vessel in distress but coming to the aid of Titanic. If they were not firing regulation distress rockets then there was no need for the message transmitted by Cottam!

And if Carpathia was not firing regulation distress rockets that went as high as those from Titanic, then Stone and Gibson would not have seen them. They did both see them, despite at 3.20 am Carpathia having another 40 or so minutes to go at full steam then reduced speed swerving to avoid ice bergs before seeing Boxhall's green flares and getting alongside Boxhall's lifeboat around 4.10 am on the 14th April.

Note also at just after 4pm, Stewart can also see Carpathia's masthead lights when discussing with Stone his report of The Middle Watch.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,387
673
188
South Wales UK
Hi Jim,

By the way, I understand, Harrison, also referred to pre 1912 supplied signal rockets as reaching approximately the same height. There was an still is a reason for rockets reaching a minimum height. In any case, if Carpathia had rockets reaching 600 feet then it was not Carpathia that Stone and Gibson saw.

You know jolly well that this is one instance of where Leslie Harrison deliberately doctored evidence, and avoided any mention of Stone and Gibson seeing Carpathia's rockets in 'Titanic Myth'. This omission by Harrison was quite inexcusable, and one can easily read online now Stone and Gibson's testimonies, and the 18th April statements they provided, which describe seeing Carpathia's rockets. We also have the Marconi message sent by Cottam received by other ships about these rockets fired by Carpathia, as referenced by Sam above.

Although Harrison quoted in full Stone and Gibson's 18th April statements in his book 'Titanic Myth, he omitted any reference to the rockets fired from Carpathia in their testimony that he selectively quoted, and completely failed to mention any reference to Carpathia firing rockets and as seen by Stone and Gibson in the second half of 'Titanic Myth'.

Cheers,

Julian
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
On a related matter, does anyone know if Mr. Buley had observed another ship in motion or did he witness the lights of another lifeboat and mistook them for a ship moving passed them?


"We could not see anything of her in the morning when it was daylight. She was stationary all night; I am very positive for about three hours she was stationary, and then she made tracks.....I should judge she was about 3 miles......She was close enough to see our lights and to see the ship itself, and also the rockets. She was bound to see them."

Q - You are quite certain that it was a ship?
A - Yes, sir; it was a ship.
Q - How many lights did you see?
A - I saw two masthead lights.
Q - No stern lights?
A - You could not see the stern lights. You could not see her bow lights. We were in the boat at the time.
Q - Did you see that ship before you were in the water?
A - Yes, sir; I saw it from the ship. That is what we told the passengers. We said, "There is a steamer coming to our assistance." That is what kept them quiet, I think.
Q - Did she come toward you bow on?
A - Yes, sir; bow on toward us; and then she stopped, and the lights seemed to go right by us.
Q - If she had gone by you, she would have been to your stern?
A - She was stationary there for about three hours, I think, off our port, there, and when we were in the boat we all made for her, and she went by us. The northern lights are just like a searchlight, but she disappeared. That was astern of where the ship went down.
Q - Do you suppose she was fastened in the ice?
A - I could not say she was.
Q - She must have known the Titanic was in distress?
A - She must have known it. They could have seen the rockets and must have known there was some distress on.


If this vessel can not be identified then it will be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Buley was looking at the Californian. There was also the mystery schooner that approached the Mount Temple.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,387
673
188
South Wales UK
Hi Aaron,

I wouldn't take too much notice or over examine certain witness testimony or take it as accurate.

An example from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry occurred today - in respect of the statement and witness testimony of Mirako Toyoshima-Lewis. But it then transpired that the transcript of her 999 call (recorded), and timing via CCTV footage showed that her own recollection was significantly at odds with this unarguable source of evidence, and her ex husband also provided a witness statement that was significantly different from her own recollection.

This is a common occurrence in Court proceedings, even when witnesses are giving evidence under oath. The human memory is fallible. Especially when witnesses have been through something traumatic and outside of their own experience and is shocking.

Incidentally, the above example is the first time the Grenfell Tower Inquiry has heard a surviving resident's evidence which was clearly at odds with other unarguable evidence.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,485
1,752
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
or did he witness the lights of another lifeboat and mistook them for a ship moving passed them?
Not likely.

Mr. BOXHALL. I saw several of the boats - in fact all of the lifeboats - when I was in my boat, which had lighted lamps in them.
Senator SMITH. Had lamps in them?
Mr. BOXHALL. Had lamps in them - before I saw the Carpathia.
Senator SMITH. Before you saw the Carpathia?
Senator SMITH. Where were those lights displayed?
Mr. BOXHALL. I was not close enough to see.
Senator SMITH. Where would they be displayed - on the forward end?
Mr. BOXHALL. Usually by the man who steers the boat.
Senator SMITH. Back of the tiller?
Mr. BOXHALL. In the bottom of the boat, not back of the tiller.
Senator SMITH. I do not mean back of the tiller, but back near the tiller?
Mr. BOXHALL. Just in the bottom of the boat. I could see the reflection of the lights; I did not see the lights themselves.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,485
1,752
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
This is a common occurrence in Court proceedings, even when witnesses are giving evidence under oath. The human memory is fallible.
A very good point Julian. It's always good to find corroborative evidence when dealing with eyewitness testimony. A good example is Grove recalling that the stopped steamer had two masthead lights, but everyone else who saw that rocket firing steamer said she had only one masthead light.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
A very good point Julian. It's always good to find corroborative evidence when dealing with eyewitness testimony. A good example is Grove recalling that the stopped steamer had two masthead lights, but everyone else who saw that rocket firing steamer said she had only one masthead light.

I think Mr. Beesley also mentioned two lights in his book:

"Almost immediately after leaving the Titanic we saw what we all said was a ship's lights down on the horizon on the Titanic's port side. Two lights, one above the other, and plainly not one of our boats. We even rowed in that direction for some time, but the lights drew away and disappeared below the horizon."

.
 

Jon Blackwell

Member
Apr 3, 2018
10
12
13
Hello all!

As I see that you gentlemen have, once again, taken up rhetorical arms over the matter of Stanley Lord and the Californian, I'll offer some thoughts of my own that I've been kicking around my mind for the last few days.

I offer my apologies if my comments are not germane to what you are currently discussing!

First, some pages ago on this thread, there was talk about the alleged cover-up manufactured by Lord. I've written before about this cover-up. but it only recently occurred to me that the following might need to be said:

While it is 100%, absolutely, unequivocally wrong to attempt to cover something up, regardless of what it is, if Captain Lord did attempt to cover up what had happened that night, it is a completely understandable reaction to the sort of high-stress situation which Lord encountered at 5/6 o'clock on the morning of April 15th, 1912. When Lord connected the dots and realized that the rockets seen on the horizon from the Californian hours before were distress rockets from the sinking Titanic, the panic, anxiety, and fear that erupted within him must have been overwhelming. I'm not at all familiar with the British legal system in 1912 or even today so I'm not sure whether there was then or is now a crime that roughly corresponds with the American crime of criminally negligent homicide. But, if there such a law in place at the time, knowing what he did of the situation at the time, Lord very easily could have feared that the authorities might try to pin a few hundred or a thousand bodies on him. He would then be looking at potential jail time (and this to say nothing of the career implications that would have, inevitably, come about.) I'm sure, these thoughts, as well as the thought of what would become of his wife and child, were racing through Lord's mind that morning. As a result, he did the only thing he felt he could do.

Again, I am NOT saying that it is okay to do what Lord supposedly did (or attempted to do!) What I am saying is that Lord did what a lot of people do when they realize that they have made a colossal mistake. At some point, it becomes about self-preservation and Lord chose to try to save himself. I'm not saying everybody would do same, I'm not even saying the majority of people, but this is something that people do have a tendency to do in these sorts of situations. It is not okay, but it is understandable.

Secondly, folks, I understand that there are very passionate people on both sides of this debate, but let's try to keep things in perspective. Even if Captain Lord did try to cover-up the Californian's involvement that night, this is not the same thing as trying to cover up a murder or the illicit activities of a human trafficking ring. What Lord allegedly attempted to cover up simply pales in comparison to the despicable and horrid deeds other people have attempted to cover up. Not all cover-ups are equal.

As I can't think of a good way to end this post, I will simply leave it there.

Best Regards,

Jon Blackwell
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Similar threads

Similar threads