Order of lifeboat launching


D

David Garley

Guest
Sorry if I've missed this somewhere, but I'm looking for info concerning the order in which the lifeboats were launched and the number of occupants. Can anybody help, please?
Also, a thought....... If it were possible to be transported back in time onto the Titanic knowing what we know now, would it be possible to survive the sinking? For instance, would a 2nd or 3rd class passenger have access to some of the lifeboats that were launched only partially full?
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,480
3
166
Hi David,

Try this link: http://home.att.net/~wormstedt/
for an updated study of the lifeboat launch sequence.

The number of occupants per boat is open to debate. - There are a number of sets of figures.

To your question: Yes 2nd and 3rd Class had access to some of the lifeboats that were launched only partially full.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
Thanks for mentioning my site, Lester.

Co-authors George Behe, Tad Fitch and I have discussed re-writing our article that is mentioned at my site, and posting to the web, but time is just too short for some of us right now. We do want to add some additional data, but nothing that changes our conclusions as to the order.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,480
3
166
Hi Bill,

You are welcome. A very informative page.

With regard to the after-starboard boats I have been looking at the various comments in Gracie and I'm having some difficulty. What portion of their crew/passengers do you believe each of those boats took onboard at the Boat deck and at A-deck respectively?

It has always seemed to me that it was somewhat daft loading those boats from A-deck as given the stairway access 2nd and 3rd Class passengers [in particular the women and children] had little hope of accessing that section of A-deck unless they had come up the after 1st Class stairway, or like Edith Russell when down the stairs near the Lounge Bar, but which look to be difficult to locate on the Boat deck level [?]. - I think this is why most of those in those boats were men.

Regards,
Lester
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
I don't really recall running across any kind of break-down of people from A Deck vs the Boat Deck. Other than they filled what they could from the upper deck, then lowered down to A.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,480
3
166
Thanks Bill,

Does that apply to all 4 boats? - 9, 11, 13 and 15? - I'm finding what the various crew said [particularly with regard to boat 9] conflicting.

Lester
 
Aug 28, 2005
35
1
76
Here I have the order of the Lifeboats Launched and additional information.
Lifeboat 7
Launched at 12:45 AM
Contained 26 People
4% of Survivors

23 First Class Passengers
3 Deck Crew

15 Men
11 Women

Picked up by Carpathia at 5:00 AM
6th Rescued

Lifeboat 6
Launched at 12:55 AM
Contained 26 People
4% of Survivors

21 First Class Passengers
1 Third Class Passenger
2 Deck Crew
2 Restaurant Staff

5 Men
21 Women

Picked up by Carpathia at 6:00 AM
8th Rescued

Lifeboat 5
Launched at 12:55 AM
Contained 38 People
5% of Survivors

30 First Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
1 Engine Crew
5 Victualling Crew

21 Men
16 Women
1 Child

Picked up By Carpathia at 5:05 AM
5th Rescued

Lifeboat 3
Launched at 1:00 AM
Contained 39 People
5% of Survivors

27 First Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
10 Engine Crew

26 Men
12 Women
1 Child

Picked up by Carpathia at 5:55 AM
7th to be rescued

Lifeboat 1
Launched at 1:10 AM
Contained 12 People
2% of Survivors

5 First Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
5 Engine Crew

10 Men
2 Women

Picked up by Carpathia at 4:40 AM
2nd to be rescued

Lifeboat 8
Launched at 1:15 AM
Contained 26 People
4% of Survivors

23 First Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
1 Victualling Crew

3 Men
23 Women

Picked up by Carpathiaat 7:00 AM
11th to be rescued

Lifeboat 10
Launched at 1:20 AM
Contained 34 People
5% of Survivors

8 First Class Passengers
17 Second Class Passengers
6 Third Class Passengers
1 Deck Crew
1 Engine Crew
1 Victualling Crew

4 Men
24 Women
6 Children

Picked up by Carpathia at 7:05 AM
12th to be Rescued

Lifeboat 14
Launched at 1:27 AM
Contained 44 People
6% of Survivors

4 First Class Passengers
24 Second Class Passengers
6 Third Class Passengers
4 Deck Crew
2 Engine Crew
4 Victualling Crew

14 Men
20 Women
10 Children

Picked up by Carpathia at 7:05 AM
13th to be Rescued

Lifeboat 16
Launched at 1:28 AM
Contained 37 People
5% of Survivors

3 Second Class Passengers
24 Third Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
1 Engine Crew
7 Victualling Crew

6 Men
30 Women
1 Child

Picked up by Carpathia at 7:30 AM
16th to be rescued

Lifeboat 9
Launced at 1:30 AM
Contained 45 People
6% of Survivors

6 First Class Passengers
19 Second Class Passengers
3 Third Class Passengers
4 Deck Crew
4 Engine Crew
8 Victualling Crew

25 Men
19 Women
1 Child

Picked up by Carpathia at 5:00 AM
4th to be rescued

Lifeboat 12
Launched at 1:30 AM
Contained 23 People
3% of Survivors

1 First Class Passenger
18 Second Class Passengers
2 Third Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew

3 Men
19 Women
1 Child

Picked up by Carpathia at 8:30 AM
18th to be rescued

Lifeboat 11
Launched at 1:35 AM
Contained 55 People
8% of Survivors

6 First Class Passengers
15 Second Class Passengers
7 Third Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
25 Victualling Crew

22 Men
27 Women
6 Children

Picked up by Carpathia at 8:00 AM
17th to be rescued

Lifeboat 13
Launched at 1:40 AM
Contained 66 People
9% of Survivors

1 First Class Passenger
12 Second Class Passengers
30 Third Class Passengers
3 Deck Crew
5 Engine Crew
14 Victualling Crew
1 Restaurant Staff

36 Men
21 Women
9 Children

Picked up by Carpathia at 4:45 AM
3rd to be rescued

Lifeboat 15
Launched at 1:40 AM
Contained 70 People
10% of Survivors

1 First Class Passenger
1 Second Class Passenger
37 Third Class Passengers
1 Deck Crew
17 Engine Crew
13 Victualling Crew

52 Men
12 Women
6 Children

Picked up by Carpathia at 7:30 AM
15th to be rescued

Lifeboat 2
Launched at 1:45 AM
Contained 17 People
2% of Survivors

7 First Class Passengers
6 Third Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
2 Victualling Crew

5 Men
9 Women
3 Children

Picked up by Carpathia at 4:10 AM
1st to be rescued

Lifeboat 4
Launched at 1:50 AM
Contained 49 People
7% of Survivors

25 First Class Passengers
8 Second Class Passengers
4 Deck Crew
10 Engine Crew
2 Victualling Crew

16 Men
26 Women
7 Children

Picked up by Carpathia at 6:55 AM
10th to be rescued

Collapsible C
Launched 2:00 AM
Contained 46 People
6% of Survivors

2 First Class Passengers
38 Third Class Passengers
1 Deck Crew
3 Engine Crew
2 Victualling Crew

13 Men
18 Women
15 Children

Picked up by the Carpathia at 6:30 AM
9th to be rescued

Collapsible D
Launched 2:05 AM
Contained 21 People
3% of Survivors

7 First Class Passengers
2 Second Class Passengers
9 Third Class Passengers

5 Men
13 Women
3 Children

Picked up by Carpathia at 7:00 AM
14th to be rescued

Collapsible A (Swamped)
Cast off at 2:12 AM
Contained 11 People
2% of Survivors

2 First Class Passengers
5 Third Class Passengers
2 Engine Crew
3 Victualling Crew

10 Men
1 Woman

Passengers were rescued by Lifeboat 12

Collapsible B (Overturned)
Cast off at 2:13 AM
Contained 25 People

2 First Class Passengers
1 Second Class Passenger
4 Third Class Passengers
1 Deck Crew
11 Engine Crew
6 Victualling Crew

25 Men

Rescued by Lifeboats 4 and 14
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
Thanks for posting that link, Lester - you beat me to it!

Christian - where are you getting your information?
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
It is "modern researchers" who decided they knew better than Albert Pearcey and moved the departure for Collapsible C to close to the end-time.

The British Inquiry put its departure at 1.40am as Pearcey repeatedly stated in evidence, but the modernists knew better, setting further traps for the unwary.

FACT: None of the passengers known to have escaped in Collapsible C have ever spoken of mass disorder or shootings prior to their launch.

I have a number of their accounts. Woolner does not specify what collapsible he is talking about, although Senator Smith asked whether it could be the first starboard collapsible.

Senator Smith might want a lot of things to be a particular way, being out to nail responsibility where it resided in his pre-Inquiry declarations, but that's beside the point. Woolner just wasn't in a position to answer the question.

The getting of A from the officers' roof down to the boat deck was obviously a major operation. When it did get down, the boat was swarmed.

If Pearcey is right about C going at 1.40, and Brown is right about it taking 10-12 minutes to get A down, then we are nicely up to 1.50 or 1.52 by the time A is down on the deck.

Plenty of time for argy-bargy and shots.

We know it didn't launch properly, but lay there on the deck for some time, occupied, cleared, re-occupied, and finally devastated by the onrush of the sea.

Eustace Phillip Snow in his deposition [edited here by me] intimates another reason, besides the inability to hoist a boat to davits and overside when it is full of people on the deck:

101026.jpg


"I helped launch the starboard collapsible boat, but she stove her bow in when she fell on the boat deck, and she turned over by the rush of water."

There are very few commentators on 'A' for the very simple reason that most in the vicinity were speedily drowned. However there are some.

I would meanwhile be interested to see any clear evidence for gunplay or serious argy-bargy when either Ismay or Collapsible C was demonstrably still on the ship.

Of course, it was all a long time ago...

Wasn't there myself, mind you. So I'm not going to make any swaggering pronouncements about the circumstances of the man's departure. Happy Christmas.
 

Teri Lynn Milch

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2001
1,053
2
0
“FACT: None of the passengers known to have escaped in Collapsible C have ever spoken of mass disorder or shootings prior to their launch.”

Right on the dot!

We must have spent our day doing the same thing. Here are my notes on almost everyone in boat C:

1)William Carter — not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
2)Joseph Abraham — not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
3)Gerios Assaf - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
4)Eugenie Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 3 yrs old.
5)Helene Baclini — not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 mos old.
6)Maria Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 5 yrs old.
7)Solomon Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
8)Emily Badman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
9)Lee Bing - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
10)Aiyub Dahir - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 14 yrs old.
11)Margaret Devaney - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 18 yrs old.
12)Choong Foo - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 13 yrs old. Chinaman.
13)Frank Goldsmith - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
14)William Carter — not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
15)Joseph Abraham — not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
16)Gerios Assaf - not found in either Enquiry. No tesimony given.
17)Eugenie Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 3 yrs old.
18)Helene Baclini — not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 mos old.
19)Maria Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 5 yrs old.
20)Solomon Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
21)Emily Badman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
22)Lee Bing - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
23)Aiyub Dahir - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 14 yrs old.
24)Margaret Devaney - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 18 yrs old.
25)Choong Foo - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 13 yrs old. Chinaman.
26)Frank Goldsmith - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
27)Frank Goldsmith Jr. - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 yrs old.
28)Ling Hee - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
29)May Howard — Found in British Enquiry. Testified mostly to steerage passengers being locked below decks.
30)Abraham Hyman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
31)Mary Joseph - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 2 yrs old.
32)Peter Joseph - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
33)Ali Lam - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
34)Gerios Moubarek - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
35)Albert Pearcey — British Enquiry. This 3rd class pantryman passed the 3rd class passengers through the emergency door which lead to the first class saloon companion (deck E) which lead to the alleyway to first class door. That's how many of the 3rd class passengers got to the boat deck! This passenger said he saw the keel visible.
36)Albert Weikman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given, but affidavit given, and was printed in “The Ismay Line.”

There were a total of 45 people in this Collapsible Boat C. Others I did not list were 3rd class children, young adults, and adults who were not asked to give testimony.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
Hmmm, I see Molony chooses to call us "modern researchers", in a derogatory fashion. Aren't we ALL (including him), modern researchers?

He said "FACT: None of the passengers known to have escaped in Collapsible C have ever spoken of mass disorder or shootings prior to their launch."

Try NO FACT. Take a look at the testimonies of Woolner or Thayer. And it's obvious you don't have Mrs. Goldsmith's account or you wouldn't be sitting there with your foot in your mouth again.

Yes, Pearcey stated 1:40. However, this time was from a passengers watch - and who knows what time they may have been keeping! Had they set it back before going to bed? Possibly, no way to tell.

We also have Rowe's statement that the ship sank 20 minutes before the ship sank - pointing more to 2:00, instead of 11:40.

And Woolner, though he doesn't mention C by name, is obviously talking about it. He mentions "when that boat seemed to be quite full, and was ready to be swung over the side, and was to be lowered away". Obviously cannot be A, as A was never 'quite full' and ready to be lowered away, and definitely was a collapsible as opposed to a wooden lifeboat.

Regarding Snow's statement, he does state the starboard collapsible. However, he also states "she turned over". Sounds a bit more like Collapsible B, possibly?
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Hi Bill,

Thayer didn't give testimony. Look up what the word 'testimony' means. He wrote a book in 1940.

We have Woolner, talking about an indeterminate starboard collapsible, either A or C.

If it is C, then Woolner, the sole person to give *testimony* about attendant disorder, is contradicted by ahem, Ismay, Brown, Rowe, Weikman and Pearcey.

That's 5-1, Bill. The five all know what boat they were talking about - Woolner doesn't.

But Bill Wormstedt does! How do you do it, my friend?

A person (Pearcey) who was there at the time, April 1912, said repeatedly that C left at 1.40pm.

You say this watch was on a passenger. It actually isn't specified Bill, but you must be right, eh?

This man's claim, against interpreting Woolner for C rather than A, is supported by Ismay. He is looking back at the Titanic while Woolner's collapsible is still on board. How can it be C?

You, who weren't there, claim that C left at the end time. You took it on yourself to change the British Inquiry time for its departure from 11.40 to around 2am.

You are deciding, meanwhile, that a person also took it on themselves to put their watch back 20 minutes prior to retiring... a rather dubious proposition.

But you need it to be that way, just as you need Woolner to be right in a choice that is at very best 50:50, and you think this one piece of *testimony* trumps five others that are totally to the contrary?

You win 1-5?

Have a GREAT 2006, Bill. You've pulled a spectacular piece of certainty for the end of 2005... must be nice for you!
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Bill, Old Man,

You seem pretty, uh, certain, from your post above, that the Goldsmiths were in Collapsible C.

How do you know?

Frank Goldsmith in the thread below, says his grandfather and Dad "both believed they were in Boat D":

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5665/64.html?948628740

He says: " It has always been "known" in our family that dad and grandmother were on D."

Dennis Foley then posted that he had the pleasure of meeting Frank Goldsmith at the 1973 THS Convention "and he clearly indicated to us that he escaped in Boat D.

"He even showed us the strange path the boat took--instead of rowing away in a straight line it went back towards the stern and then crossed over to the starboard side!

"Also, someone in the crowd asked about Edith Evans and he responded that he remembered a woman approaching the boat but for some reason being left behind."

But never what the survivors say, Bill. You are a "modern researcher" and I am sure you are right!

Not.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Bill Wormstedt opined:

And Woolner, though he doesn't mention C by name, is obviously talking about it. He mentions "when that boat seemed to be quite full, and was ready to be swung over the side, and was to be lowered away". Obviously cannot be A, as A was never 'quite full' and ready to be lowered away, and definitely was a collapsible as opposed to a wooden lifeboat.
The only 'obviously' is that Bill Wormstedt is confused.

This is the actual quote, and it is quite clear that in relation to the boat cited, Woolner is talking about Collapsible D:

Mr Woolner: Then they eventually lowered all the wooden lifeboats on the port side, and then they got out a collapsible and hitched her onto the most forward davits and they filled that up, mostly with steerage women and children, and one seaman, and a steward, and I think one other man - but I am not quite certain about that - and when that boat [Collapsible D, still on the port side] seemed to be quite full, and was ready to be swung over the side, and was to be lowered away, I said to Steffanson: "There is nothing more for us to do here." Oh, no; something else happened while that boat was
being loaded. There was a sort of scramble on the starboard side, and I looked around and I saw two flashes of a pistol in the air.
Woolner at no point says the starboard collapsible he saw was "about to be lowered away." Sorry Bill, you are wrong.

You also tell us, with certainty, that A was "never quite full."

I am afraid you are contradicted by Edward Brown, who was at Collapsible A, unlike yourself:

10652. Was there anybody in there (A)?
BROWN – There was a lot scrambled into it then; when the sea came on to the deck they all scrambled into the boat.
10653. How many? Can you give us an idea? – I have no idea – practically full. The boat was practically full, when the sea came into it, and washed them all out.
Sorry Bill, wrong again.

And I've more!
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
RECAP after 100 posts - Ismay left in Collapsible C. The British Inquiry said this happened at 1.40am.

Paul Lee and Bill Wormstedt suggest here that Collapsible C actually left at 2am - and that Ismay, Weikman, Brown, Pearcey and Rowe were therefore lying about Collapsible C's departure being orderly, without passengers desperately trying to get in when Ismay left.

Yet there is no specific evidentiary basis for believing that Collapsible C left at 2am.

Bill Wormstedt in 1999 published something called Revised Launch Times with his friend George Behe, which suddenly claimed Collapsible C left at 2am.

This is the only reason Bill now gives:

Rowe's statement that the ship sank 20 minutes before the ship sank - pointing more to 2:00, instead of 11:40.
Don't mind the 11.40 time at the end, there. That is another of Bill's mistakes. He means 1.40am, the time for C's departure given by the British Inquiry, and not the time of iceberg impact.

In the next post we shall examine the basis for George and Bill's changing of the British Inquiry time of 1.40am (cited because a person actually in Boat C gave this time on departure).

We shall see how strong or flimsy is Bill's basis for his 2am assertion.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Dear old Bill Wormstedt wrote:

We also have Rowe's statement that the ship sank 20 minutes before the ship sank - pointing more to 2:00, instead of 11:40.
Bill doesn’t actually mean that the ship “sank before it sank.”

He means that Rowe's boat — Collapsible C - departed 20 minutes before the ship sank, although his writing, as we can see, is confused.

Yet that's true:

Senator Burton: She must have sunk soon after you left?
Rowe: Twenty minutes, I believe.

Oh, but, jeepers, Bill - you didn't mention this other part of Rowe's US testimony:

Burton: How far from the ship were you when she went down?
Rowe: About three-quarters of a mile, sir.

How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time for his boat, Bill?

Did you overlook it, or did you just decide to ignore the discrepancy?

And Rowe also says in his US evidence:

Rowe: Yes, sir. When we left the ship the fore well-deck was awash; that is, when we pushed off from the ship. It was 1.25 when I left the bridge to get into the boat. [Bill! See this bit?] When the boat was in the water the well deck was submerged. It took us a good five minutes to lower the boat on account of this rubbing going down.

1.25 plus 5 mins = 1.30am. Ten minutes for loading? Pearcey repeatedly heard the time given on deparature as 1.40am. Rowe is consistent with Pearcey’s time.

They are consistent with each other.
But how are they consistent with YOUR 2am departure time, Bill?

How is Rowe consistent with a person’s “putting back his watch” twenty minutes, as you suggest must have happened?

Rowe repeats in his British testimony -

(Br. 17688) that when he put off in C, the fore well-deck [ie, C deck level] was under water, but "the forecastle head [B deck] was not submerged."

How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time for Rowe’s boat, Bill?
Rowe, at least, was in it…

At 2am the sea was licking its lips and about to wreak havoc. It was not dawdling about on C deck. Woolner says the water was at his feet on A deck at the time. He jumped into D there, because “if we had waited a minute longer we should have been boxed in against the ceiling.”

Did you also overlook or ignore this next slice of his evidence, Bill, again from America?

Rowe: I assisted the officer to fire them (rockets), and was firing the distress signals until about five and twenty minutes after 1. At that time they were getting out the starboard collapsible boats. The chief officer, Wilde, wanted a sailor. I asked Capt. Smith if I should fire any more, and he said "No: get into that boat."
(1.25am!)
"I went to the boat. Women and children were being passed in. I assisted six, three woman and three children. The order was then given to lower the boat. The chief officer wanted to know if there were more women and children. There were none in the vicinity. Two gentlemen passengers got in; the boat was then lowered."

How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time, Bill?

You see, you are the one saying 2am. How do you explain these contra-indications in the evidence of a witness that you yourself put forward as worthy of credence?

I’m curious.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
But surely, the people who came to Ismay's defence were in no position to contradict his statement about the lack of people on the boat deck as boat C was lowered. If there was a rush around the boat, then White Star Line employees would hardly have said that the chairman was in the middle of it, and that he somehow managed to get aboard the boat? Also, Carter would be in the same situation- how did he get aboard with so many others around?

By the way, heres what Thayer wrote to Milton Long's father on 23/4/12

"..we went to the starboard side of the boat deck.
There was an awful crowd around the last boat
of the forward part of the starboard side, pushing
and shoving wildly....we thought it would never
reach the water right side up, but it did."

Reagrding Woolner seeing boat A rather than boat C, when I first read the arguments, I was impressed.

But then I went back to Gracie's book.

It would take too long to quote verbatim what he said, but this is a summary:
boat A is hoisted down from the roof of the officer's quarters. The boat seems to have spent a while on the boat deck, and Gracie wonders whether this is due to the crew wanting to launch boats A and B at the same time.

At this point, 15 minutes after the launching of boat D, water starts to gurgle up the forward staircase on the starboard boat deck. By this point, A deck is flooded, and boat D has gone, although admittedly, Gracie does not seem to have seen this happen.

Gracie does not mention the mad panic that Woolner saw, although he does say that there were many people around wanting to board the boat. Gracie and Clinch Smith then head aft to met by the mass of humanity etc.

When Woolner headed to A deck, it was dry. when boat A was being readied, it must have been at least partially awash.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
>Bill doesn’t actually mean that the ship “sank before it sank.”￾<

Bad typing on my part, due to trying to rush out of here for the holidays.

Back to Woolner: Obviously you aren't reading his testimony close enough, Mr. Molony, as Woolner*corrected* Senator Smith about which collapsible he was talking about. In the center of page 886 of the US hearings, Woolner is very specific about seeing "two flashes of a pistol" and Smith asks if it was at the first collapsible on the port. Woolner replies "on the starboard side".

>It is "modern researchers" who decided they knew better than Albert Pearcey and moved the departure for Collapsible C to close to the end-time.<

So, we have Rowe who gives us a leave time of 20 minutes before the ship sank, and Ismay himself gives us an even shorter time of 10 minutes. Though Ismay's estimate is rough, it is far closer to a 2:00 launch time than to an 1:40 launch time.

I am not sure which '1999' article I wrote that you are refering to. Regardless, my (and George Behe's and Tad Fitch's) current views on the subject were published in the THS Commutator in 2001. In that article we fully address the entire issue of Rowe's time keeping. See that article for details . George himself published an article with the 2:00 launch time as early as 1991.

And there is the issue of William Carter, another surivior in Collapsible C. He claimed to put his family into Lifeboat #4, *before* he left in C. If #4 left at 1:55, as stated in the British Inquiry, how could he leave at 1:40? Answer - because C did *not* leave at 1:40, it left after #4, closer to a 2:00 time frame.

You make quite an issue of Frankie Goldsmith's conviction that he left in D, not C. However, these are the memories of a mere boy writing years after the disaster. Mrs. Goldsmith, his mother, on the other hand, was an adult in 1912 and recounted her story within days of the disaster. Mrs. Goldsmith said that the four Chinese stowaways were in her lifeboat and that they refused to get out when the officer fired his gun. Needless to say, the four Chinese stowaways were in Collapsible C along with Ismay. As an aside, Mrs. Goldsmith also refers to the gunfire at C.


Paul: Thanks for mentioning Gracie's account, written in the few months after the disaster before Gracie died. I was going to mention it myself, but you beat me to it!
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Paul,

Thanks for the Thayer quote:


"..we went to the starboard side of the boat deck. There was an awful crowd around the last boat of the forward part of the starboard side, pushing and shoving wildly....we thought it would never reach the water right side up, but it did."

That's consistent with Collapsible A.
It is not consistent with the testimony as to C.

Brown talks of the scrum, wild shoving. So does Thayer and Woolner. At 'A'. People can be washed out of 'A,' and the boat is flung off - we know it lands right side up because Rhoda Abbott, Edvard and Gerda Lindell are in it, etc.

It's found floating right side up.

But there is nothing to say that the wild scrum is around Collapsible C. A wash-out and a washaway for Collapsible A is no surprise.

The wash-out (and Snow's deposition) supports the people who talk about a starboard forward boat being devastated by a wave, or capsizing. It can turn right side up thereafter. I'm not surprised, because it was found that way.

Think about this - the five crew who gave evidence about Collapsible C and who supported Ismay's contention about nobody around when it left - do not include men beholden to the White Star Line.

Ismay is the very first witness of any called. Imagine there was a wild panic and a scrum. First of all, is Ismay tough enough to prosper?
And if he is somehow given preferential treatment, why would a pantryman like Pearcey - a bottlewasher basically (*let's not analyse what a pantryman does!), who also survives *in the scrum* by fighting tooth and nail, might and main, back up Ismay?
He can get any other menial job any time, but his life was arguably jeopardised to save the MD...
What does he owe to Ismay if Ismay is now brazenly lying under oath about a nice orderly procession at 2am with nobody around. [Two am, for God's sake! Who's going to believe that!!]}

That just does not make sense, and NOBODY from Collapsible C contradicted Ismay. Not on the lack of people, not on the orderliness, not on the time of departure.

Gracie (a very unreliable witness anyway - let's not get into that either, I have parties to go to!) is just not relevant to the departure of Collapsible C.

Paul, I am going to debrief Woolner for you in probably the next post. Don't forget that Woolner does not know what Collapsible he is looking at, and you can't just decide that it is C.
You have to test that theory. I'll test it for you - then you can give me reasons why it COULD be Collapsible C. Sound fair?

But you did say something interesting:

If there was a rush around the boat, then White Star Line employees would hardly have said that the chairman was in the middle of it, and that he somehow managed to get aboard the boat? Also, Carter would be in the same situation- how did he get aboard with so many others around?
Now, Paul, let's imagine that the above scenario is the correct one. Let's assume thereafter that you are Ismay in these circumstances.
What are you going to testify when you are the very first witness called?

You will want to testify without fear of contradiction, won't you? You don't want to antagonise anyone - the Hearst papers have you in enough trouble, right?
You are going to say, quoting your able counsel Paul Lee: "The was a rush around the boat, Senator. I was trying to keep order. I was in the middle of it, and I somehow managed to get aboard the boat. I had been helping women in, and then the officers were forced to draw revolvers."

He is offering practically no side to his accusers in that case.
In some sense it is worse that he wasn't pushed or shoved in by an officer firing a gun, but calmly stepped in of his own volition earlier in the night. That conscience issue won't go away.

But I am struck by Ismay's uncompromising clarity in his opening evidence. It is very stark. He obviously has no fear of contradiction - and he is not contradicted.

It is not just boat C occupants who back him up, by the way, and not just those left behind like Weikman and Brown who would have added reason to feel aggrieved.

There is a whole network of interdependency which shows that a 2am departure time for Collapsible C (with attendant unpleasantness) simply cannot stand.
The persons in 1912 who are providing these linkages are sometimes doing so unconsciously, so cannot be attempting to either do Ismay a favour or do him a disservice.

The testing of Woolner next.
 

Similar threads