Stanley Lord guilty as charged

Mar 22, 2003
5,168
629
273
Chicago, IL, USA
By the way, the report filed with the hydrographic office stated:
"April 14, 5:40 A.M., latitude 42° 01' N., longitude 50° 06' W., to 8 A.M., latitude 41° 40'N., longitude 50° 22' W., passing along a field of heavy, closely packed ice, with no openings in the field. The ice field could be seen extending far to the northward. During this time sighted about 30 large bergs."
That's a SW direction all right. The times were probably ATS, not NY as Paul surmised.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,719
545
183
Funchal. Madeira
So if they encountered this 30m long field at the coordinates given, and the field was as your diagram shows, then running southwesterly to clear it would make no sense. But they were not the only vessel that said they ran southwesterly to clear it.

Look at this report from Mesaba to Parisian that same day:
“Yes had to steer SW to clear end of ice which was in about Lat 41.35N Long 50.30W Now 11.30 pm GMT Long 51.28W Weather nice and clear No ice in sight Regards Clarke.”
On Monday, Apr 15, Californian had to cut through the ice going almost due west down in lat 41.33N to get to the other side. That latitude came from sun sight ay LAN. Yet, on Apr 14th, Mesaba had to only go down to lat 41.35N to get clear of it, and they steered southwestward to clear according Capt. Clarke.

Hmmm? Lord said the ice was 5 miles wide that he encountered in the ice report he filed. This is consistent with the 5-6 miles wide that Capt. Moore's officers estimated. But you say otherwise.

And then we have this report from Parisian to Olympic on the 15th:
"Safe from field ice to 41.22. 50.14; as the ice was yesterday, you would need to steer from that position about northeast and north to about lat. 41.42 and [lon.] 50, then approach his position from the westward [sic], steering
about west north-west. My knowledge of the Titanic’s position at midnight was derived from your own message to New York, in which you gave it as 41.47, 50.20; if such were correct, she would be in heavy field ice and numerous bergs. Hope and trust matters are not as bad as they appear. HAINS."

And then on the 15th we have from Rostron that by midday Monday on 15th the southernmost point of the pack ice had extended as far south as latitude 41.16N.

But I guess you still can't accept that the ice was moving southward, afterall, according to you there was no south setting current, and the MAIB investigators didn't know what they were talking about.
"And then on the 15th we have from Rostron that by midday Monday on 15th the southernmost point of the pack ice had extended as far south as latitude 41.16N."

That must have been some current since Lord told harrison:

"Rostron said he had all the passengers aboard, and couldn’t be of any further assistance. And he asked me if I would look around. He said he was getting underway, and would I see if I could see any other survivors? So I said I would. So I steamed down, I suppose about ten miles, to the southward. You know we weren’t taking any notice of courses then, you know, we had the position there. So I went down to the clear-of-ice to see if I could see any of the boats – never saw a thing. "

If Lord ran down to say 41-23 North then back up to 41-33 N , he got to the "end of ice" at or near to 10 pm that morning. If Rostron cleared the ice 2 hours later, at mid day, when down at 41-16'N, then that ice was moving at all of 4.5 knots... are you kidding? That was sme south-setting current to say the least. However, no one told the Pronce Adelberg about tht south setting current because his met
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,168
629
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Lord said many things to Harrison in those later years. But in 1912 he said:
"I talked to the Carpathia until 9 o'clock. Then he left. Then we went full speed in circles over a radius - that is, I took a big circle and then came around and around and got back to the boats again, where I had left them."
According to what Groves later wrote: "The Californian now made one complete turn to starboard followed by one to port and then resumed her passage to Boston."
So we have here two complete circles in a little over 2 hours times. So let's see what the radius of these big circles down to leeward were. The radius of a circle is about 1/6 its circumference. And in 2 hours and 15 minutes at 11 knots Californian would go about 25 miles. That means the circumference of just one circle was about 12.5 miles, and 1/6 of 12.5 is just over 2 miles in radius beginning where the abandoned boats were left. The furthest that Californian could have gone south from the wreckage area was a little over 4 miles, 2 radii. According to Rostron, it took Carpathia nearly four hours, about 56 miles, to get around the pack before setting course for NY, and this was confirmed by several other accounts besides his.

But of course, its easier for you to believe what Lord told Harrison in 1961.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,719
545
183
Funchal. Madeira
Lord said many things to Harrison in those later years. But in 1912 he said:
"I talked to the Carpathia until 9 o'clock. Then he left. Then we went full speed in circles over a radius - that is, I took a big circle and then came around and around and got back to the boats again, where I had left them."
According to what Groves later wrote: "The Californian now made one complete turn to starboard followed by one to port and then resumed her passage to Boston."
So we have here two complete circles in a little over 2 hours times. So let's see what the radius of these big circles down to leeward were. The radius of a circle is about 1/6 its circumference. And in 2 hours and 15 minutes at 11 knots Californian would go about 25 miles. That means the circumference of just one circle was about 12.5 miles, and 1/6 of 12.5 is just over 2 miles in radius beginning where the abandoned boats were left. The furthest that Californian could have gone south from the wreckage area was a little over 4 miles, 2 radii. According to Rostron, it took Carpathia nearly four hours, about 56 miles, to get around the pack before setting course for NY, and this was confirmed by several other accounts besides his.

But of course, its easier for you to believe what Lord told Harrison in 1961.
Pressed the wrong button that last time - wasn't finished.

I don't need to believe everything Lord said, most of what he said can be verified from other sources if you care to analyse them properly.

Particularly the evidence you have just quoted. Lord talks about circles, plural but describes making one complete one: " I took a big circle and then came around and around and got back to the boats again, where I had left them."
Whereas Groves, as usual, talked nonsense. He was describing a figure-of-eight search pattern. Such a pattern would be useless since the idea would be, if possible to maintain sight of the origin point... That was the normal procedure.

For a start off, Lord would not be saving fuel nor would he want to wast too much time. I believe the would have run at full speed from 9 am until he arrived back at the location of the wreckage.
Chief Officer Stewart stated that they proceeded on their course at 11-20. That would be at the termination of the first circle which means, if the circle was perfect, they covered a distance of 28 miles in 2 hours 20 minutes and went as much south as 9 miles to the south...to clear of ice. If Californian went back through at 41-33 North, then the ice field stretched down to 41-24'North and was 11 miles south of where it was the day before when Mesaba went around the southern end of the pack ice the previous day at 41-35'North.
However, the Mount Temple was at 41-15 North at about 7 pm the previous night, April 14...16 hours earlier and did not see any ice. The end of the pack ice must have been at least 9 miles north of her position at that time...at 41-24'North. If so, then the ice never move an inch southward from 7 pm April 14 to 11-20 am April 15.

South-setting Current
Neither you or the MAIB looked at all of the evidence concerning the south setting current. You, they and others, took the easy way out, in that "The ice came from the north therefore it was " the Labrador Current wot brought it, guv.".
The aforementioned current only brought the Field Ice to the edge of the Grand Bank. Some of it...bergs,was 2+ year old and the pack ice floe was probably formed around the coast the previous winter. However that does not mean that a branch of the Labrador Current flowed onward to the south across the disaster area. If any cold current continued south and met warmer water, it would dive under it.

Nobody told Captain Clark of the Mesaba about that current. His ship was 7 miles east of the eastern edge of the barrier at 2 pm that day
Earlier, at Noon, he found his ship to be 13 miles NxE of where she should have been at that time. Obviously he had no problems with a south setting current... quite the opposite. Also, like the Californian, Mesaba met a 1+ knots NE-setting head current before she turned at what her captain thought was The Corner. I wonder why Titanic managed to miss it?
Incidentally, Captain Lord thought his ship was being set North and west, not south. But them what did he know?

Then there is the mystery of the Carpathia.
She set off in the direction of North 52 West toward the wrong position. Her captain also must have missed this mysterious south-setting current. Otherwise, if there had been such a current, Carpathia would have been set almost 4 miles south of her intended track by it. However, the NE setting Gulf Stream would have offset that and she would have almost made her intended course and passed to the southwest of Boxall in boat 2. We all know that did not happen and that she was set to the NE therefore what happened to the south-setting current?
Captain Moore of the Mount Temple also seems to have missed that current.

The length and trend of the ice barrier.
Instead of listening to what the men who were actually there are telling you, you and others assume they were all incompetent fools and all missed feeling the effect of this amazing 1.1 knot south-setting current. Try paying closer attention to what two captain "fools" had to say and demonstrate about the trend of the pack ice on April 14 and 15.
First, Captain Moore of the Mount Temple regarding the trend of the ice barrier on the morning of April 15:
"Of course it extended as far as the eye could reach, north and south, (Not NW to SE) sir...I should say 20 miles, perhaps more than that. It was field ice and bergs.
Then Captain Clark of the Mesaba regarding the trend of the ice barrier the previous afternoon
" Had to steer about 20 miles south to clear it. (Not South East)

There was a 12 hour gap between the above observations.

Also, there was the Californian which the Birma recorded as being 15 miles north of 42-46'North at 6 30 am, 13 miles south of that an hour later at 42-48'North when she passed the Mount Temple and about 6.5 miles south of that at 8 pm when at about 41-42'North she turned ENE toward the Carpathia. That was a total of 19,5 miles down along the western edge. But Lord said the ice was about 30 miles long, so that total must have included his steam down to the clear of ice. at 41-30' North.?
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
865
406
73
South Wales UK
Sam, Jim, and myself have been teasing out a few things the last 12 days on Sam's thread as follows


The last 4th and 5th pages especially.

I will continue the discussion here, and unless the moderators care to move a whole lot of posts from the above thread to here, you will have to refer back to the above post.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,719
545
183
Funchal. Madeira
What any sensible, serious investigator should ask is ..."How on earth did the US Hydrographic Office come up with the following chart of the Pack Ice?"
44877

By the way.... note the times used by them as shown at the top of the chart.

Is this what is called "bending things just a little"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Spooner
Mar 22, 2003
5,168
629
273
Chicago, IL, USA
What any sensible, serious investigator should ask is ..."How on earth did the US Hydrographic Office come up with the following chart of the Pack Ice?"
By the way.... note the times used by them as shown at the top of the chart.
Is this what is called "bending things just a little"?
Two points noted here. The second, dealing with the times on the top or the chart, are very easy to explain. The US Senate committee was told that the first CQD was picked up at 10:25pm. They were also told the there was a difference of 1h 33m between NY time and Ship's time. Subtracting that from 11:40pm ship's time gives you 10:07pm NY.
As far as the first point, how did the Hydrographic office come up with their chart of the pack ice, that too is very simple to explain. The chart you really want to show in Knapp's Chart #1. Here's a copy.
44879

The letters on the chart are positions of ice and bergs that come directly from Hydrographic office reports submitted by the vessels listed in the table on the chart, including the report filed by Capt. Lord. All those are available if you care to check the accuracy of what was put down on the chart. The spot narked Titanic is what was submitted as the CQD position in evidence.
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,086
161
223
I will continue the discussion here, and unless the moderators care to move a whole lot of posts from the above thread to here, you will have to refer back to the above post.
I can't speak for the rest of the team, but I'm certainly not going to try to make sense of the various Californian discussions and collate messages by subject. You folks are on your own here.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Samuel Halpern

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
162
11
18
Usa
What any sensible, serious investigator should ask is ..."How on earth did the US Hydrographic Office come up with the following chart of the Pack Ice?"
View attachment 44877

By the way.... note the times used by them as shown at the top of the chart.

Is this what is called "bending things just a little"?
Captain Lord testified

Well, we were surrounded by a lot of loose ice, and we were about a quarter of a mile off the edge of the field.

Captain Knapp put the eddy Captain Lord described on the chart.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
162
11
18
Usa
Now that's one hell of a stretch Alex.
But not as big as to suggest that for the first 1.5 hours the Californian was swinging back and forth starting from ENE and ending up on ENE, when we know for sure that in the next 4 hours she had swung more than 200 degrees in the same direction.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
865
406
73
South Wales UK
Hi Jim,

I can understand, like Sam, why Knapp's diagrams were produced at the time, but they have been consigned to the dustbin of history, as totally inaccurate, so far as the ice field is concerned, from what we know now, and what Knapp ought to have concluded properly at the time.

I would still like to know why Gibson was absent for 50 minutes according to Stone apart from a brief re-visit to the flying bridge (Gibson only) to get a new taff rail log, from 12.25 to 1.15am, and a further 20 minutes to sort out something further with this from 3.40 to 4am.

I have had very little time the last few days to consider things, but one thing came to my addled brain - surely Stewart would also have questioned Gibson after 4am on the 15th? There is not a jot of evidence of this - but?

I have been re-reading lots of very old threads, which I consider to be very important.

One thing in particular strikes me is with Gill's affidavit.... much speculation has taken place as to who the "officer" was who was present when Gill attested to his affidavit... many speculating this was Groves, which I consider very unlikely. Actually the probable clue is in Gill's own words, and it seems to be obvious to me it was one of the Engine Room Officers, rather than Groves.

I still don't know whether Groves signed up for a further voyage expecting to be under Captain Lord instead of Captain Masters, his replacement, when Captain Lord was forced to resign.

No one seems to know what became of James McGregor, ship's carpenter on The Californian after first spilling the beans before Gill.

I think Reade missed a trick here. He used illegal methods to track down Ross and Glenn (that ended up with their descendants), but no mention of McGregor in this nasty business. Which seems very odd given that Reade went to considerable extremes to try and track down some potential witnesses.

Reade has a whole chapter on Gerard Jensen in his book. He also seems to have missed a trick here. The Califonian's ship's cook was a Janssen, and a family of Jensens were onboard Titanic. Why Reade didn't make the link I don't know, and it requires a great deal more research to tie this all up if my suspicions are correct.

The Board of Trade files at Kew, as stated by many researchers, have the Gerard Jensen letter as the first document in the file apart from the frontispiece covered in notes.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,493
529
123
Why would Lord be forced to resign? I thought that, according to Jim, all of Lord’s actions were by the book.
While Lord was never sentenced or punished following the inquiries the numerous negative accounts about him and the Californian in the newspapers made him and the Leyland Line look bad and one member of the Leyland Line's Board refused to let him return to service. Otherwise everyone on the Board had no issue with him returning.

Paul lee wrote in his book "The Titanic and the Indifferent Stranger" that after being informed around August 2nd 1912 that he would not be allowed to return to service onboard a Leyland Line ship, Lord went to speak with the Leyland Line's managing director, Mr Harry Roper who told him the following:
"It's none of our doing -- it's been taken out of our hands altogether. It's strongly against my wishes. Our intention was to put you back in the ship, but the directors in London have decided that public opinion is against you and that you must resign. We have no say in the matter." (Page 121)

Paul Lee then wrote that:
"It transpired that Sir Miles Walker Mattinson KC*, one of the Leyland Line's Board of Director had been the one opponent to Lord's reinstatement, as he had threatened to resign if Lord remained in the company. Mattinson was a powerful figure in British shipping, and his ultimatum forced Leyland's hand." (Page 121)

Hope this explains it.

*
 
Last edited:

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
126
34
28
USA
Hi Harland: What you said explains his dismissal. What it doesn't explain is how everybody could be so wrong about Lord when Jim believes that there is not a shred of evidence against him. I guess we are just too dumb to understand the simple truth that Jim understands so clearly.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,168
629
273
Chicago, IL, USA
but they have been consigned to the dustbin of history, as totally inaccurate, so far as the ice field is concerned,
Knapp had the all those positions that were given in reports filed by the various vessels involved. I went back to the original ice reports that he presented to the Senate committee (memorandum No. 1) and checked the locations of ice and bergs that were used to make his chart. In the case of the general direction of the field trending southwestward in that diagram, there are 4 vessel reports that led to that: Californian's, Mesaba's, Paula's, and Trautenfels. When you connect all the dots, you get the picture that Knapp put into his chart. The problem was that the ice reports were for different times and even days, were based on dead reckoning positions, and were not detailed enough to create a truly accurate picture over time. But he did what he could with what he had.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
865
406
73
South Wales UK
Hi Alex,

In respect of Groves' stating to Captain Lord he saw a "passenger steamer", and Captain Lord denying this was said by Groves at the British Inquiry, you need to widen your research.

Captain Lord omitted to inform the British Inquiry that when they got back to Liverpool 10th May, Groves stated (in front of Captain Lord) to Marine Superintendent Fry, that Groves was of the opinion the ship seen from The Californian was Titanic. Captain Lord admits this in his sworn affidavit of 1959, and in the 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts.

What The Californian witnesses stated on oath at both Inquiries was not "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

I don't discount the possibility that The Californian may have been affected by some eddy that night, but whether it was an eddy or The Californian simply swinging round due to her rudder position, continuing momentum after 'Stopping' after swinging quickly to clockwise to starboard, or a anything else, the reason why she swung round during the night seems to me to be irrelevant. We know she swung round clockwise more than 180 degrees that night.

Cheers,

Julian


Hi Alex,

As I stated, none of The Californian witnesses gave testimony that was "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

In particular, and it would perhaps be unfair to single out Groves, but I think a strong case can be constructed that he had a very peculiar take on lots of things, and some quite peculiar behaviour that night. The quite peculiar behaviour would be waking up the younger Evans in his Marconi room (that I believe was formerly The Californian's mail room on the original plans) when the younger Evans was fast asleep, and much else besides.

I don't think Groves can be considered a good witness - though he got a very easy time at the British Inquiry. At one point he got his port and starboard sides mixed up, he left the bridge unattended to go down to Captain Lord in the chart room at 11.30 (via the venetian door) leaving no officer on the bridge, and his other seen ship coming up obliquely requires the most obscure extremes of evaluation to make any sense of it. Then on the morning of 15th April his timings are significantly earlier than Captain Lord's.

I think Groves simply decided to 'muddy the waters' and create as many problems for Captain Lord without going just too far. (On being demoted from what would have been his due rank as 2nd Officer to 3rd Officer to Stone as 2nd Officer, he had probably decided to apply for other jobs with other lines). If he already had another job offer, this would explain a lot.

I don't think Groves served again with the Leyland Line after they got back to Liverpool, but did not resign or take up a post with another line till after the British Inquiry testimony on (in his case) day 8, 15th May 1912. I don't think he served under Captain Masters on The Californian's next voyage.

Groves could easily have stated to Walter Lord in 1957, or to Leslie Reade, or Leslie Harrison, in personal interviews and correspondence when Groves was retired, a great deal more as to when he left Leyland Line, and much that we would now consider highly relevant. But he kept his cards very close to his chest!

In truth, he was just a bit player in the drama, and not that important. And in the late 1950s till his death in 1963, in his correspondence with Walter Lord and a personal interview, and same with Reade apparently, and certainly Harrison, a most inscrutable way of dealing with things typical of a high order Masonic lodge member of that era.

Cheers,

Julian


(I posted the above on the 'eddy' thread this evening, but it seems more relevant to this thread in respect of my above 2 posts, though I seem not to have grappled with the niceties of copying from one thread to another, so apologies to all)
 
Last edited:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
865
406
73
South Wales UK
There is something quite significant that happened in Captain Lord's old age. For the first time since Foweraker, he discloses Stone and Gibson's statements of 18th April 1912. And discloses the conversation Groves had with Marine Superintendent Fry that Groves states he was of the opinion it was the Titanic that was seen. All withheld from the 1912 Inquiries.

In Rostron's letter to Captain Lord 5th September 1912 he writes " I may state for your private information I have had quite log talks with Captain Bartlett". I don't know how Rostron could have had "quite long talks with Captain Bartlett" at the time (though I don't doubt he did), and Bartlett was in a pivotal role being the IMM Marine Superintendent. Bartlett would no doubt have been told what went on and was said from Marine Superintendent Fry of the Leyland Line in Liverpool when The Californian Captain and officers reported to him late that evening on Friday 10th May 1912.

I tend to take the view that Captain Rostron did everything he could to absolve The Californian of the criticism he expected or knew would be heaped upon it and Captain Lord. Captain Rostron was only partly successful in this. He might have been a bit alarmed if he got from Bartlett what Fry had experienced in his Liverpool office, but by 5th September things had moved on considerably and his reference to Bartlett and quite long talks with him about Captain Lord was probably about getting Captain Lord a new position, as Captain Lord by then was now unemployed, and there is evidence of this from a letter to Captain Lord from Bartlett.

I tend to think Rostron was well aware of this at the time ie trying to play down The Californian's crucial role. After all, he neither implicated the Mount Temple or The Californian at all that morning explicitly, and The Californian only explicitly at 8am in 1912.

The role Bartlett, Fry, and Rostron played in all this has really received very scant attention.

Time to turn in!

Cheers,

Julian