Stanley Lord guilty as charged

[Julian Atkins]

Yes, but it depends upon what one describes as a "lot more". IMO the long and the short of it was that Captain Lord had stopped his ship for the night because he considered it too dangerous to proceed with all the ice around; his point in placing his engine room crew on standby was to move the Californian asap if the place it had stopped became dangerous in itself. That done, Lord ordered the OOW shifts to continue as normal and himself partially retired for the night. Up to that time, one cannot fault his actions.

The problem on the Californian started with interpretation by Stone and Gibson about the lights and then rockets that they were seeing, which undoubtedly came from the sinking Titanic; there was no other ship within the visible horizon distance in that direction. I strongly feel that one or both of them did think that the other ship might be in distress but shared their Captain's concerns about moving the Californian unless it became absolutely necessary; to that end, they convinced themselves that there was nothing seriously wrong. When they decided to report what they were seeing to the Captain, it did not carry their misgivings or urgency with enough impact. Lord for his part must also have guessed that there might be something wrong but like his crew, decided that he did not really want to know.

Hi Arun,

I partly agree (indeed might wholly agree with you) except for the analysis.

Let me just back track a little. And this is on the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 relevant at the time and for a considerable number of years thereafter. I’m not an expert on the provisions of the Act or it’s Statutory Regulations and am certainly not an expert in UK Maritime Law. And I haven’t checked this tonight, but from my memory (which may be faulty) it was an offence (a criminal offence) for a Captain not to respond in aid of another ship in distress. Unless certain defences were applicable.

The other matter which I have yet to fully be confident about is that an ordinary Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry could invoke provisions in the 1894 Act to suspend or revoke a Master’s Certificate. And additionally criminal sanctions upon a Captain. Not in a Magistrates Court or the Crown Court necessarily; but in a Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry which was a peculiar legal beast.

It wasn’t a Coroner’s Inquest or a Court Martial; it was a very peculiar thing with extraordinary powers. (If I have got any of this wrong, I apologise in advance; but I don’t think I have ever seen or read about the full powers of an ordinary Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry).

The British Inquiry was a Statutory Inquiry that seems to be something else.

Going back to your above post, Captain Lord did not rely upon a defence that to a “charge” of not going to the aid of a vessel in distress that it would endanger his own ship. “I would have made the attempt”.

What he instead appears to do is create a nonsense about “company signals”, that shoots to shreds his testimony on the basis of what we know now were the “company signals” at the time.

It’s a sort of diversionary tactic by someone who is told over a period of an hour or so that multiple white rockets exploding into stars are seen and reported. That never ever could be considered to be “company signals”. And when Gibson makes his report to his Captain in the chart room just after 2am that Sunday morning, Captain Lord feigned being partly asleep, yet his own engine room and crew were on “standby”.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

The other matter which I have yet to fully be confident about is that an ordinary Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry could invoke provisions in the 1894 Act to suspend or revoke a Master’s Certificate. And additionally criminal sanctions upon a Captain.

That is something that has puzzled me too Julian. My reading of the 1894 Act suggests that a Wreck Commisioner’s inquiry had the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction and did have the power to revoke a certificate but Lord Mersey appeared to hold a strong opinion that it did not have such powers.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

My reading of the 1894 Act suggests that a Wreck Commisioner’s inquiry had the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction and did have the power to revoke a certificate but Lord Mersey appeared to hold a strong opinion that it did not have such powers.

I am not very familiar with such legal matters, but a cursory glance at the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 releaved a lot of references to a ship - British or foreign - in trouble within British Territorial Waters, including liability of Captains of other vessels that came or did not to assist in case of distress. Since the Titanic sank in international waters, might that have restricted the powers of a subsequest British Inquiry panel regarding sanctions against the Captain of another vessel deemed to have not assisted when it could have done?

Also, would it be necessary for a Captain to be legally proven to have been negligent before any consideration of revoking his Masters' Certificate?

 

[Richard C Elliott]

Since the Titanic sank in international waters, might that have restricted the powers of a subsequest British Inquiry panel

That might be one factor but I think that in a much broader sense the powers of a Wreck Commissioner's inquiry were just not clearly defined. As Julian said,

a Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry ... was a peculiar legal beast.

I think that to some extent Lord Mersey had to make up the rules as he went along. The inquiry was something outside the normal judicial framework. Lord Mersey had no previous experience of being a Wreck Commissioner - nobody had, because it wasn't a regular post. The appointment was only made when required under the authority of a short paragraph in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 with no detailed description of the powers and responsibilities. The early sessions of the inquiry were largely discussions between the Commisioner and the Attorney-General trying to define the scope and powers of the inquiry.

Neither the US nor the UK really had a satisfactory legal procedure for investigating a major shipping accident. The US inquiry had to be empowered by an ad hoc Senate resolution and although the UK had an existing law enabling the appointment of a Wreck Commissioner it left much of the procedure undefined. It is also interesting to note that in both cases the inquiries derived their authority from a government department primarily responsible for regulating the commercial aspects of shipping - the Commerce Committee of the US Senate and the UK Board of Trade. It would be a long time before either country had institutions primarily concerned with regulating safety.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I really haven’t come to a firm conclusion on the above, and yet is something I have attempted to consider in detail over the last 6 years when my interest was first piqued.

I don’t feel confident to provide the sort of legal analysis required. I could do the research as I have an “Archives Card” and go and access the Cardiff University Law Library. Of those Inquiries I have read the reports of many years ago (one of which involved Groves as one of the assessors) I couldn’t gleen much. The operation and reports of Wreck Commissioners going back to the period in question seems to be an archive all of it’s own!

Richard and I have debated railway accident Board of Trade Inquiries, and I am on familiar ground examining those.

Heavy caveat here, but based on the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, I think that Lord Mersey could have in effect made a trial of anyone who held a certificate or who was employed in the British Mercantile Marine. The Act provided those powers, and in certain circumstances criminal sanctions. Plus sanctions such as revoking a certificate. All the sort of things that you would expect an ordinary Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry to consider and deal with.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Heavy caveat here, but based on the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, I think that Lord Mersey could have in effect made a trial of anyone who held a certificate or who was employed in the British Mercantile Marine. The Act provided those powers, and in certain circumstances criminal sanctions. Plus sanctions such as revoking a certificate. All the sort of things that you would expect an ordinary Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry to consider and deal with.

That is the part that I am finding to understand and would appericiate an explanation. We have mentioned many times on various threads how both Inquiry Committes were just investigative panels which had the power to issue summons to witnesses but not to impose criminal sanctions on those they found "guilty" since they were not courts. Therefore, to my way of thinking, the Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry had no judicial powers to convert any witness' interrogation - including Captain Lord for example - into a trial and find him guilty in the legal sense of the word. I would have thought in order to do that, Lord would have to be labelled as a defendant , which would automatically have entitled him to legal representation and a separate stand.

But after some thought I felt that something like revoking a Master's Certificate was within powers of the Commission, but that then would have been something to which Captain Lord could mount a legal challenge. If the Commission had felt that there was criminal negligence involved and needed further investigation (and perhaps appropriate sanctions), would they have been able to refer the matter to the courts?

 

[Richard C Elliott]

For anyone interested in trying to understand the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 you can find the text at Merchant Shipping Act 1894. (This is a fully digital, browser-compatible version - not just a reprint of the original text.)

Section 466 is the main part dealing with formal investigations of shipping casualties, although several other sections may also be relevant.

 

[Julian Atkins]

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894 Section 466 subsections (10) and (11) seem to be particularly relevant to this particular debate. (And many other sections and subsections are also relevant).

I haven’t formed a firm view on this, but if say Lord Mersey took the view that the principal culpable players in the disaster died that night, then he just might have taken the view that those that might have been found culpable didn’t need him to fashion the British Inquiry as might otherwise have been typical of a Wreck Commissioner’ Inquiry.

The survivor who probably had the squeaky-ist of bottoms was probably Marconi Officer Harold Bride. (I could add Boxhall). But I don’t think that a Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry had any sanction it could impose on a Marconi wireless operator. And the causation is difficult to establish. (I’m mainly referring to Bride’s “overhearing” of the MSG of icebergs sighted by The Californian to the Antillian - which Bride claimed he did deliver to the Bridge, and Evans and Captain Lord on The Californian never admitted was sent as a separate MSG to Titanic. And then you also have all the conflicts of interest with shares in Marconi and the Attorney General, and his brother being Managing Director of Marconi UK).

I agree that if it was in the mind of Lord Mersey to subsequently agree to an amendment to his terms of reference, and pillory Captain Lord; then he should have ensured that Captain Lord was properly represented by independent Counsel and given the warning about self incrimination. But the other side of the coin was that Lord Mersey might have decided he would not/could not (because he had not treated Captain Lord properly) make any decision as to Captain Lord’s Master’s Certificate.

Perhaps that was because he might have had an intimation from Leyland Line that they were going to suspend Captain Lord anyway. (That would be highly irregular and unconscionable for Lord Mersey not to disclose any such intimation).

But in the overall scheme of things, with what went on with the Attorney General and his brother vis a vis Marconi perhaps all sorts of things were going on.

 

[Steven Stuart]

The unsatisfied Lord remained below.

The unsatisfied Lord was asleep through exhaustion - I fully believe - because he had been on duty for 18 straight hours and had went from the icy cold exterior to warmer interior of the chart room.

It explains why he possibly misheard Stone's reference to rockets (plural) over rocket (singular), having been woken sharply from a sleep-deprived state by the whistle tube; why he was roused again from a deep slumber by Gibson around 02:05, gave some perfunctory questions and order to keep him informed yet didn't remember any of it come morning; and was awakened for the final time by Chief Officer Stewart, still asleep, at 04:30.

Nothing in Lord's service record - before or after April 1912 - or what we know of his personality indicates he was in any way blase about ship duties... quite the opposite, in fact.

IMHO, Lord had a moment of fallible human weakness at a highly unfortunate and consequential moment of world history that haunted him the rest of his life. He should not be castigated for it, although he still should be criticized for not listening to his captain's instinct about not being satisfied with Stone's answer and immediately went to the bridge himself to check; if anything, it was a momentary if understandable (his ship wasn't in immediate danger) lapse in judgement but certainly not a crime - moral or otherwise - to ruin a man's reputation and career over.

Additionally, if Stone felt what he and Gibson were witnessing was something extraordinary needing of the Captain's personal attention, the onus was on the OOW to convey that to his skipper... Stone did not and even told Lord later that morning had it been so, he would have. The Captain has to trust the judgement of his officers at the end of the day.

It's worth noting that Lord was ultimately proven right 73 years later regarding Titanic's actual position relative to Californian when the wreck of the former was discovered 13 miles east of where it supposedly sank, yet no-one lambasts the Titanic officers for getting its position so disastrously wrong.

The Mersey inquiry was a sham and we all know it. As Frank Strachan told Lord, "they wanted a scapegoat and you were the bloody goat."

Questions should have been asked after the fact about the Mount Temple's position that night... but I guess there was no gutter journalist to offer a $500 bribe to any of it's crew... unlike with a certain Mr Gill.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

The unsatisfied Lord was asleep through exhaustion - I fully believe - because he had been on duty for 18 straight hours and had went from the icy cold exterior to warmer interior of the chart room. It explains why he possibly misheard Stone's reference to rockets (plural) over rocket (singular), having been woken sharply from a sleep-deprived state by the whistle tube; why he was roused again from a deep slumber by Gibson around 02:05, gave some perfunctory questions and order to keep him informed yet didn't remember any of it come morning; and was awakened for the final time by Chief Officer Stewart, still asleep, at 04:30.

I don't disagree with you but there are certain occupations where one has to develop the skill of being almost instantly alert even if woken from an exhausted sleep. I speak from experience as a medical man for 41 years; after a certain amount of seniority we got the chance of stretching our legs if a junior doctor was on duty but could be expected to be jerked awake for an emergency at any time over a very long duty stint. One had to be 100% alert to make the right decisions right away. I suppose being the Captain of a ship and so officially on duty all the time meant that good sleep during a long voyage was a luxury.

In case of Lord, is was more a case of falling short of comprehending the possible implication of what he was being told rather than actually not hearing anything properly. But then, I believe that neither Gibson nor - especially - Stone tried too hard to get their concerns across because like their Captain they did not want to move the Californian that night unless absolutely necessary.

IMHO, Lord had a moment of fallible human weakness at a highly unfortunate and consequential moment of world history that haunted him the rest of his life. He should not be castigated for it, although he still should be criticized for not listening to his captain's instinct about not being satisfied with Stone's answer and immediately went to the bridge himself to check; if anything, it was a momentary if understandable (his ship wasn't in immediate danger) lapse in judgement but certainly not a crime - moral or otherwise - to ruin a man's reputation and career over.

Yes, again. There was probably some wishful thinking on part of both Stone and Lord that the problem was not really that serious and therefore that "absolutely necessary" situation never arose in their minds. They inadvertantly managed to transmit their feelings to one another and the outcome was that nothing was done. That was negligence certainly but no a crime committed and since we have discussed and agreed that upon being told of the first rocket, even if Captain Lord had immediately jumped up and got into action, the Californian probably would have succeeded in saving less than 100 more lives, if that. But the fact that he did not even try resulted in tarnishing his image that lingers to this day.

Additionally, if Stone felt what he and Gibson were witnessing was something extraordinary needing of the Captain's personal attention, the onus was on the OOW to convey that to his skipper... Stone did not and even told Lord later that morning had it been so, he would have. The Captain has to trust the judgement of his officers at the end of the day.

Once again, there has been that feeling - with which I concur - that Stone and Gibson did not try anywhere near hard enough to convery their misgivings about the other ship to their Captain. It was almost like they neither wanted to know themselves nor wanted the Captain to know. As OOW, I believe Stone had the authority to wake Evans if he felt that the other ship was in distress but - probably because he knew that if he did the truth would be in their face and they had to act - did not do so.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I disagree with @Steven Stuart. And, I might add, strongly disagree.

I would cite in this instance, rather than re-hash well trodden debates in this very thread, that other Captains were capable of being alert and reacting for quite extended periods of time.

I would cite Eric Clement’s book on Captain Rostron. Numerous examples of Captain Rostron being on watch for extended periods of time.

I would cite the example of Captain Moore of the Mount Temple 30 years or so older than Captain Lord of that night.

The presumption that Captain Lord by 12.30am that Sunday was exhausted and wouldn’t react promptly to an emergency I find very hard to agree with. By his own admission corroborated by Gibson is that Captain Lord was still in the chart room, and awake at 2.05am Gibson added.

The chart room was below the flying bridge. There was on The Californian a glazed roof protuberance into the flying bridge where Stone and Gibson were that was immediately above the chart room. (No doubt with blinds that night), but nevertheless Stone and Gibson were above Captain Lord separated by only a bit of steel plating or panes of glass.

At 11.30pm on Sunday night, Groves goes down to the chart room ‘via the Venetian door’ to tell Captain Lord that he has seen the lights of a passenger steamer approach them. Captain Lord had stopped his ship due to ice at 10.21pm, had conversed with his Chief Engineer about keeping steam up that night in case they had to move, and had conversed with Marconi wireless operator Cyril Evans - that the only ship Evans “had” was Titanic. Captain Lord asks Evans to send a Marconi wireless message to Titanic that The Californian is “stopped surrounded by ice”. Message sent around 11.05pm.

By 11.45pm we have Captain Lord with 3/O Groves back on The Californian’s flying bridge, and by then it is 11.57pm Titanic time, and Captain Lord disagrees with Groves’s earlier assessment of the lights now seen as reduced being Groves’s “passenger steamer”.

Neither C/O Stewart, or 2/O Stone, or 3/O Groves, or Gibson ever mention Captain Lord being fatigued or missing his meal breaks. It’s a difficult proposition, but I think I can guess when Captain Lord took his meals and rest breaks.

I don’t agree with the narrative that by 12.30am that Monday morning or by 1.30am Captain Lord was exhausted and in effect asleep. The available evidence simply does not support that argument. Inaction - by design and considered judgment - perhaps.

You would have to concoct a proposition that both Stone and Gibson deliberately lied about Stone using the ‘speaking tube’ to Captain Lord and Gibson being cognisant of some of those communications, and Gibson’s visit to the chart room to report 8 white rockets seen, to be a fabrication and a total pack of lies.

Having stopped The Californian due to “ice” and an ice field ahead, and ordering the Chief Engineer to keep steam up in case The Californian had to move suddenly, I don’t believe that Captain Lord would have fallen asleep. They had by then had a pretty good cross Atlantic run with no gales and fair weather, and no passengers to contend with. Just a little bit unusual with it being from London rather than Liverpool, and to Boston for the first time.

We don’t have the Manifest records other than reported by Leslie Reade in TSTSS that it was a “general cargo” by a newspaper report at the time when The Californian docked in Boston, but if the holds of The Californian were “full” or “full-ish”, then the only capacity on The Californian were in the unused passenger cabins on that crossing and the dining room aft on the port side and the smoking room above. That’s not a lot of room.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I don’t agree with the narrative that by 12.30am that Monday morning or by 1.30am Captain Lord was exhausted and in effect asleep. The available evidence simply does not support that argument.

Well, none of us really know how Captain Lord was feeling when he "retired" for the night after stopping his ship but I accept that he might not have been "exhausted" in the literal sense of the word. Also, comparing a situation and mindset of a Captain who did not yet know that something had happened to another ship not far away (Lord, before he was informed of anything) to one who had just been told of a major accident and sinking ship and was going for the rescue (Rostron) would be unfair. As for Rostron's long periods of being on duty as in Clements' book, I doubt if Lord would have been caught dozing or playing a game of patience in his cabin when he was required to be on the bridge during previous voyages. A Captain can only react to the situation that he finds his ship in and not to something that is not happening; more than anything else, the Californian had stopped for the night.

You would have to concoct a proposition that both Stone and Gibson deliberately lied about Stone using the ‘speaking tube’ to Captain Lord and Gibson being cognisant of some of those communications, and Gibson’s visit to the chart room to report 8 white rockets seen, to be a fabrication and a total pack of lies.

There certainly was a lot of communication issues between the bridge and Captain Lord that night; I suspect that with hindsight, Lord was not excluding himself when he mentioned somewhere that there was "slackness" on board the Californian during the time the Titanic was sinking. When it came to testifying, I feel that both parties were not telling the truth but while in Lord's case it was an attempt to salvage something from the mess that his reputation seemed to be heading for at the time, in case of his officers it was at least partly a desire to exonerate themselves and point the finger at their Captain. I do NOT believe that either Stone or Gibson tried to impress the urgency of the situation - which I believe they had understood - when they communicated with Captain Lord. IMO, they did not want to because the one thing they did not want Lord to order was to wake Evans up to check. Had that happened, we all know that Lord would have been obliged to move his ship, which the crew wanted even less than the Captain himself.

Inaction - by design and considered judgment - perhaps.

Those are strong words! But if there was any inaction by design, it was entirely by Stone, who IMO did realize that the rockets that he and Gibson were seeing were distress signals and as OOW he was obliged to do something about it. I think he had the authority to wake up wireless operator Evans and order him to check but that would have let the cat out of the bag and left Stone with no options. To that end, he managed to convince Apprentice Gibson and between them they designed an ambiguous and incomplete report that they hoped Captain Lord would not think was too serious. It worked....at the time.

Captain Lord had to accept his own share of the blame, of course but that's where his considered judgement came in. I am sure that at some point it did occur to him that the rocket(s) that he was told about could be distress signals from the other ship but he managed to convince himself that the situation was not too serious. Part of that might have been the fact that Lord strongly suspected that the rockets were being fired by the Titanic, the large steamer that Evans and he had talked about earlier; like most other mariners of the time, Stanley Lord too had been exposed to the publicity surrounding the new WSL liners and that Sunday night he very likely decided that whatever the problem Titanic had, it was not serious enough for him to move his ship before daylight. To that end, he did not feel it necessary to wake up Evans and that was inexcusable.

In summary, IMO Captain Lord and his crew were certainly negligent but not criminally negligent, although in case of Stone it would be very close.

 

[Steven Stuart]

By his own admission corroborated by Gibson is that Captain Lord was still in the chart room, and awake at 2.05am Gibson added.

I don’t agree with the narrative that by 12.30am that Monday morning or by 1.30am Captain Lord was exhausted and in effect asleep. The available evidence simply does not support that argument.

Lord himself admitted it in his 1961 interview(s) with Leslie Harrison:

"You could hear him tapping. And then, nothing happened then for a little while, and probably I dozed off, and the wire – er, Gibson came down to say that the ship had steamed away."

If Lord was not asleep, why did he (by his own testimony) not remember Gibson's 02:05 visit to the chart room (he even asked Gibson the time)? He stated quite plainly he believed Gibson's account of telling him the unidentified vessel had steamed away but that he (Lord) simply didn't remember it.

At the end of the day, I actually do agree with @Arun Vajpey in that I think having secured their vessel for the night, with no imminent danger on the horizon, both Lord and Stone failed to grasp the full potential implications of what was ultimately happening some 20 miles southward of them.

Lord was informed of a single rocket (as he heard it) from Stone, whilst Stone and Gibson were watching what appeared to be up to eight rockets being fired but those rockets only ascended to half the masthead height of the vessel they were observing, no launch or detonation sound was heard, and both men weren't even entirely sure that nearest vessel was the one firing said rockets. And if the vessel in question steamed away under its own power - which it appeared to do - then it obviously wasn't in peril and thus no worries, Stone could have himself another cup of tea while he sent Gibson to inform Captain Lord of the situation.

It's all very slim pickings for either man to deduce a world-changing event was happening to their southward... we can ask now how they didn't see what was happening, but in the moment, it's nigh-on impossible to imagine the unimaginable.

That being said, Captain Lord not being satisfied about Stone's answer is the smoking gun, in my opinion; a captain's instinct is a valuable barometer to keep well-honed on the open sea and Lord's instinct was telling him something wasn't entirely right... why he didn't follow through on that and either go to the bridge himself to check on what was happening or at the very least order Gibson to wake Evans and fire up the wireless to check 'the news' is the $64,000 question that I still can't explain.

All that, however, is a completely separate question to the ongoing debate of Titanic and Californian's proximity and visibility to each other...

 

[Arun Vajpey]

All that, however, is a completely separate question to the ongoing debate of Titanic and Californian's proximity and visibility to each other. Lord and Stone failed to grasp the full potential implications of what was ultimately happening some 20 miles southward of them.

I think 20 miles is stretching it a bit. Sam has done extensive working out of the possible distance between the stopped Californian and the sinking Titanic in his book Strangers On The Horizon. I do not have the copy ready to hand (it is back in the UK) but I believe that the two ships were around 14 miles apart according to Sam's calculations (please correct me if I am wrong, Sam!).

Lord was informed of a single rocket (as he heard it) from Stone, whilst Stone and Gibson were watching what appeared to be up to eight rockets being fired but those rockets only ascended to half the masthead height of the vessel they were observing, no launch or detonation sound was heard, and both men weren't even entirely sure that nearest vessel was the one firing said rockets.

That is one of the issues that stands out in the aforementioned "communication issues" that existed between the bridge and the Captain that night. IMO, Lord must have been told about more than one rocket because during his testimony he claimed that he had asked "Did they look like Company Signals?", which immediately suggests that he was informed of more than one. But at the same time, I do not believe that Stone was very effective in imparting his concerns about the situation and his statements later about "ascending only half the masthead height" etc were outright lies specifically designed to convey the belief that the rockets were being fired by an unseen ship that was beyond the one the lights of which they could see.

If Lord was not asleep, why did he (by his own testimony) not remember Gibson's 02:05 visit to the chart room (he even asked Gibson the time)? He stated quite plainly he believed Gibson's account of telling him the unidentified vessel had steamed away but that he (Lord) simply didn't remember it. And if the vessel in question steamed away under its own power - which it appeared to do - then it obviously wasn't in peril and thus no worries, Stone could have himself another cup of tea while he sent Gibson to inform Captain Lord of the situation.

Lord was probably dozing on and off and might have had trouble remembering everything that he was told that night, and that's where he made a big error. He should have reacted positively and effectively as soon as he was informed about the first rocket and by not doing so, drove the first nail into his own professional coffin. Stone and Gibson built their story around their Captain's lethargy but they were more interested in protecting themselves than defend their skipper. I do not believe that either Stone or Gibson really thought that the other ship was "steaming away to the west"; that was another lie to support their earlier one. Somewhere along the line Lord realized that his own crew were selling him down the river but he was too proud a man to convert the Inquiry into a mudslinging game.

 

[Steven Stuart]

I think 20 miles is stretching it a bit.

I don't.

Titanic foundered at 41° 43 N, 49° 56 W. According to Lord's calculations, Californian stopped at 42° 05 N, 50°, 07 W. The distance between the two positions is approximately 19.25 nautical miles (22 statute miles). Lord even stated during the Wreck Commissioner's inquiry that he believed Titanic to be 20 miles away - incidentally, so did Cyril Evans, who owed no loyalty to Lord or Leyland - and both were proven correct 73 years later.

I respect Sam's breadth of knowledge but the fact remains that Californian was giving her position all day whilst communicating with other ships, and she was clearly on the Boston track (ditto with Titanic on the New York track, even moving further southward) throughout her journey on April 14. In fact, Californian's path along this track is given independent corroboration when the Parisian also warned of "three large bergs" in the same position that Californian had warned the Antillian of at 18:30 (ship's time)... thereby confirming Californian's longitudinal path exactly as Lord always contended.

Fancy diagrams and armchair navigation a century after the fact don't trump actual lived experience in real-time while said events were unfolding.

during his testimony he claimed that he had asked "Did they look like Company Signals?", which immediately suggests that he was informed of more than one.

Not necessarily. Lord was responding long after he had been informed by Stone of multiple rockets, it likely subconsciously influenced how he referred back to that original conversation with his 2/O on the night in question. Human word formation is an extremely fluid and mercurial thing based on memory, psychology, and emotion.

To his dying day, Lord contended he heard Stone say "rocket" (singular)... Stone asserts he said "rockets" (plural)... who to believe is up to you, but it could be both men were telling the truth and Lord genuinely misheard the plural in Stone's mention of rockets through tiredness or whistle tube sonics... take your pick.