Hello AlexP/Mila, and Steven, and Jim.I am only saying that all evidence should be give equal consideration
You do not give all the evidence "equal consideration".
You evaluate the veracity of the evidence and test it against other evidence. And weigh it up, just as any good Solicitor does when advising a client whether to spend thousands of pounds in a Court case, or advising the Legal Aid Board as to the 'reasonableness' test whether they should fund a case as happened quite a few years ago in the UK, and in a Solicitor drafting a frank 'Brief' to Counsel 'to advise' in a Court case.
A clear example of this is whether Captain Lord was 'awake' when Gibson reported to him at 2.05am by the wheelhouse clock in his chart room. Gibson said in his testimony and 18th April Statement that Captain Lord was "awake"; Captain Lord denied this. Another clear example of this is Stone reporting to Captain Lord 5 white rockets seen at 1.10/1.15, which Captain Lord denies; claiming been only told of "one rocket".
Yet a further example is Stone reporting to Captain Lord by the speaking tube whistling down to Captain Lord's cabin at 2.40am to provide a further report, which Stone says Captain Lord answered - but Captain Lord says he was asleep/ has no recollection of. But to answer Stones' 'whistling down' the speaking tube, Captain Lord had to get up from the adjoining chart room and go into his own cabin where the speaking tube was located, to answer Stone. Gibson saw Stone 'whistle down' and speak, but did not hear what Stone said down the speaking tube. Why would Stone have a fictitious conversation down the 'speaking tube' into Captain Lord's cabin, knowing that Captain Lord would have to get up and answer it and move from one room to another?
There was a lot at stake here; Captain Lord did not know that the Board of Trade would subsequently, after the British Inquiry veto further proceedings against him that could have resulted in the removal of his Master's certificate, and fines and potential imprisonment, if a subsequent Court decided he had failed to assist another vessel in distress.
I would suggest that by 14th May, this likelihood was considered a real possibility when Captain Lord took the stand as a witness at the British Inquiry.