Well, I've got the entire trio weighing in here....
First of all, it isn't required that Lord be a candidate for sainthood in order for him to be innocent of what he was accused of. There was only one perfect person and I believe a religion was started based on him. Secondly, how a person reacts under stress, badly or not, is not proof positive of guilt. I'm sure we all have reacted badly to stress a time or two.
John Feeney said,
you consistently seem to doubt or reject outright anything unfavorable to the man, no matter how overwhelming, while embracing wholeheartedly any hint of "good news"
Well, John, you are absolutely correct, and I'll tell you why. What Captain Lord is accused of is an extremely serious charge, which I believe should only have been done with the utmost of regret only after Lord was shown to be guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. And though there is indeed information that seemingly points to his guilt, I believe what we have available to us falls far short of the standard of guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt. If this standard had been able to have been met, I have no doubt that Lord Mersey would have attempted to have Lord's certificates pulled, no matter what Mersey said to the contrary after the fact. I also believe that both the American and British hearings were conducted too hastily, without sufficient time to gather all the facts and question enough people, both privately and on the stand. Sadly, much useful information no doubt was lost to history, information that would have been easy enough to track down at the time, but will be very difficult, if not impossible for us to find now.
Guilt "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is a very tough standard, but a correct one. This is how I was taught to view such things when I worked in law enforcement. In light of this and of his record before and after the Titanic disaster, I have chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt. <FONT COLOR="ff0000">To me, he is innocent until he is proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, not guilty until proven innocent beyond the shadow of a doubt. The burden of proof is always with the accusers, not the accused, and that is how it should be.
And it is interesting you made this point, John, because I was thinking of the very same thing, but in reverse. I thought that those who accuse Captain Lord are eager to pounce on any perceived inconsistency pointing to guilt, eager to believe the comments of anyone opposed to him, eager to doubt him at every level, and eager to define him as a man based heavily on the events surrounding the Titanic disaster.
My research into Lord is focused more on his life before and after, rather than on the Californian matter, per se, because I believe that no person can be reduced one event in their lives. To more accurately judge a person's basic character, we have to look for patterns present throughout that person's life.
As far as Ernest Gill goes, I am well aware that many of those in the anti-Lord camp have doubts as to his veracity as well as those in favor of Captain Lord.
Gentlemen, I don't ever expect that we'll ever be of accord on this topic, but at least you know where I'm coming from.