Unsinkable The Full Story

John M. Feeney

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
0
0
Tracy observed; "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..."

Yeah, and I'm one of them. Reade himself did a nice job in pointing out how the man's story improved over time too. Frankly, I doubt the veracity of anybody who runs to the media first with damning information and with his hand out for a payoff. There are much better witnesses then this bloke.


Hi, Mike:

Well, that's your interpretation of the sequence of events, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But that doen't make it fact. I went to great lengths to dig out and verify Evans' actual testimony about Gill's "payoff" in the "General Titanica: The Implied Mathematics ..." thread, and I just don't see your "take" as necessarily jibing with those statements. To me, going to the papers "with his hand out" -- *soliciting* a payoff -- isn't at all implied by that snippet of testimony. (Though I can see it as one possible interpretation.) Gill simply comes back from his interview and tells Evans, "I think we will make about $500 out of this." Extrapolation to any scenario beyond those simple, observable facts seems inherently fraught with error.

Myself, I perceive Reade as being exceptionally harsh towards Gill out of an innate sense of "fair bile towards all". (And note that at NO point does Reade make the kind of blanket condemnation we see here; he simply expresses doubts about certain aspects of Gill's story.) I also question Reade's confusion regarding Gill's apparently profound transformation by the time of the British Inquiry. The sort of chutzpah displayed there by Gill suggests to me a man now emboldened by his pride of conviction.

Anyway, my protests at Tracy's treatment of Gill do not stem from her simply expressing measured *doubts*, but rather from her "carte blanche" dismissal of him even BEFORE the fact. Here's Tracy's "assessment" of May 25, 2001:
[hr]
Quote:

So far as Gill goes, he isn't even worth mentioning. It's obvious what his motive$ were.

I've seen his type before, especially when on the police force. Though law enforcement does make selective use of paid informants, such folks are not thought highly of, nor are they trusted. Any info gleaned from such sources is never accepted at face value, but checked out with a fine tooth comb.
[hr]​
Hardly what I'd call a moderate appraisal; to the contrary, it's a pretty blatant example of character assassination in its own right. It's certainly not "obvious" to *me* what his "motive$" were! But Tracy expresses a condemning surety about the man tanatamount to a first-hand knowledge of him and his motives: "I've seen his type before ...".

What would the Lordites prefer? That Gill told the same story for free, with the exact same effect -- blowing the lid completely off Lord's pack of lies -- but walk away $500 poorer, with no job or income??

As for any innate bias, as Logan brought up, I sincerely *did* resent Tracy's insinuation that I would simply dismiss anything favorable to Lord. I'm not "anti-" anything! But I *am* very heartily "PRO-" truth and common sense. So I don't like seeing the waters muddied by the introduction of bogus historical "facts", as was the case when Tracy asserted that Evans had confirmed Lord's claim that the ship they saw was NOT the Titanic. (And while I doubt that any hard-core Lordite would take it on faith that I read all of Evans' testimony in an effort to locate that potential *gap* in my knowledge, that was in fact the case.)

As for the innocent lying "because they don't trust anybody", I've got a really hard time swallowing that one, Mike. One thing no one accuses Lord of is stupidity, and what intelligent man would go to such fantastic lengths to fabricate such an incredibly elaborate hoax rather than simply refuse to comment? (As you may recall, Lord even *boasted* initially about his heroic 'rush to the rescue'.) Surely any innocent man with half a brain would realize that the potential backlash -- should he be found out -- would be catastrophic!

Few of the questions or observations raised in prior posts by George, Dave, or myself have actually been addressed. And out of fairness to those interested, I do wish Tracy would simply respond to those points with some actual evidence. So far, it just doesn't seem like we're on the same playing field.

Regards,
John
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Myself, I perceive Reade as being exceptionally harsh towards Gill out of an innate sense of "fair bile towards all". <<

Try objectivity.

>>As for the innocent lying "because they don't trust anybody", I've got a really hard time swallowing that one, Mike. <<

That's your right. But in a purely objective sense, and considering the tone of the times, I can see why it's possible. As I said, your results may vary.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Nov 30, 2000
1,244
2
168
56
West Sussex, UK
All,

I'd like to ask a question, with the caveat that I have done no research on the Californian incident at all - other than read the various threads devoted to the topic on ET. (In other words, please don't shoot at me...I'm a civilian!)

Re Michael's post about why people lie, well the innocent also lie to protect others. Is it possible that Lord was trying to protect Stone and Gibson?

Here's one theory: Lord knew Gibson and Stone had made a mistake - perhaps they hadn't even tried to wake him at all; just told him of the night's events in the morning? - and now Lord was trying to do the best he could for his Officers.

As a theory it's probably as feasible as the Loch Ness Monster, astro-projection and mermaids, but I had to ask!

Regards,
Paul.
 

John M. Feeney

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
0
0
Try objectivity.

Well, I'd say "equity" myself -- objectivity of a sort, but not *quite* the same. Besides, Reade's overall *impression* of Gill is just that -- an impression, nothing more. He says as much himself!

That's your right. But in a purely objective sense, and considering the tone of the times, I can see why it's possible. As I said, your results may vary.

They do! (As I've explained in detail.) But I don't see how a subjective interpretation -- a hypothetical one, at that -- somehow merits elevation to the status of "a purely objective sense". Nevertheless, you're entitled to your opinion. Mine just differs. :^)

Cheers,
John
 
Jan 21, 2001
144
0
146
Hi Mike:

>Frankly, I doubt the veracity of anybody who runs to the media first with damning information and with his hand out for a payoff.... BTW, as an aside, does anybody know why the U.S. Senate inquiry overlooked the Californian's officers, particularly Stone and Gibson? Seems quite an oversight to ignore or forget to summon the people actually on watch. <

Not an oversight at all. They had no reason to subpoena Stone and Gibson, based on what they knew. The US Senators had been misled. According to Lord's interview, Stone and Gibson hadn't been on watch; why should the US Senators haul them down to Washington? They can't be faulted for Lord's lie. In addition, remember that Lord had asked Stone and Gibson for their private accounts while the Californian was still at sea. If *anyone* had the opportunity to present Stone and Gibson to the US Senators, it was Lord himself. He had their signed statements. And he remained conspicuously silent on the subject.

The image I have in my mind is of Lord testifying to the US Senators, claiming "the officer on watch told me about a rocket," but not clarifying which officer that was, and also keeping Stone's document hidden from the investigators. And no wonder - had he shown them that, they would have read that Stone and Gibson notified him three times and told them they saw not one, but eight rockets. For those who defended him at the time, I wonder if they knew the extent to which their star witness dissembled. Wouldn't they have asked him these questions, if they had known:

"Why did you lie in Boston and say that Stewart was on the bridge, and not Stone?"

"Why did Stone deny having signed a private account for you, when you already had it in your possession?"

"Why did you say that 'nobody' on your ship saw rockets, when you had signed papers from two of your officers saying that they had seen them, and you knew the whole ship must have been talking about it?"

"Why didn't you share those private accounts with the investigators in the US and Britain?"

As I said before, when you get right down to it, paid or not, Gill's statement to the Boston press was much closer to the truth than Lord's version(s) were.

Dave Billnitzer
 
Jan 21, 2001
144
0
146
Ultimately, of course, the real question is the very one that John Bull asked, shortly after the British Inquiry:

"Was the idea to say nothing about it, had the donkeyman not split?"

Dave Billnitzer
 

John M. Feeney

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
0
0
Re Michael's post about why people lie, well the innocent also lie to protect others. Is it possible that Lord was trying to protect Stone and Gibson?

Hi, Paul:

I've heard this idea before, and would even consider it plausible if it weren't for the fact that Lord basically *turned* on Stone -- who seems, at least, to have hedged mightily on his behalf at the Hearings -- once the Inquiries were over.

In a letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Board of Trade, dated August 10, 1912 (see "The Ship that Stood Still", p. 268-70) Lord said (among other things):

"I had taken every precaution for the safety of my own ship, and left her in charge of a responsible officer (Stone) at 0.40 a.m. with instructions to call me if he wanted anything, and I lay down fully dressed. ..."

"It is a matter of great regret to me that I did not go on deck myself at this time, but I didn't think it possible for any seaman to mistake a Company's signal for a distress signal, so I relied on the officer on watch. ..."

"Further signals were seen after 2.0 a.m.but the officer was so little concerned about them, that he did not think it necessary to notify me."

"If you consider there was any laxity aboard the Californian the night in question, I respectfully draw your attention to the information given here, which was given in evidence, which also proves
(it) was not on my part."

(Naturally there's much more -- it's quite a long letter, actually -- but I certainly haven't omitted anything contrary to this particular theme. (If anything, I've left out pieces that further reinforce it.))

If Lord *had* perhaps been covering for Stone as a "noble gesture", he'd certainly changed his tune by August. By then he appears to be stating that it's basically *all* Stone's fault. Having come so far in support of his men, why would he suddenly reverse direction and lay the blame squarely at their feet?

(And of course Lord's initial insistence that it was actually Stewart who was on watch would have merely substituted one Officer "culprit" for another.)

Gibson, being only an Apprentice, would not have been liable to any prosecution (I don't think!), but of course he too falls victim to that "I didn't think it possible for any seaman to mistake a Company's signal for a distress signal" slur.

Anyway, I don't think it's very likely myself, Paul. Not under the actual circumstances, at least. To get a better feel for the events surrounding the Californian "controversy", I'd recommend Dave Billnitzer's "The Titanic and the Mystery Ship" web site (http://home.earthlink.net/~dnitzer/index.html) as well as the testimonies of the Californian's men available at the Titanic Inquiry Project. George Behe also has information on the Californian at his web site, including some pretty eye-opening correspondence with one Leslie Harrison.

Cheers,
John
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,646
1
66
South Carolina USA
Actually, I find myself agreeing with John on this one in that it is unlikely that Captain Lord would have been protecting Stone or Gibson, though it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

John Feeney said:

I sincerely *did* resent Tracy's insinuation that I would simply dismiss anything favorable to Lord.

OK, fair enough. Basically you were stating impressions you personally had about those who defend Captain Lord and I in turn, gave impressions that I personally had in reverse. And, rightly or wrongly, I got this impression from you in particular based on a couple of statements you made on the Gill/paid journalism thread.

One was to call Chief Officer Stewart a "flunky", and in response to Inger's comments about William Thomas, you seemingly dismissed him because -- correct me if I'm mistaken -- his point seemed minor, he seemed to be angry with Gill, and that he was not called to testify under oath. While the first two points are certainly to be taken into account, it can hardly be said that Gill was one up on him because Thomas did not testify. I'm sure that Thomas' would have testified if he'd been given the chance. And as I've stated elsewhere, that is where a major problem lies....more information should have been gathered and more people should have been called to testify.

John Feeney said:

Few of the questions or observations raised in prior posts by George, Dave, or myself have actually been addressed.

Well, this goes both ways.... I made the point that has not been addressed that I believed that if Lord Mersey actually believed deep down that Lord was guilty, then why in the world did he not actively push to have Lord's certificates pulled? Indeed, it would have been his duty to have attempted to do so, as otherwise he would have knowingly returned a "negligent" and "incompetent" captain loose yet again on the public, perhaps endangering further lives. Regardless of what Mersey said after the fact, the answer seems that Mersey didn't go after his certificates because he knew he didn't have the evidence to get them pulled. I also made a point 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. I see that Dave has partially addressed this issue in reference to Mike's question, but I have not seen my more general concern addressed.

To give you credit, John, you did come back and address the point about Lord's subsequent career that Butler botched in his book, and I appreciate it.

George Behe said:

You've mentioned several times that you believe there is evidence which shows Lord to be innocent of all 'charges.' Could you outline that evidence for us and tell us why you feel it supports Lord's cause?

This is what I said in a recent post, and have stated similarly in other posts over the last year:

<FONT COLOR="0077aa">There are missing pieces to this puzzle and I hope to find them one day.

Though I have indeed stated some commonly held beliefs among Captain Lord's supporters, I have never claimed to have <FONT COLOR="0077aa">conclusive proof of Captain Lord's innocence, only that I don't think that the negative information presented so far is sufficient to me to prove his guilt, and that the information we currently have available is inconclusive in that it indicates some gaps and that more research is called for. And until more complete information is found, I still believe that the burden of proof remains with the accusers and not the accused. Reading over my own posts, I can see how I probably did not make this very clear, so your confusion is understandable. And, of course, as Mike Standart has so aptly put it, your results may vary.

To George, Dave, and John. Despite our heated disagreements, your comments are valuable to me in that it compels me to sharpen my thinking, clarify my points, and to indicate areas where I need to focus further research. I may not always give credit where it is due, but the role of catalyst can never be discounted.
 

Logan Geen

Member
Dec 2, 2001
112
0
146
Well Mersey may have believed that Lord was guilty of not responding to the distress signals, but, as many of us believe, that it was a mistake. Dave Bilnitzer's site mentions that Mersey did consider pressing charges but eventually abandond the idea because "Lord's actions carried their own punishment". I remember an interview with Peter Padfield where Padfield stated that he believed the Inquiry was "rigged" because an intelligent man like Mersey would never have found Lord guilty. I think an important question to ask is: What exactly is Lord accused of? The deaths of 1500 people? No, that was in no way Lord's fault. Lord may not have been even able to save that many lives (of course now we'll never know). Of not responding to distress signals? I think that's what Lord is guilty of. But that does not mean Lord was an incompetent captain, a bad seamen or indeed a bad person at all. I think Lord simply made a bad choice at a time when his decision could have made a difference. Mersey may have been on the same train of thought. Of course we really have no way of knowing. And Tracy made an excellent point, that yes you can learn from your opponents. You'll understand your ideas better if you understand theirs.
(By the way Butler's book might of made another error-since when Fleet and Lee alert the bridge that they had seen the light on the horizon? I don't remember that from anywhere else)
 
Jan 21, 2001
144
0
146
Hi Tracy:

You asked why Mersey did not actively push to have Lord's certificates revoked. I don't think there's conclusive evidence one way or the other. All we have to look at is some of the memos that circulated within the BOT. I always thinks it's most helpful to look at these things chronologically. So here goes:

July 30 - the BOT publishes its report with Mersey's findings.

August 1 - Two days later. Sydney Buxton, President of the BOT (not Mersey; it wasn't part of Mersey's job), distributes a note asking whether the BOT should institute proceedings against Lord.

August 1 - Same day that Buxton asks, the BOT's lead counsel advises against it. "...he might have taken the objection that he declined to reply lest he incriminate himself; he did not do so... I would not advise a prosecution of Captn Lord under the circumstance. I need hardly add that his punishment is already very great..."

So almost instantly the BOT asks whether to proceed, and the BOT's counsel immediately advises clemency. He realized that their procedure was (legally) flawed, and Lord already had been punished. Essentially the BOT's lawyer points out, we made our own mistakes (procedurally), so leave well enough alone. Of course he's guilty; he's been punished. Legally we didn't follow proper procedure. Also note that it is *not* Mersey's decision whether to pursue the case against Lord as is commonly thought, but the BOT's, and the BOT's alone.

Other members on the BOT were not nearly so inclined to clemency as President Buxton. Captain Young from the Marine Department wrote:

August 17 - "in view of the fact that distress signals were reported to Capt Lord and no action was taken by him... the President has decided that he is not to be proceeded against for misdemeanor, he has been treated with very great consideration...."

Further documents suggest that other BOT members felt similarly. There were also more political reasons entering the decision whether or not to prosecute Lord. Howell for example, arguing in favor of prosecution, was fearful of public reaction if Lord were allowed to go free:

August 30 - "In any case we shall be attacked for acting in far less clear cases than this, and in letting Capt Lord hold his certificate..."

Young also seems to have become somewhat dissatisfied, for a few days later, he wrote:

Sept 2 - "I have had the opinion from the first that a special Inquiry should have been ordered... but as I gather from this paper that is has been decided by the President (ie, Buxton, not Mersey) not to do so - I cannot offer any further observations."

Howell (Asst. Secy of Marine Dept) also wrote that "his punishment is already real and very heavy;" and Young similarly noted: "Capt Lord's fault carries its own punishment."

It's hard to escape the conclusion that the real reason the BOT did not pursue a prosecution of Lord had little to do with the actual case for or against him; it was clear to all of them that he had not responded appropriately to signals of distress, which was Mersey's finding. There doesn't seem to be any doubt on their part regarding Mersey's finding of fact. But typical of most government and political agencies, they seem to have been primarily concerned with the public's perception of *them* and how they did their job.

Dave Billnitzer
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
Dave, thanks for the explaination as to why Stone and Gibson were not called. Still one hell of a gaff though. Had something similar happened today, questions would have been asked of everyone as well they should be in a matter of thorough investigation.

The problem this raises in regards credibility is that these two had an entire voyage to work on their stories if so inclined, and as the two on watch, they had a motive to do so.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Jan 21, 2001
144
0
146
Hi Mike:

"The problem this raises in regards credibility is that these two had an entire voyage to work on their stories if so inclined, and as the two on watch, they had a motive to do so."

Interesting idea, but if so, they didn't do a very good job of working out their stories, as you call it. They fall in and out of sync, agreeing on some details, disagreeing on others (mostly when it came to "interpreting" what an event, word, description, etc meant). Gibson would say for example "Stone said xyz," and Stone would say, "No, I didn't say that." For the most obvious example, look at their different interpretations of what the word "disappear" meant when describing where that other ship went. If they really wanted to get their stories together, it seems that would be the most important point to agree on.

Dave Billnitzer
 

John M. Feeney

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
0
0
I'm suddenly reminded of a scene from "The Silence of the Lambs" -- at the asylum.

Hannibal Lector: "Quid pro quo, Clarice! You give me something I want, and I give you something you want. Quid pro quo."

It occurs to me that Dave has been more than gracious in responding quite fully to the questions asked of him, yet has received no response to his own questions. Certainly not very polite!

Quid pro quo.

J
 

John M. Feeney

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
0
0
The problem this raises in regards credibility is that these two had an entire voyage to work on their stories if so inclined, and as the two on watch, they had a motive to do so.

Michael:

No, it does not. (Hint: Secret affidavits.)

J
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,265
0
0
Hi, Tracy!

>To George, Dave, and John. Despite our heated >disagreements, your comments are valuable to me >in that
> it compels me to sharpen my >thinking,

I feel the same way, although I must disagree with your use of the word "heated." Although John has admitted that he took offense at something you said in one of your posts, I think a far more accurate term to describe our joint conversations would be "emphatic" rather than "heated." Each of us has stated his/her opinions clearly and succinctly so that no misinterpretation is possible; however, I want to assure you that there is absolutely no anger in my heart over this issue, and I feel certain that Dave and John feel the same way. (I hope you do, too.)

> I don't think that the negative
> information presented so far is >sufficient to me to prove his guilt, and that the >information we currently have
> available is inconclusive in >that it indicates some gaps and that more >research is called for.

That is why I asked you to outline the most important evidence which you feel supports Captain Lord -- so that we can discuss this evidence and try to determine if it is as strong as you believe. If the evidence you have uncovered is important, it might cause me to rethink my opinion about Lord's guilt. However, if the evidence you've uncovered can be explained or accounted for in other ways, I believe that the current evidence *against* Captain Lord *far* outweighs the evidence which supports him and that this would be more than enough to allow an unbiased jury to find Lord guilty in a court of law.

Could you kindly outline the evidence which you believe indicates that Captain Lord is innocent of all charges? Thanks very much.

All my best,

George
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
John Feeney said; >>Michael:

No, it does not. (Hint: Secret affidavits.)

Disagree...unless you know what these two men were discussing each and every day from the morning of the 15th of April to the time that Mersey & Co. put them on the stand.

I don't.

Do you?

Dave Billnitzer said;"Interesting idea, but if so, they didn't do a very good job of working out their stories, as you call it."

Well, I never claimed these two were intellectual giants. As none of us were the fly on the bulkhead in the Californian's officers mess, we may never know if these two colluded on anything. The troubling aspect is that they had the opportunity. (Considering that their necks could have been on the chopping block as well, I have a hard time believing that they didn't at least bring it up.) If they tried, I would have to say they bungled that one as well.
wink.gif


Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Jan 21, 2001
144
0
146
Hi Michael:

>we may never know if these two colluded on anything. The troubling aspect is that they had the opportunity.<

Do you find the documented evidence that Lord, Stewart and Stone colluded before giving the Boston interview equally troubling? (eg, Lord: "Stewart was on watch, and nobody saw rockets." Corroborated by Stewart. Stone: denied that he had signed a statement for Lord.)

I have a more general question along these same lines, for those who pick away at Gill's story. Which is more troubling, that he was paid $500, or that he spilled the beans? I just want to be sure I understand which is the sticking point here.

Dave Billnitzer
 

John M. Feeney

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
0
0
That is why I asked you to outline the most important evidence which you feel supports Captain Lord -- so that we can discuss this evidence and try to determine if it is as strong as you believe. If the evidence you have uncovered is important, it might cause me to rethink my opinion about Lord's guilt. However, if the evidence you've uncovered can be explained or accounted for in other ways, I believe that the current evidence *against* Captain Lord *far* outweighs the evidence which supports him and that this would be more than enough to allow an unbiased jury to find Lord guilty in a court of law.

George:

Emphatically agreed! And as one who *is* truly far more interested in the truth than any particular "agenda", I'd be exceptionally thrilled to see real evidence which might realistically overturn the prior findings of not only the two official Inquiries in 1912, but also the Re-Appraisal of 1990-92.

All of these bodies found Captain Lord negligent in failing to respond to the distress signals. And *none* of them seemed to pick up on the additional damning "perjury" (albeit to the Press) in Boston. As Reade points, *had* Lord been subjected to criminal prosecution, the soliciting of affidavits from the Boston Press would have significantly impaired his defense.

I think Logan may have made THE defining post here in this regard. Captain Lord *was* found guilty of negligence, by *two* contemporary government bodies, based on the preponderance of the evidence. Eighty years later, he was *still* found guilty of negligence, though absolved of any certainty that he'd contributed to the deaths of those 1500 people.

This is one reason I find that protest of "innocent until proven guilty" (actually, the precise wording is "PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty" -- an important distinction!) to be entirely moot: the "accused" has already been "convicted"! Captain Lord's subsequent efforts to clear his name, and the continuing efforts of those who defend him fall squarely into the category of an "Appeal". And in applications to Appelate courts (at least in the U.S.), the burden of proof is entirely on the appealing party! It is he or she who must convincingly assert some procedural wrong-doing by the lower court.

Ergo (harumph), the ball's in the Lordite court, as far as I can see. It's the underlying premise that the entire U.S. Senate Investigating Committee and the whole of the British Wreck Commission somehow got it entirely wrong that requires substantiation!

Cheers,
John

P.S. I wonder if Dan Butler is pleased at the incredible amount of discussion his book is now generating. ;^)
 

John M. Feeney

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
0
0
Disagree...unless you know what these two men were discussing each and every day from the morning of the 15th of April to the time that Mersey & Co. put them on the stand.

Michael:

Immaterial! We have the "before" and "after" to compare, so what's the point? Gibson's affidavit demonstrates that he was basically truthful in his subsequent testimony; Stone's shows that he at least *attempted* to withhold considerable information. (As did Lord and Stewart!). So why speculate on possible collusion between Stone and Gibson *before* the fact when none is evident after the fact?

Indeed, why even wonder what they talked about? (Why grasp at straws?) The present-day results are the same either way. And the 1912 results were immensely *favorable* to Lord, since he didn't even reveal the existence of those affidavits which further implicated him!

"The problem this raises in regards credibility is that these two had an entire voyage to work on their stories if so inclined, and as the two on watch, they had a motive to do so."

{shrug} *Everyone* who testified at the British Inquiry "had an entire voyage to work on their stories if so inclined" (*including* Lord and Stewart), so what's your point? And as Dave asked, are you as troubled by the *obvious* collusion between Lord, Stewart, and Stone prior to Boston as you seem to be by this mere conjecture?

And what about that payoff question of Dave's?:

"... for those who pick away at Gill's story. Which is more troubling, that he was paid $500, or that he spilled the beans? I just want to be sure I understand which is the sticking point here."

I'd certainly like to hear some honest feedback on that one myself.

Cheers,
John
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,646
1
66
South Carolina USA
Could you kindly outline the evidence which you believe indicates that Captain Lord is innocent of all charges? Thanks very much.

Well, I think I made it quite clear that this is investigation in progress, and not yet at the point to be shared with others. I'm sure you don't spill all your hunches, leads, etc, until you have followed up on them sufficiently, so I will reserve this choice for myself now as well.

I believe that the current evidence *against* Captain Lord *far* outweighs the evidence which supports him and that this would be more than enough to allow an unbiased jury to find Lord guilty in a court of law.

Well, that is certainly your right, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
happy.gif



Here's a point to consider about Stone's and Gibson's statements given to Captain Lord. I'm sure all three of you will disagree, but I've thought that if Captain Lord had had an ulterior motive, he could have simply destroyed the documents once having read them. Certainly he was able to gauge their potential impact the first time he read them. If he'd destroyed them, it would have simply been his word against Stone's and Gibson's if they'd chosen to tell about them. We've got 90 years of hindsight to second-guess his motives in this instance, but it's an interesting point to consider either way.