Were there any cases of Bribery in the Titanic Story?

[Mike Spooner]

Yes you right to say Hendrickson heard it started in Belfast? But that needs to be investigated if H&W have handed over a brand new ship to White Star with a coal bunker on fire! Would you be please if some one has handed over a brand new Rolls Royce with a fault?
But there again if White Star had accepted the fault as they more concern of sailing the ship on her maiden date 10th April at all cost!
I see some of Edward Wilding answers in the inquiry he is rather layback of any damage to the bulkhead of coal bunker fire. But I would expect him to say that in his own interest to protect the company of any fault with the ship.
This is were I drift of the topic but feel it all tied with in it.
I am back again the seamen did not get a proper hearing by not having a top line Barrister to represent them. Lord Mersey would of hand full having to deal with a smart intelligent Barrister. I feel very sorry for those poor seamen who lost lives and just regarded as exposable for the sake of a Corporation.
The way the UK inquiry conductor at such short notice after the loss of Titanic. Was quite frankly heartless ruthless brutal affair. Some of those poor seaman who survived a very traumatic experience in the freezing cold water. Then find been cross-examine by smart intelligent Barristers who have never experience of been through into freezing cold water. The inquiry is about saving a major British shipping company from huge law suite file against them and B.O.T. failure of moving with the times on safety issues.
Quite frankly the root of the problem lies with Mr JP Morgan on his very wild ambitious plan in his attempt to dominate the North Atlantic shipping route. Paid too much for the shipping companies and underestimated Cunard not joining IMMC. Morgan such a successful remarkable career in the banking world, was just when one step to far and too old for the job.
Yes I do recognise the Olympic & Titanic were magnificent ships but that competition to better Cunard and the Germans are not far behind too. Olympic and Titanic were a high risk business.
I am sorry to go on about those poor seamen who landed up been sacrifice for the sake of a Corporation!

 

[Aaron_2016]

It was a time when rich men and titled men in top hats had the final word, and mere firemen and officers were pawns who took the fall if anything scandalous should come out.

Christopher Shulver was a fireman on the Titanic. He was previously in the armed forces. He spoke to reporters shortly after the disaster and his account of the fire was published in several papers. He said the officers knew about the fire, yet the officers denied all knowledge at the official Inquiry. One can only wonder if bribes were handed out like sweets in order to suppress damaging stories.

Shulver was called to the British Inquiry, but they did not ask him to testify. Maybe they read his account (below) and realized his official testimony would be incredibly damaging because it meant the officers who denied all knowledge of the fire were trying to cover it up.

He was killed by a coal bunker explosion in 1922. There was a coal strike and the White Star liner Adriatic had to be stocked with coal that was soft and gaseous. Christopher Shulver was killed when one of the starboard coal bunkers caught fire and exploded.

 

[Mark Baber]

11 August 1922: At 1:30 a.m., about 1,000 miles east of Sandy Hook, an electrician accidentally touches off an explosion in the coal-filled number 3 hold of Adriatic II (Capt. David). Four crew members (including the electrician) die and are buried at sea; a fifth, a fireman sleeping on the hold's hatch to escape the heat in his quarters, is apparently blown overboard and never found. The fire which follows is extinguished within twenty minutes and the ship resumes her trip to New York at 3:55 a.m. (Source: The New York Times, 12, 13 and 14 August 1922; Ellis Island ship manifest.)

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Where is the proof that it started in Belfast? It is only a rounour. None of the black gang doing the delivery trip mentioned it.

It was a smoulderig of the coal and not a big heavy fire.

>>Shulver was called to the British Inquiry, but they did not ask him to testify. Maybe they read his account (below) and realized his official testimony would be incredibly damaging because it meant the officers who denied all knowledge of the fire were trying to cover it up.<<

If they were cover it up and had made people to shut up then neither there would be mention of it in the newspapers as from Dilley/Shoulver nor would have any passenger know about it like 2nd class passenger Elizabeth Brown mentioned and that it was comon talk among passengers.

The simple fact is, the "fire" was out by Saturday and play no role in the sinking. The British Inquiry was looking for the answer of the question about the cause of the sinking. The "fire" play no role.
No conspirancy.
And as already stated several times the article I posted "Fire and Ice" deals with several points mentioned here, but it seems no one cares to read it.

 

[Aaron_2016]

There was a fire when she left Belfast because Harry Sanderson was on the voyage and said:

"I only made the trip from Belfast to Southampton."
Q - Were you there as representing the White Star Line?
A - Yes.

Q - I only want to refer you to two other rules. The first is Rule 248. It is on page 45, “Examination of Coal first is Rule 248. It is on page 45, “Examination of Coal Bunkers.” The respective senior engineers of each watch, before going off duty, must go through the coal bunkers, and note their condition on the log-slate, and should there be any signs of spontaneous combustion taking place, they are at once to report same to the Chief Engineer, who is immediately to notify the Commander. All coal should, as often as possible, be worked out of the bunkers.” We have had it in evidence that there was a fire in one of the bunkers when the Titanic was coming over from Belfast to Southampton?
A - Yes.
Q - Would a copy of the log of the Titanic be taken for the use of the Company before she left Southampton?
A - The Engineers Log from Belfast to Southampton?
Q - Yes?
A - I presume there would be one, but I do not remember it. It is a very short trip, and perhaps the ordinary regulations might not have been carried out on it.
Q - You cannot tell me whether there was any entry in the log as to the fire?
A - I could not tell you; but I know that there was a fire.
Q - When did you know that?
A - I heard it at this Enquiry first of all. I then sent down to Southampton (to find out what state she was in when she arrived in Southampton), and they said, “Yes, there was a small fire.”

(Interruption from the Commissioner again)

The Commissioner: What are these questions directed to? Spontaneous combustion in a coal bunker is by no means an unusual thing. (Hendrickson testified that it was not a common occurrence and in his 5 years service had never experienced a coal bunker fire until the Titanic, so there was clearly an effort by members to downplay the significance of the fire and make it appear as a common event which it was not.)

The Commissioner: What is the point?
Mr. Edwards: The point, with very great respect, is this - that the part of the particular bulkhead which showed damage, according to the evidence, was a bulkhead which stood in the bunker where there was evidence that a fire had existed continuously on the journey from Belfast to Southampton.


Leading fireman Hendrickson would need to know when the fire began, as he was tackling it.
Q - Did you hear when the fire commenced?
A - Yes, I heard it commenced at Belfast.


There is no evidence that the fire began in Southampton. The Olympic came into Belfast for repairs to her propeller in March 1912. Owing to the coal strike it is possible that the coal that was reserved for the Titanic was placed into the Olympic, and in the hurry to get the Titanic out a few short weeks later for her sea trials and voyage to Southampton her bunkers were possibly partially filled with inadequate coal that was gaseous and combustible. A fire soon erupted and she steamed away with her coal bunker ablaze.

Leading fireman Fred Barrett said he did not know if the damage to the bunker had played a role in her sinking. He could not confirm or deny it and was not prepared to swing either way which tells us that there was pretty serious damage as the metal was warped and dented. That very bunker had to be emptied which meant there would be no wall of coal to block (plug up) the water as it rushed into the bunker. So already it did affect the rate in which the Titanic was flooding. Fred Barrett said the bunker was holding back the water and then he heard something crash and he thought the bulkhead wall had given way, or the bunker door had exploded out owing to the weight of the water inside the empty bunker. All hopes of saving boiler room 5 were lost which meant all hopes of keeping the ship afloat long enough for rescue had to be abandoned. All because of the fire inside the coal bunker. Her doom was spelt out the moment she left Belfast. That is what I believe on the evidence I have examined.


.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

A - I heard it at this Enquiry first of all. I then sent down to Southampton (to find out what state she was in when she arrived in Southampton), and they said, “Yes, there was a small fire.”

That is your emphasis. He did not say and we did not know what he asked. He might have asked only about a fire.
All we have is hearsay with no primary source that it started at Belfast.

Sanderson is also mentioned in the "Fire and Ice" article. But I guess making things up about a conspirancy is more imporant than facts.

 

[Aaron_2016]

That is your emphasis. He did not say and we did not know what he asked. He might have asked only about a fire.
All we have is hearsay with no primary source that it started at Belfast.

Sanderson is also mentioned in the "Fire and Ice" article. But I guess making things up about a conspirancy is more imporant than facts.

I did read the link, and nobody said conspiracies were more important than facts. The facts can be counted in one hand. She had a fire, hit an iceberg, and sank. Everything else is open to trust in what we have read and faith in what each witness could remember. The absence of 90 percent of the known facts means that examiners a century on can only speculate on what did or did not really occur to the best of their own abilities with open minds to change their beliefs at any time regarding what they have read and seen and how they interpret that information. I just like to weed out the information from the witnesses that bare all the hallmarks of being suppressed and openly denied to protect the company and their careers. I enjoy a good detective story. When White Star waves their left hand and the public looks left, I am more interested in what is to the right. Can't blame people for being suspicious of the Inquiries findings. Every question and answer can be interpreted in a number of different ways with no guarantee or certainty that what they said is exactly what they said, or what they intended to say. This is why I have about the same faith in the Inquiry as I do with ordinary journalism and news reports, especially as Lightoller stated the Inquiry was simply a whitewash to protect the interests of the company and the board of trade.


.

 

[Mike Spooner]

First I must apologise for my outburst in the defence of those poor seamen in there true dedication and loyalty to the company, in a desperate attempt try to save the ship in the most appalling condition of the freezing cold water of the Atlantic Ocean. Yet there reward for it was virtually nil! Life was very turf in those days and would appear life was cheap too! Some thing that Lawyers never experienced!
Did the fire start in Belfast? Hears a bit more controversial to throw into the mix!
Of the 182 firemen, greasers and trimmers had signed on in Belfast to cover for the sea trail and the 570 miles voyage down to Southampton. Only 7 would sign on for the maiden crossing!
How many of the 180 were ask to give evident in the inquiry?
Bad news always travels faster than good news!

 

[Rob Lawes]

And yet many are happy to accuse these men as being liars, swindlers, negligent, incompetent, bribed, reckless and any number of other baseless accusations.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Hi Rob,
I am not too sure how I read your rely. Are been serious or rather laid back?
As I feel if one of your closest dearest relative (may be not including mother in-law!) You would be very protective for them.
As one of thing in the past and some want to day still goes on are whistleblowers within the company. As very much in the Titanic years people are on zero contract. Any whistleblowing was a serious matter of in jeopardising your career with the company and even worst been black listed to work else were! So would they be willing to come forward even knowing the company was at fault?

 

[Aaron_2016]

And yet many are happy to accuse these men as being liars, swindlers, negligent, incompetent, bribed, reckless and any number of other baseless accusations.

Lightoller accused Phillips of being incompetent. He said the Mesaba ice warning was foolishly put under a paperweight and Phillips had forgot to send it to the bridge for Lightoller's attention. Bride defended Phillips and said he was too professional to be that incompetent.

Lightoller thought the order was 'women and children only' and he thought the ropes would not support the weight of a fully loaded lifeboat. Was he being cautious or incompetent?

Major Peuchen said he spoke to Fleet in the lifeboat and he was told that nobody on the bridge answered the phone. That could be considered reckless.

A number of survivors said they spoke to / overheard the lookouts state that they warned the bridge several times and their warnings were repeatedly ignored. That could be considered negligent.

Hichens and Fleet were talking about it in the same lifeboat. Hichens yelled out to another lifeboat and wanted to know if they knew which officer was supposed to be on duty on the bridge at the time of the collision. Clearly something serious had taken place on the bridge which still remains a mystery e.g. Murdoch being sick and rushing to the bathroom. Captain Smith having a heart attack. A noisy drunken passenger storming their way onto the bridge. Possibilities are endless.

The Inquiries are riddled with honest forgetfulness, neglect and incompetence. The term 'every man for himself' could easily apply to the Inquiries. Lightoller said he did his best to defend the company and the Inquiry were looking for "a pinning down of blame onto someones luckless shoulder's."

Boxhall gave at least 4 different versions of the collision sequence. That was either incompetence, forgetfulness, or a deliberate attempt to cover up what really happened. Remembering a true event is easy and is engraved in the memory. Remembering a lie is much harder to recall - hence the constant contradictions in their statements. He was the only officer on duty to survive. A heavy burden to bare.


.

 

[Rob Lawes]

My point is that we should be careful how we slander anyone, dead or alive, relative or not, without giving all of the available evidence due consideration.

A gut feeling taking quite a massive leap to join dots that quite frankly aren't there is no way to conduct research.

One of things that always stands out is that even in later life, (to the best of my knowledge), not one person came out and said "I lied to the inquiry" "I was paid to keep silent" "On my death bed I need to confess" "The truth of the matter is..." Not a single person. Given that virtually every surviving member of the Titanic crew who appeared before both the US and UK inquiry has been accused of everything from falsehoods to outright lies, you would have thought that at least 1 of them would have confessed all before shuffling off to meet his maker?

As for fear of the men in top hats, a number of the surviving crew are actually on record as being quite rude to the board members of the inquiry. They show very little sign of being intimidated by their surroundings.

I don't hold with this maritime based version of McCarthyism where there are conspiracies under every bed.

The principle of Occam's Razor is one well worth applying.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Just a matter of interest when Captain Maurice Clark the Board of Trade survey inspector for Titanic. Were they any other B.O.T. inspector to assist him in his job?

 

[Moj]

And yet many are happy to accuse these men as being liars, swindlers, negligent, incompetent, bribed, reckless and any number of other baseless accusations.

I have been thinking about what you said and anyway that I think I come to this conclusion that when somehow a brand new ship goes down in a perfectly good weather killing 1500 people there HAS TO be a person or most porbably many people who have been at the very least reckless if not incompetent or negligent. And that person be anyone from the Captain crew or even someone sitting in their house at the time of sinking.
And that also goes for the inquiries.
Everyone told the entire truth . No one lied . No one was influenced or threatened or bribed and still white star , H & W or BOT all managed not to be held responsible for anything .
The result of those two inquiries are at the very best ridicilous .
So yes I think not all who testified told the truth and thats why we dont have solid evidence of what happened that night.

 

[Steven Christian]

I guess its a question of semantics. What does one consider a bribe? I've seen no evidence of a direct cash payment to someone to lie or change their story other than what I said about reporters paying for a good story. That was just yellow journalism, nothing to do with official testimony. I guess it might be argued that if someones pension was at stake for not towing the company line that might be a form of bribe but I see that as more of threat not a bribe. As for Gordon, I could be wrong but I don't see giving the crewman in his boat a fiver as a bribe. That was just tip money to the very rich. If he had something to cover up I think it would have been a lot more. And how could you hide that from the other passengers in the boat? If I remember right according to testimony of one of the crewmen it was the women in the boat who objected to going back and the money issue about the kit wasn't brought up until later.