Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dave Gittins, post: 26218, member: 139025"] Jamie, the Baker letter is fairly well-known. You omitted the lie that it begins with. Baker did not know Captain Lord from their days on the training ship [i]Conway[/i]. Lord was never on [i]Conway[/i]. There is nothing the letter that does not derive from evidence already known (Boxhall's flares; the supposed explosions) or the mischievous statement given to Senator Smith by Dr Quitzrau, a troublemaking [i]Mount Temple[/i] passenger. The letter was passed to the Board of Trade by C P Grylls of the Mercantile Marine Service Association on Lord's behalf. To quote from a private source--- "Sir Robert Ellis Cunliffe (solicitor to the Board of Trade)summed up the pointlessness of the story in a memorandum. ‘What help Captain Lord will get from the mere contention that there was something blameworthy on the part of the Captain of the Mount Temple I cannot at present see,’ he wrote. ‘It seems to me that it is for Captain Lord to obtain evidence from any source to show why the findings of the Court are wrong as far as he is concerned; it is not enough to suggest that someone else may also have been guilty of conduct that was blameworthy.’ On 4 September, Grylls was advised that the alleged witnesses should put up, or shut up, to crudely translate the Board’s legalese. Inquiries from the Leyland Line’s solicitors and Lord’s Member of Parliament met with similar rebuffs. Not surprisingly, no witnesses were forthcoming." I don't propose to get involved in yet another scrap about [i]Californian[/i]. I'll just say that I'm with George Behe, who called it 'a manufactured mystery'. [/QUOTE]

Verification: In which year did the Titanic sail?