When and where did Smith know the ship was doomed?


Thomas C.

Member
Sep 6, 2017
90
29
48
Good luck Brad with your work.

I want to correct your last post. The doors Boxhall mentioned, were on E deck. He did not mistake them.

15761. Then you have told us all about that. Is there a door at the forward end of the starboard alleyway?
- Yes, on E deck.
15762. Is that a watertight door?
- I did not stop to look, but the thing was closed against me. I think it is a watertight door myself. I presume so.
15763. But you do not know?
- No.
The Commissioner:
I daresay, Sir Robert, someone can tell us whether that door is a watertight door. Can you tell us what it is? It is a door at the forward end of the starboard alleyway on E deck.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No, My Lord, it is an iron door, not watertight. Perhaps your Lordship would show Mr. Wordingham the particular door referred to on the plan so that there may be no mistake about it.
15764. (The Commissioner.) Certainly. (Mr. Wordingham looked at the plan.) We are told it is not a watertight door.

Futhermore, the doors on F deck, in bulkeads C and D were propably never closed.

15754. Did you when you went down to F deck get to bulkheads C and D - you had better look at the plan. You see the bulkheads marked there do not you?
- Yes, I see them marked. Yes, I think I did, Sir.
15755. And when you got there you saw no damage?
- No, Sir.
15756. There are doors in those bulkheads C and D?
- Yes, Sir, on the port side.
15757. Can you tell us whether those doors were closed?
- Not then, My Lord.
15758. Not when you were there?
- No, that is shortly after the collision.
15759. They were not closed?
- No.
15760. You say they were not closed then? Were they closed later on?
- That I cannot say. I was not down below later on.

Boxhall.png


15372. Did he say something?
- He also asked for the Captain, and said the mail hold was filling. I told him where he could find the Captain and I went down to the mail room. I went down the same way as I did when I visited the third class accommodation previously. I went down as far as E deck and went to the starboard alleyway on E deck and the watertight door stopped me getting through.
15373. The watertight door on E deck was closed?
- Yes. Then I crossed over and went into the working alleyway and so into the mail room.

When Boxhall was stopped, he went to the other side and walked along the Scotland Road corridor. He then croosed to starboard through main stairway, and into the 1st class corridor.

Worth of noting is also his path, but in 1962.
''So I continued on my way down to the Mail Room. I tried to go into the First Class entrance from that lower deck, from the fore deck, but they got the watertight door closed and I had to come up all these ladders and go up on the Promenade Deck and then down through the Main Saloon Entrance, where I found the band was tuning up. And I got the way down to the Mail Room and got down as far as the Sorting Room, and all the mail clerks was there pulling letters out of the racks, and I was standing on the top of a companionway from the Sorting Room down to the Handling Room, and I saw a bag floating by.''

Boxhall got from the bridge to the E deck. He then turned back up, to A deck. Went along to the grand staircase, and again to E deck.

This is the perfect example how Boxhall story changed during 50 years after the disaster. So, if Boxhall said that Captain send the distress signal after his 2nd trip below, there is no reason to belive in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

PRR5406

Member
Jun 9, 2016
183
71
93
70
Maine
You know when the telephone rings in the earliest morning hours, and you know it can't be good news? I've always tried to consider the gut feeling Smith (and Murdock) might have shared when the facts were realized. They knew the ship had sustained horrific damage, but here they are in this floating hotel of supreme luxury, and it is falling out from beneath their feet, with little chance of getting out alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
608
210
108
39
Tacoma, WA
Good luck Brad with your work.

I want to correct your last post. The doors Boxhall mentioned, were on E deck. He did not mistake them.

15761. Then you have told us all about that. Is there a door at the forward end of the starboard alleyway?
- Yes, on E deck.
15762. Is that a watertight door?
- I did not stop to look, but the thing was closed against me. I think it is a watertight door myself. I presume so.
15763. But you do not know?
- No.
The Commissioner:
I daresay, Sir Robert, someone can tell us whether that door is a watertight door. Can you tell us what it is? It is a door at the forward end of the starboard alleyway on E deck.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No, My Lord, it is an iron door, not watertight. Perhaps your Lordship would show Mr. Wordingham the particular door referred to on the plan so that there may be no mistake about it.
15764. (The Commissioner.) Certainly. (Mr. Wordingham looked at the plan.) We are told it is not a watertight door.

Futhermore, the doors on F deck, in bulkeads C and D were propably never closed.

15754. Did you when you went down to F deck get to bulkheads C and D - you had better look at the plan. You see the bulkheads marked there do not you?
- Yes, I see them marked. Yes, I think I did, Sir.
15755. And when you got there you saw no damage?
- No, Sir.
15756. There are doors in those bulkheads C and D?
- Yes, Sir, on the port side.
15757. Can you tell us whether those doors were closed?
- Not then, My Lord.
15758. Not when you were there?
- No, that is shortly after the collision.
15759. They were not closed?
- No.
15760. You say they were not closed then? Were they closed later on?
- That I cannot say. I was not down below later on.

View attachment 44819

15372. Did he say something?
- He also asked for the Captain, and said the mail hold was filling. I told him where he could find the Captain and I went down to the mail room. I went down the same way as I did when I visited the third class accommodation previously. I went down as far as E deck and went to the starboard alleyway on E deck and the watertight door stopped me getting through.
15373. The watertight door on E deck was closed?
- Yes. Then I crossed over and went into the working alleyway and so into the mail room.

When Boxhall was stopped, he went to the other side and walked along the Scotland Road corridor. He then croosed to starboard through main stairway, and into the 1st class corridor.

Worth of noting is also his path, but in 1962.
''So I continued on my way down to the Mail Room. I tried to go into the First Class entrance from that lower deck, from the fore deck, but they got the watertight door closed and I had to come up all these ladders and go up on the Promenade Deck and then down through the Main Saloon Entrance, where I found the band was tuning up. And I got the way down to the Mail Room and got down as far as the Sorting Room, and all the mail clerks was there pulling letters out of the racks, and I was standing on the top of a companionway from the Sorting Room down to the Handling Room, and I saw a bag floating by.''

Boxhall got from the bridge to the E deck. He then turned back up, to A deck. Went along to the grand staircase, and again to E deck.

This is the perfect example how Boxhall story changed during 50 years after the disaster. So, if Boxhall said that Captain send the distress signal after his 2nd trip below, there is no reason to belive in it.

Thanks for the info! It goes to show yo can look over everything again and again, but still miss something! That's why its important to work as a team! I'm more then willing to share what research I've got so far in hopes that my conclusion/s are as accurate as possible, and that someone will catch any mistakes (like the one you just did). ;)

As far as Boxhall and his distress message (a bit off topic, but it does deal with the who, what, where, when of the topic, and is something I've included in my research) this is what I've gathered.

Boxhall would be asked how long after the collision the first CQD was sent to which he replied 35 minutes. Boxhall would not have known this information and therefore his conclusion of 35 minutes has to be based on knowledge after the fact. It is clear that Boxhall believed there was time difference between Titanic and New York of 1 hour and 33 minutes a time he most likely received from Carpathia’s communication with the Olympic, therefore his 35 minutes was based off assumption and not what Boxhall in no way would have known first hand as he was not present when the first distress message was sent.

Boxhall believed that 11:46pm equated to 10:13pm New York time, which gives us a difference of 1 hour 33 minutes ahead of New York time. If we add 35 minutes to 10:13 we get 10:48, long after the 10:25pm we know the first wireless message went out. If we subtract 35 minutes from 10:25 we get 9:50 being the collision, which puts Titanic’s time as being 1hr and 50min ahead of New York time. This happens to be the same time the Californian had on its clocks, which is the time given in the finale report of the British Inquiry. (PS - Just Fun Facts! Not Suggesting Anything About What Time It Was Aboard Titanic…Wish there was a can of worms emoji lol) As mentioned though Boxhall would not have known what time the first message went out.
 

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
185
150
88
38
New England
That's quite true Sam and as a devoted historian of the Titanic yourself I've no doubt you've read quite a number of wildly confusing and contradictory accounts from survivors.

What bothers me about is Prentice's account is has more contradictions and if I may go so far, inventions, than most other survivors.

Another of Prentice's claims that I forgot to mention earlier was that he also claimed that at Cobh he personally helped load a considerable quantity of gold and silver bullion aboard the ship. Other people have looked into this in the last twenty years and have found not a scrap of evidence for any gold or silver bullion ever being loaded at Cobh.

A curious fellow was Frank Prentice.


Recent research here confirmed Prentice was decorated with the MC for bravery in action in WW1 and promoted to Lieutenant. He then volunteered for the Quartermaster service, which as a courtesy had regular ranks in addition to the Quartermaster ranks, in WW2; this is probably where his rank of Major comes from. This really doubles Prentice's incentive to hide his past because of the kind of society doors that would have opened--in the 1930s he was a successful businessman, a retired officer and a bona fide war hero. He took the other characteristic measure of adopting a more "posh" accent than the one he should have grown up with in later interviews, as well. His character comes together as "brave, intelligent and capable, but also an aggressive social climber and self-promoter".
 

George Jacub

Member
Sep 28, 2005
181
18
183
Thanks for the info! It goes to show yo can look over everything again and again, but still miss something! That's why its important to work as a team! I'm more then willing to share what research I've got so far in hopes that my conclusion/s are as accurate as possible, and that someone will catch any mistakes (like the one you just did). ;)

As far as Boxhall and his distress message (a bit off topic, but it does deal with the who, what, where, when of the topic, and is something I've included in my research) this is what I've gathered.

Boxhall would be asked how long after the collision the first CQD was sent to which he replied 35 minutes. Boxhall would not have known this information and therefore his conclusion of 35 minutes has to be based on knowledge after the fact. It is clear that Boxhall believed there was time difference between Titanic and New York of 1 hour and 33 minutes a time he most likely received from Carpathia’s communication with the Olympic, therefore his 35 minutes was based off assumption and not what Boxhall in no way would have known first hand as he was not present when the first distress message was sent.

Boxhall believed that 11:46pm equated to 10:13pm New York time, which gives us a difference of 1 hour 33 minutes ahead of New York time. If we add 35 minutes to 10:13 we get 10:48, long after the 10:25pm we know the first wireless message went out. If we subtract 35 minutes from 10:25 we get 9:50 being the collision, which puts Titanic’s time as being 1hr and 50min ahead of New York time. This happens to be the same time the Californian had on its clocks, which is the time given in the finale report of the British Inquiry. (PS - Just Fun Facts! Not Suggesting Anything About What Time It Was Aboard Titanic…Wish there was a can of worms emoji lol) As mentioned though Boxhall would not have known what time the first message went out.

Hi Brad, you need to read this article on my Titanic blog in which I tracked Boxhall's movements almost minute by minute:

 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
401
108
Glasgow, Scotland
Hi Brad, you need to read this article on my Titanic blog in which I tracked Boxhall's movements almost minute by minute:


Please don't take this personally but having read your blog before, I thought it was dreadful.

In fact I'd go so far as to say it's an example of "how not to" research the Titanic disaster.

Pretty much all the information you claim to have "uncovered" has in fact been very basic common knowledge for decades among those with an interest in RMS Titanic. A lot of it which you claim to have "dug up" was actually found and expanded upon decades ago by people such as Walter Lord, Geoffrey Marcus, John P. Eaton, Charles Haas and Don Lynch amongst others.

The blog has far, far too many huge assumptions made about peoples thoughts and actions. Then there are also a lot of highly questionable interpretations of the available evidence. The main articles about several incidences of mass shootings and men dressing up as women are firmly in Robin Gardiner and Charles Pellegrino territory.

Furthermore, there are too many very basic errors on your blog for it to be taken seriously. To pick just one example that you even based an entire article on, you focus on how Fifth Officer Lowe was in charge of Lifeboat 14 which was almost lowered on top of Lifeboat 13 - that's incredible because 14 (commanded by Lowe) was on the port side whilst the boat you claim it was nearly lowered on top of, 13, was on the starboard side. In a couple of cases you have also quoted from fake survivors.

Nothing personal against you but to be perfectly frank, the blog is awful.

In no particular order - Bill Wormstedt, George Behe, Dave Gittins, Paul Lee, Bob Read, Samuel Halpern, Mark Chirnside & Park Stephenson's pages (some you'll have to use the Internet Archive to find) are an example of how it's really done by the pros.
 

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
608
210
108
39
Tacoma, WA
Hi Brad, you need to read this article on my Titanic blog in which I tracked Boxhall's movements almost minute by minute:

Will do; Thank you! Ill do it tommarow after I get off work!
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,355
672
188
South Wales UK
I have been very interested in B-rad's posts, as they seem to me to be a sort of open discussion and evaluation of the evidence, and the sort of approach to detailed research that is very commendable.

I don't like Boxhall, as is well known on here. To use my stock phrase on here, he was an idiot. Anyone who thought Titanic stopped heading westwards (as Boxhall did), yet he could see The Californian just off the port bow (as he stated in 1959 in an article, and in his 1962 BBC interview) really hadn't the faintest idea what was going on that night. His night vision was regularly compromised by the firing of the distress rockets - which he thinks showed blue balls (laughable!), and he screws up the revised CQD position.

Like Groves on The Californian, he tried to elevate his position to pretend to become a key player and vital witness, and increase their own self importance, when in both cases neither was the case.

Actually, Boxhall was terrible vague. This vagueness occurs time and time again when ever he stated anything on the record at the 1912 Inquiries, and let's not also forget the Ryan case in which he gave evidence on oath before a Civil Court.

That's my take on Boxhall, and certain bits of B-rad's research confirm my view of Boxhall.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I have been very interested in B-rad's posts, as they seem to me to be a sort of open discussion and evaluation of the evidence, and the sort of approach to detailed research that is very commendable.

I don't like Boxhall, as is well known on here. To use my stock phrase on here, he was an idiot. Anyone who thought Titanic stopped heading westwards (as Boxhall did), yet he could see The Californian just off the port bow (as he stated in 1959 in an article, and in his 1962 BBC interview) really hadn't the faintest idea what was going on that night. His night vision was regularly compromised by the firing of the distress rockets - which he thinks showed blue balls (laughable!), and he screws up the revised CQD position.

Like Groves on The Californian, he tried to elevate his position to pretend to become a key player and vital witness, and increase their own self importance, when in both cases neither was the case.

Actually, Boxhall was terrible vague. This vagueness occurs time and time again when ever he stated anything on the record at the 1912 Inquiries, and let's not also forget the Ryan case in which he gave evidence on oath before a Civil Court.

That's my take on Boxhall, and certain bits of B-rad's research confirm my view of Boxhall.

Cheers,

Julian
Hello Julian.

In 1959, Boxhall had been, like so many on this site, brainwashed by ANTR.
In 1959, he was 75 years old and had been through WW1 after Titanic. On the other hand, at the time of giving his evidence in America and the UK, he was in his prime. His evidence regarding the lights he saw from the Titanic was precise and flawless. I remind you:
First the US, Day 3:
"my attention until the time I left the ship was mostly taken up with firing off distress rockets and trying to signal a steamer that was almost ahead of us... I saw his masthead lights and I saw his side light....Almost ahead of us...By the way she was heading she seemed to be meeting us...Coming toward us... She got close enough, as I thought, to read our electric Morse signal, and I signaled to her; I told her to come at once, we were sinking;...I can not say that I saw any signals, except her ordinary steaming light. then, as she got closer, she showed her side light, her red light. "
Then, in the UK...Day 13.
"I heard someone report a light, a light ahead. I went on the bridge and had a look to see what the light was... It was two masthead lights of a steamer...it was the two masthead lights of a vessel, probably about half a point on the port bow, ..I was sending rockets off and watching this steamer. Between the time of sending the rockets off and watching the steamer approach us... she was approaching us; and then I saw her sidelights. I saw her green light and the red. She was end-on to us. Later I saw her red light. This is all with the aid of a pair of glasses up to now. Afterwards I saw the ship's red light with my naked eye, and the two masthead lights."

Incidentally, by Day 13 of the UK Inquiry, Captain Lord and his crew had been thoroughly grilled. Consequently, their interrogators knew beyond a doubt, that Californian had been stopped for over an hour before Titanic hit the iceberg and that she never showed her red sidelight to the nearby vessel until the very last signal had been seen by Stone and Gibson.
That anyone could conjure-up the Californian from the above evidence is beyond belief and bordering on criminal.

As for B-rads observation concerning Boxhall's answer "At 11.46 p.m., ship's time, it was 10.13 Washington time, or New York time."?

A great fuss has been made about how Boxhall got that wrong. However, that answer should have created alarm bells in the minds of researchers. Because if Titanic's clocks had not been touched before impact with the ice, they would have been 2 hours 58 minutes SLOW of GMT.
Boxhall knew that EST New York was 5 hours SLOW of GMT. In that instance, Boxhall' reply would have been "At 11-46 p, ships' time, it was 9-44 pm etc." This alone should tell us that Boxhall was not thinking in terms of an unaltered clock.

In the case of his reply? If 10-13 pm was Eastern Standard Time, then the equivalent GMT was 3-13 am and the difference between ship time of 11-46 pm and GMT would have been 3 hours 27 minutes, not 2 hours 58 minutes, and between ship time and EST would have been
1 hour 33 minutes.
Put another way: Boxhall worked in GMT, not EST... So when asked that question, he simply added 5 hours to 10-13pm to get GMT then subtract 11 -46 pm from it to get the difference between ship time and GMT. That difference subtracter from 5 gave the difference between ship time and New York time. Like this: 10-13 + 5 = 15-13 minus 11-46 = 3-27. 5 minus 3-27 = 1.33.
However, (as an aside) at sea, ship's clocks were set to the equivalent GMT. Since EST contained an extra 5 minutes which had nothing to do with practical navigation that amount has to be subtracted from EST if you are going to compare like for like. Thus, if Titanic's clocks had been retarded by 24 minutes before impact, they would then be 3 hours 22 minutes Slow of GMT and 1 hour 38 minutes FAST of EST. There's that 5-minute difference again!

Here's another glaring discard:

Boxhall also said that he used 22 knots for his run-up to the distress position because in so many words - the weather was so good that he thought she would attain such a speed. You might think that simple logic must tell everyone that if that was his reason, then Titanic must have been making less than 22 knots before Lightoller's evening sights.

No. Julian, Boxhall was anything but an idiot. In no way could he be compared with Groves. We have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,355
672
188
South Wales UK
Hi Jim,

As an evidential point, to dismiss what Boxhall wrote in the 1959 article and stated in his 1962 BBC radio interview - because he was an old man by then (well not quite - he was of a lesser age than you are now - and your marbles and memory and faculties clearly are not affected by age), also implies Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit, and his 1961 taped recorded interviews should be given little weight.

The Boxhall article of 1959 is the one that implicates The Californian explicitely. I don't have the full text of this article, but John Feeney quoted it on here some considerable time ago. Lightoller did the same in his autobiography (specifically implicating The Californian) in 1935, and in a 1936 BBC radio interview in 1936 that is available to listen to - as is Boxhall's 1962 BBC interview with the BBC. The full transcripts of Captain Lord's 1961 taped recorded interviews are available on here, and his 1959 Affidavit is in full in Reade (The Ship That Stood Still) and Harrison (Titanic Myth), though without the Affidavit "exhibits".

I happen to think that Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit is very important, as is the 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts. He was about your age at the time! And I mean this with the greatest of respect to you and Captain Lord!

Boxhall was a few years younger.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
608
210
108
39
Tacoma, WA
I used the 10:25 NY time, in efforts to steer away from the Titanic's time, which in this case I believe has no relevance to the overall story of the who, when and where of the people aboard Titanic. As I noted above, it just proves that Boxhall's estimate is flawed as far as when the first CQD went out compared to when he believed the ship struck the iceberg. 10:13pm to 10:48pm which is not the 10:25 we know the first CQD went out. Instead that is closer to Brides 10min he stated at least once. (Though as pointed out Bride's testimony is all over the place). We can look at what time it was aboard Titanic, but the shore time doesn't change and that is why I choose to focus on that. :)

PS: If I am wrong in this matter please feel free to tell me (I mean that sincerely)... "The More You Know!"
 

George Jacub

Member
Sep 28, 2005
181
18
183
I beg the moderator's indulgence to let me address this comment before returning to the topic at hand.
Seumas wrote "...to be perfectly frank the blog is awful."
As we say on the blogosphere: Bwahahaha. Criticism does not put my nose out of joint because I am confident in my research, my sourcing and my reasoning from it. I strive to be meticulous in each. My research has been used by NHK Japan, Japan's national public broadcasting service, and most recently in the new book from Australia 'Carpathia: The extraordinary story of the ship that rescued the survivors of the Titanic ' by Dr Jay Ludowyke. Just saying...
I congratulate you for citing specific articles. Almost all my other critics fail to do that.
The painstaking research that went into my five-part series on shooting on the Titanic
(The Shootings on the Titanic. The Definitive Story) will withstand your reproof.
As I wrote, the fact of shooting aboard the ship was reported in almost every newspaper in the world the day after the Carpathia docked in New York. In the weeks following, in press interviews across North America, more than 50 survivors talked of seeing shootings with their own eyes. Fifty-plus. Where have you ever read that fact before? I collected as many first-hand accounts as I could find, correlated them by lifeboat and, knowing what was happening on the ship at any moment, I wove the accounts into a narrative, naming the shooters and the people who were shot where I could . You haven't read that anywhere before? Good.
And I am extremely proud of finally solving the mystery of the legendary "man who escaped the Titanic dressed as a women." (Titanic's Secrets Unfold) All it took was a fresh look at the evidence, something you seem to deplore.

You also wrote: "Furthermore, there are too many very basic errors on your blog for it to be taken seriously. To pick just one example that you even based an entire article on, you focus on how Fifth Officer Lowe was in charge of Lifeboat 14 which was almost lowered on top of Lifeboat 13 - that's incredible because 14 (commanded by Lowe) was on the port side whilst the boat you claim it was nearly lowered on top of, 13, was on the starboard side."
Wow. That made me laugh, since I never wrote anything even close to that on my blog . Without wanting to embarrass you, I suggest you reread the piece carefully, paragraph by paragraph and line by line to see what caused this lack of reading comprehension. Seek and ye shall find.
As for your heroes, they've done much good work and I applaud them for it. But they are not infallible. I suggest you read the following thread: Time and Again
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
401
108
Glasgow, Scotland
Your entitled to your opinion mate.

And as I said this is not personal but that blog is one of the worst examples of how to conduct research into RMS Titanic I have seen. Packed with errors, massive assumptions and opinions projected as fact. There are also many claims of "discoveries" which were in fact made decades ago.

I won't be using it as a resource. Sorry.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hi Jim,

As an evidential point, to dismiss what Boxhall wrote in the 1959 article and stated in his 1962 BBC radio interview - because he was an old man by then (well not quite - he was of a lesser age than you are now - and your marbles and memory and faculties clearly are not affected by age), also implies Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit, and his 1961 taped recorded interviews should be given little weight.

The Boxhall article of 1959 is the one that implicates The Californian explicitely. I don't have the full text of this article, but John Feeney quoted it on here some considerable time ago. Lightoller did the same in his autobiography (specifically implicating The Californian) in 1935, and in a 1936 BBC radio interview in 1936 that is available to listen to - as is Boxhall's 1962 BBC interview with the BBC. The full transcripts of Captain Lord's 1961 taped recorded interviews are available on here, and his 1959 Affidavit is in full in Reade (The Ship That Stood Still) and Harrison (Titanic Myth), though without the Affidavit "exhibits".

I happen to think that Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit is very important, as is the 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts. He was about your age at the time! And I mean this with the greatest of respect to you and Captain Lord!

Boxhall was a few years younger.

Cheers,

Julian
Hello Julian,

As you rightly point out I am n extremely old codger with (as yet) intact marbles. These same "marbles" tell me and should also tell you that since Boxhall was an "adviser" in the film ANTR which was based on the Walter Lord book, any input by him regarding the truth would have been cut from the finished article. Additionally, anything he said which was contrary to the film would have been screamed-down by the "faithful" who believe everything since it appeared in a film or in a book.
You are aware that a large part of my previous life was involved with investigation marine accidents on behalf of the Underwriters at Lloyds and in Atlanta. If I learned anything during these years, it was, that a witness in a ship's crew cannot rely on the back up from ship (or Rig) mates when contemplating telling a lie, an untruth or a colourful version of the truth during a formal Inquiry. Unlike the popular conception of a ship's crew, a crew member witness cannot rely on his story being backed up by a shipmate. Consequently he has to tell it as he remembered it. A classic example of what I mean can be found in the controversial evidence given by two me who stood side by side witnessing the drama unfold... Lookouts Fleet and Lee.
I do not dismiss Boxhall's 1959 story. However, I put it to you and everyone else: unless there is an ulterior motive, such as the witness has something to hide or wishes to divert the course of the questioning, the first story is more than likely to be the one nearest the truth.

As I have said to others: forget all the ingenious ideas about mirages and miraculous turns...the only way that Californian could have been the ship seen on Titanic's port bow as she was sinking would be if Hichens had executed two helm orders in quick succession and Murdoch had never touched the engine telegraph. Hichens was asked about that and very clearly gave his answer that only one helm order was give when trying to avoid the iceberg and we know from the evidence of Trimmer Dillon that the engined began to slow down very soon after impact with the iceberg.
The second MAIB Report dated 1992. found the same. Unfortunately, I can't seem to access the site at this time.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
458
21
63
Usa
Jim, let's discuss a simple question. Everybody agrees that the Californian was swinging round. Samuel believes she was swinging due to little airs and calms reported by Mr. Stone. Do you agree that airs and calms was responsible for the swinging? Could you please provide some examples from your own experience, in which a drifting ship in dead calm conditions was swinging round?
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Jul 4, 2000
6,352
369
433
An observation: The recent messages in this thread have nothing to do with the subject of the thread and rehash issues that have been thoroughly debated elsewhere.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,355
672
188
South Wales UK
On the contrary, I consider B-rad's analysis of Boxhall's movements etc to be of the utmost importance.

Obviously, in my own area of interest - 'The Californian Incident' , I want to be able to assess such a key witness who is pivotal. Therefore everything Boxhall claimed he did and saw and who he spoke to is relevant in getting an overall picture; or assessment of his demeanor and truthfulness; and how good his memory was at the time and later.

His movements around the ship and where he went and the various timings and what he did never received the level of detail and scrutiny in 1912 that B-rad has subjected them to.

I also happen to think that one can put forward a case that Boxhall was already ill at the time (he had pleurisy by the time of the USA Inquiry).

If Captain Smith knew his ship was going to sink within a relatively short time, and ordered Phillips to send his own CQD, why on earth did Smith not also order distress rockets to be fired sooner? I have never got my head round the logic of Smith apparently delaying ordering the firing of distress rockets till the lights of another vessel were seen by Boxhall? And why did not Smith say to Boxhall he wanted more rockets fired at more frequent intervals ie the short intervals required by the regulations? Especially as the Morse lamp was clearly not having any success.

According to Boxhall, he prompted Smith to order he start firing the distress rockets. Neither Boxhall or Smith should have waited to fire off distress rockets for about an hour after the iceberg was struck!

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Similar threads