A Shot in the Dark

Jason,
You strike me as a very interesting fellow who seems to believe some things you read and not others. I wonder exactly why this is. I am not attempting to insult your intelligence so please do not insult mine. To imply that more than one body may have been recovered with a gunshot wound is not as much of a stretch of the imagination as you may like to believe. For example: In both the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic and our collection there are documented sections of wood from the grand staircase of Titanic. The MMA's was recovered by the Mackay Bennett (a handrail), and ours was recovered by the Minia (also a handrail with the same carving). What are the odds of this happening given the passage of time, the ocean currents, AND the bare fact that there was only ONE aft grand staircase in the area where Titanic broke apart? Perhaps the odds are even higher than ONE SHIP (Mackay Bennett) finding more than one body bearing evidence of gunshot wounds. Consider that. I do not intend to argue this point until time eternal. However, I WILL say that many accounts DO exist (period 1912) of survivors seeing people shot on the decks of Titanic. My book does not claim this to be a carved in stone concrete fact but it DOES relate the statements of an undertaker who WAS THERE, who DID WORK ON BODIES OF VICTIMS, and who DID KNOW John Snow. Perhaps more importantly, this individual did tell this same story to several people PRIOR to the discovery of the ship in 1985 and the onset of "Titanic Hype". In closing Jason, I would like you to consider this; if all of Thad Stevens' "tales" or "recollections" are not true and are mere "myths" or "lies", what proof does anyone really have from any eyewitness to any historical or other event when that person is claiming to repeat something they were told or something they saw? If you have problems with my recording of the oral history as related by Thad Stevens, you must also have problems with nearly every eyewitnesses' recollections of the sinking. After all, neither you, nor I , were there. Kind regards, Steve Santini. P.S. Have you read the book?
 
Steve Santini wrote:

"As for officer(s) commiting suicide with pistols; I recall that many years ago I told Ken Marschall about my research into Thad Stevens and the shootings. He then went on and mentioned my research to Don Lynch. He got back to me and told me that Don was not convinced there were shooting on Titanic. How ironic then that Don became historian to Cameron's "Titanic" and that the same movie clearly shows two passengers being shot by an officer. If Don really did not believe any of the gunplay against passengers was possible, why did it make it into the film?"

Because Don was an advisor and historian. He was not the script writer, and he was not Jim Cameron. Although I have no specific knowledge of what the working relationship between Don and other people at Fox was, having seen first hand the dismissive way Ken Marschall was treated by various "underlings" of Cameron, I can imagine Don suggesting until he was blue in the face, but basically being ignored. I know that Ken disagreed with a number of things in the script (and, more importantly, problems with the sets), but others had the final say.

Eric Sauder
 
Steve said:
***
You strike me as a very interesting fellow who seems to believe some things you read and not others. I wonder why this is.
***

Well, basically for the reason that not everything we read in books is true. Go to the "Waratah Found" thread where certain tales recounted in books were discussed.

Steve said:
***
To imply that more than one body may have been recovered with a gunshot wound is not as much of a stretch of the imagination as you may like to believe.
***

Well, it is. The grand staircase, as you know, was a very big structure, and I don't see what's so startling about two small pieces of it being picked up a week later.

1500 bodies went into the sea. From the survivor accounts, no more than 3 or 4 could have gone in with gunshot wounds, assuming the incident did happen. 328 bodies were recovered. The odds of just one wounded body being recovered is slim at best, but "some"? Furthermore, there are no contemporary reports of any body or bodies being found with bullet wounds. All we have is a secondhand statement from the 1980s. It is NOT corroborated by anyone who was actually on the scene in the recovery ships - not even Snow, for that matter! Show me a letter written by Snow in 1912 that refers to this incident.

Steve also said:
***
...what proof does anyone really have from any eyewitness to any historical or other event when that person is claiming to repeat something they were told or something they saw?
***

First of all, I think we should be wary of any accounts by people repeating "something they were told." The further a story gets from its original source, the more unreliable it is.

As for firsthand accounts (which the Stevens tale is not) we should use our critical faculties. How well does it compare with other firsthand accounts? How well does it compare with the known physical evidence? How much time elapsed between the event and the person's recounting of it? That kind of stuff.

Steve said:
***
...you must also have problems with nearly every eyewitnesses' recollections of the sinking.
***

Perhaps. Right off, I would say that it is a bad idea to treat any personal account as "gospel". You assess an account's reliability by comparing it with others, with certain other indisputable facts, and whether the events recounted make any logical sense (i.e. Emilio Portaluppi is said to have claimed to have used a piece of ice as a raft, but that doesn't seem likely to me). And even accounts which I personally consider among the best, such as Gracie's, can be incorrect: you don't really think the Titanic sank in one piece just because Gracie and a few others said so, do you?

I understand that you do not claim what Stevens recounted to be a concrete fact. But understand that I do not believe the information given by Stevens is correct. It's secondhand, reported only 70 years after the fact, and there is no contemporary confirmation.

Regards,
Jason
 
Dear Steve and Jason,
How are all of you doing? Good I hope.

Jason wrote:
"Furthermore, there are no contemporary reports of any body or bodies being found with bullet wounds. All we have is a secondhand statement from the 1980s."

This comment is not really accurate at all. In a press article that appeared in several papers right after the Carpathia arrived in New York, one Carpathia passenger claimed that one of the bodies brought onboard the ship after the survivors were rescued, was a fireman who had a bullet wound on him. He stated that he had been "shot by one of the officers for disobeying orders" and pushing into the last boat ahead of the women and children. While nothing has been found to support this man's assertions about a body such as this being recovered by the Carpathia, and I do not place much credence in the story, it is not true that there were no contemporary reports of bodies being recovered with bullet wounds.

I hope that all of you will have a nice day.
All my best,
Tad Fitch
 
Jason - I agree with the problem re unsubstantiated rumours and gossip. One problem is that the gunfire on board the Titanic became a part of the entrenched mythology (and with good reason - Lowe certainly fired shots, some of the other officers probably did as well, and we know of at least one passenger who was armed). The German novel by Hesse referred to here in another thread and purportedly by a Titanic crewman (fictional book, however) has nothing less than a mass shootout at the end. Stories with guns lend themselves to exageration or even invention (I have one where Lowe threated Ismay at gunpoint, and there's the tremendous Beane account that has crewmen with rifles on the boat deck). Stories about death due to gunfire are one of the persistent Titanic legends - but whether the kernal of truth is more substantial than has thus been established about the known and documented incidents of gunfire is something we can't ascertain on the evidence extant, and possibly never will.

That being said, we must of course take into account the stories that Steve has meticulously collected. They can't be proven or disproven, and there they hang. We could, for example, follow a very interesting line of speculation on the following:

Stevens went on to say that Snow told him that these victims were "among those shrouded and sent back to sea" i.e. (buried at sea).

McElroy has been eliminated by some researchers from the list of potential suicides because his body was recovered and buried at sea with no mention of gunshot wounds. Perhaps this should be reappraised in light of the above comments.

That being said, I wouldn't be too game to state anything with certainty about who/what/when/where/why when it comes to guns and their use on the Titanic.

All the best,

Inger
 
Dear Inger,
Thank you for finally putting the subject of gunplay on Titanic into the correct format as I did in my book. For those out there who think that I am on some sort of "quest" to uncover the great Titanic "crime", let me assure you that I am not. Nor do I even lean towards this position in my book. Rather, in my book, I DO mention that many period newspaper accounts mentioned shootings of third class passengers (as they did), and the Thad Stevens was an undertaker which worked on Titanic victims (he was )and, who CLAIMED John Snow,a Halifax undertaker onboard the Mackay Bennett, had personally told him that while at work on the cable ship he had seen evidence of gunshot wounds on some of the victims and that these same victims were AMONG those shrouded and returned to the sea. I included the information/speculation about Thad Stevens and the possiblity of shootings because as an open minded individual I do not for a moment believe that there was no panic on the decks of Titanic near the end. As a matter of fact, I believe that there probably would have been a mass terror situation approaching mob violence that would probably have made Cameron's movie seem tame. I have always found it far more of a stretch to believe that armed officers did not see the need to discharge firearms as the situation on deck grew more and more desperate. Wether they emptied these same pistols along the side of the ship, into the air, or into people is something we will perhaps never know for sure. Perhaps this vision of potential violence on Titanic is hard to take when one remembers that panic and acts of blind desperation are not only part of human nature, they are also the sorts of things people would prefer to forget, not to talk about, and, in some cases, even cover up. All my best, Steve Santini.
P.S. Just so that the public perception of this matter will not get out of hand, I will once and for all state that I do not believe bloodthirsty officers armed with Uzi's performed wholesale murder on the decks of Titanic. As for what my book mentions on this matter; I only reported information as I assembled it in the course of over 20 years of research... I did not claim it to be so as I was not there. And finally; as for what I personally believe...
well, I had probably better keep that to myself.
Regards,Steve Santini
 
:-) Steve, I think you're a wise man for reserving your judgement on what exactly happened! It's what I do these days. I've heard rumour and counter-rumour, various accounts of different degrees of credibility. I agree with you that the end was probably a whole lot 'messier' than is popularly believed. I look forward to reading your work!

All the best,

Inger
 
Inger -

I appreciate your remarks, and I appreciate as well Steve Santini's efforts in collecting these stories, but I think the Stevens story should be placed in its proper place. As I've said ad nauseum, secondhand stories only being reported 70 years after the event do not give us much to consider. Although the story supposedly goes back to Snow, that cannot be verified - there is a 70 years gulf, with (as far as I know) no written source from Snow himself, or for that matter, any secondhand testimony tracing it to Snow at any time that could be called remotely contemporaneous to the disaster.

If we are ever going to attain any sort of certainty (unlikely, I know, but bear with me) on what did or did not happen aboard the Titanic near a certain collapsible shortly before the ship sank, then we need to separate the chaff from the wheat - and focus on the the contemporaenous, firsthand reports about a shooting.

The Stevens tale is, I believe, chaff. A red herring. In 1985 Stevens said Snow said that he examined "bodies" with bullet wounds. Stevens, however, was not there on the recovery ships, and his testimony is refuted by accounts given in 1912 by people who were there such as the sailor Steve referred to.

There are stories like Stevens's surrounding all tragedies. As a good parallel, in the case of the 1945 disappearance of Flight 19, in about 1974 a man came forward saying that a ham radio operator had told him that he had intercepted a radio message from the flight that said, "Don't come after me: They look like they're from outer space."

Well it just so happens that in the official navy report one message was received by Flight 19 saying, "Don't come after me," but not the second part. (The context of the message was that the flight thought they had just figured out where they were - i.e., we're not lost now).

So: must we take into account this late, secondhand story and follow it to *very* interesting lines of speculation, even though it comes into conflict with contempory, firsthand accounts of what was said?

Thanks,
Jason
 
Steve -

I consider myself an open-minded yet *critical* individual. My beliefs are not written in stone and I am always ready to change or modify them if compelling new information comes to my attention, or if I reassess old information. I have done so often before.

Steve said:
***
...as an open minded individual I do not for a moment believe that there was no panic on the decks of Titanic near the end.
***

Come now, isn't there an internal contradiction there? If you were properly "open minded" you would have no opinions on that. But you're no more "open minded" than me: even though there are stories that people sat on the decks peacefully singing "Nearer My God to Thee", in my *critical* opinion - and I think yours - the accounts of chaos are more believable and stronger.

I happen to agree with you of the chaos on the decks, though I would balk at believing that "armed officerS" fired weapons at people towards the very end, since there are no accounts that I consider believable that say more than one officer used a weapon in the last minutes.

But A and B are too different things. Just because people were or might have been shot on the Titanic, it does not follow a priori that any of their bodies were picked up by the Mackay-Bennett or the Minia. We need good evidence to believe the latter, just as we need good evidence to believe the former. I think there is good evidence for panic and gunplay in the ship's last moments; I think the evidence is very poor that bullet-riddled bodies were found by the recovery ships.

Steve said:
***
Perhaps this vision of potential violence on Titanic is hard to take when one remembers that panic and acts of blind desperation are not only part of human nature, they are also the sorts of things people would prefer to forget, not to talk about, and, in some cases, even cover up.
***

It isn't hard to take for me at all. Why, I think a shooting probably happened! But the whole reason we've been having this debate (or so I thought) was on the historicity of Mr. Stevens's claims.

Let me say a few things: it is also part of human nature to make things up. It is also part of human nature to tell secrets - which is why I think any organized coverup on the recovery boats (which you seemed to suggest) is implausible because of the complete silence of everyone aboard on the subject. Compare how everyone, whether they were there or not, yakked and yakked about the gunplay aboard the Titanic: even though this was supposedly something they didn't want to "talk about."

I wasn't there on the recovery ships: but those who were there do not mention any bullet-riddled corpses being picked up, or deny it. Someone (Stevens) who wasn't on board said that they did. Now who should we believe?

Regards,
Jason
 
Jason,
You did not asnwer my perious question "Did you read my book?". Given the tone of your postings as well as your implying I believe there may have been some sort of "cover up" on the recovery ships only makes me believe that in fact you have NOT read my book. We can go on and on about this until doomsday but I for one do not relish the thought. I do find it interesting that you DO believe there was probably at least ONE shooting on board and yet do not believe there could have been others. I find it even more interesting that if you do belive there may have been only two or three such incidents, you find it very hard to believe that these same people could have been found by the recovery ships and buried at sea. The way I see it, it is very difficult to have it both ways. As for the information Stevens claims John Snow told him; what is the difference between the substance of this when compared to Murdoch's alleged suicide, or Wilde's, or Smith's, etc... These claims, like the story Stevens related, are ALL NOT VERIFIED. Nor are they ever likely to be. Yet, merely thanks to the same or similiar stories being told over and over again, they have now become part of Titanic's lore. In reality, there is no difference. In closing, I for one am not going to try to convince you one way or the other as you seem to hold to your version of events and all I have done is merely report A) NOT a "red herring" but the words of a man who had involvement in the aftermath of the disaster , and B) What was printed in various period (and later) news papers. I really don't care what or whom you personally believe. However, I myself do put some weight in what John Snow, who WAS on the Mackay Bennett, allegedly told Stevens. In my book I do not claim this to be gospel, I merely related what Stevens said Snow told him. Read the book. It may clear up your perceptions of exactly how I wrote about what Stevens had to say about what Snow had said to him personally. As I mentioned earlier, I will not debate this until doomsday. I wrote a book, the subject of shootings was mentioned,(briefly), and that is that. There is nothing left to say except to remind you (once again and for the last time) that I simply put a mention in the book of what Stevens CLAIMED to have heard Snow tell him. Read the book. There is nothing to debate with me. I did my research. If you feel this strongly on the matter, I would suggest you contact the relations and neighbours of the late Thadeus Stevens and do some research of you own. Steve Santini.
 
Steve-

No I haven't read your book. In the book it is my understanding, based on the quote given earlier from your book, and by your own account, that you only report the claim. Yet in your interaction with me you have done something more -you have argued for the historicity of the report of bullet-riddled bodies being picked up by the recovery ships.

Steve said:
***
..your implying I believe there may have been some sort of "cover up" on the recovery ships only makes me believe that in fact you have NOT read my book.
***

Your belief is quite correct. However, it was you who implied that there may have been a cover up, not in your book, but in your postings on this BOARD (where we are, remember?): "they ("potential violence on Titanic") are also the sorts of things people would prefer to ...in some cases, even cover up."

Steve said:
***
I do find it interesting that you DO believe there was probably at least ONE shooting on board and yet do not believe there could have been others.
***

Why should I believe it? There's no evidence for others (I presume we are talking about fatal shootings here, not something like Lowe). Maybe you believe in accepting things without evidence, but there we part.

Steve said:
***
I find it even more interesting that if you do believe there may have been only two or three such incidents, you find it very hard to believe that these same people could have been found by the recovery ships and buried at sea. The way I see it, it is difficult to have it both ways.
***

Read carefully: FIRST-HAND and CONTEMPORANEOUS accountS of a shooting occurring near a collapsible near the end. SECOND-HAND and NON-CONTEMPORANEOUS accounT of bullet-riddled bodies being buried at sea from the retrieval ships. It is neither difficult nor hard to understand.

Steve said:
***
As for the information Stevens claims John Snow told him; what is the difference between the substance of this when compared to Murdoch's alleged suicide, or Wilde's, or Smith's, etc...
***

Not really much. The persons (who were on the scene) who reported first-hand seeing an officer shoot himself did not identify him, or if they did, they cannot be taken as a reliable authority on that (how likely is it a 3rd class passenger knew Murdoch to identify him by name?) While I believe an officer probably shot himself, I haven't a clue who he is. There's no reliable evidence to positively ID him. What, do you feel comfortable in saying that Murdoch, Wilde, and Smith all shot themselves, just because you evidently accept the Stevens tale, and consider it "no different" than the claims that M,W, and S all shot themselves?

I'm sorry, but the Stevens story is a "red herring." It was not told by a man on the scene, and it was only reported 70 years after the fact. Folklore it is. Evidence it is not.

Steve said:
***
However, I myself do put some weight in what John Snow, who WAS on the Mackay Bennett, allegedly told Stevens.
***

Why? Snow didn't tell this story as we have it: only Stevens did. It's like me reporting 70 years from now that in this debate we're having that you claimed there was a story that a monkey shot Major Butt. "However, I myself do put some weight in what Steve Santini, who DID research Titanic lore, allegedly told Bidwell." You see? It's a red herring. Take your facts from the horse's mouth, not from a middleman like Stevens, or 90-year-old me, in that hypothetical scenario I gave.

Steve said:
***
There is nothing left to say except to remind you (once again and for the last time) that I simply put a mention in the book of what Stevens CLAIMED to have heard Snow tell him. Read the book. There is nothing to debate with me. I did my research.
***

There certainly is something to debate with you (else why have you been trying to answer some of my criticisms, and make criticisms of your own?). Read through the archive of this thread. I first entered this by voicing my belief that I doubted that what the Stevens story reported was true. You objected to this opinion of mine and so here we are. I take your word for it that in your book you only reported what Stevens claimed. That, however, is not what you have done on this board. You earlier said: "I am not claiming, nor did Stevens, nor did any of his living relations, that MANY or A LOT of the bodies had these wounds, only that SOME of them did."

It is your claim that "some" did - that what Stevens reported is historically true - that I have been arguing with.

Try as you might to switch the subject away to shootings on deck, or pieces of the grand staircase, or what have you, the only bone of contention between me and you has been: did Mackay-Bennett pick up bodies with gunshot wounds?

I say no. The evidence just isn't there.

Regards,
Jason
 
Jason,
I see no reason for Thad Stevens, his relations, and/or his neighbours to lie when telling the same story as Thad said it was related to him by the same man who was there (John Snow). I also know firsthand that this "red herring" as you call it was told some time before the discovery of the wreck and heightened interest in Titanic. As for my believing or implying a "cover up", I did not state that I believed there even existed such a thing re: the "shootings". I don't know what your problem is with this entire matter but the exact same arguments and/or methodology you use to explain away the relevance or legitimacy of Stevens' claims could be used to "chip away" and even "tear down" nearly every commonly held theory concerning a great many historical events of import.And besides, even when an event or occurance is "explained", it does not mean that such an explanation is the "correct" one even though it may sit very comfortably with researchers, (i.e. even after exposing many fraudulent spirit mediums in the early 1900's, Harry Houdini noted that all of the exposures in the world would not jar the faith of hardcore believers who might admit that while some mediums were cheats, the genuine article was far more common and the cheats were forced to do so simply because the spirits were unable to "manifest" on command!).I think I am not the only one who should re read the earlier postings on this subject matter. As you seem to enjoy having the last word, I will promise not to comment any more on this matter so that you may close once and for all with your opinions. All the best. Steve Santini
Steve Santini.
 
Steve said:
***
I see no reason for Thad Stevens, his relations, and/or his neighbours to lie when telling the same story as Thad said it was related to him by the same man who was there (John Snow).
***

Hey, you know what, I agree (partially). If so many friends and neighbors of Mr. Stevens say he told them that story, I believe it - Stevens told them the story: which says nothing at all about the accuracy of what is told in the story itself. However, I do see at least one reason why Stevens and/or Snow may have lied: It's a sensational story and it gets people's attention.

Steve said:
***
I also know firsthand that this "red herring" as you call it was told some time before the discovery of the wreck and heightened interest in Titanic.
***

So? At least half-a-dozen books and three movies on the Titanic were made between 1950 and 1985. Ballard's discovery of the wreck may have "heightened interest," but there was plenty of interest in the wreck before. Look at all the money people made out of it!

Steve said:
***
I don't know what your problem is with this entire matter but the exact same arguments and/or methodology you use to explain away the relevance or legitimacy of Stevens' claims could be used to "chip away" and even "tear down" nearly every commonly held theory concerning a great many historical events of import.
***

Smoke doesn't burn grass. Let's see you tear down a commonly held theory of great import; good luck, because most commonly held theories of great historical import aren't based on the secondhand account of one man given 70 years after the event.

Steve said:
***
...even after exposing many fraudulent spirit mediums in the early 1900's, Harry Houdini noted that all of the exposures in the world would not jar the faith of hardcore believers who might admit that while some mediums were cheats, the genuine article was far more common and the cheats were forced to do so simply because the spirits were unable to "manifest" on command!
***

Yep. Pretty funny, isn't it? That's the problem with not sticking to the evidence. You believe things that aren't there.

Steve said:
***
I think I am not the only one who should re read the earlier postings on this subject matter.
***

Assuming you meant me, I just reread the thread. And I remain unimpressed by the powers of your argument.

Steve said:
***
As you seem to enjoy having the last word, I will promise not to comment any more on this matter so that you may close once and for all with your opinions.
***

How gracious.

Regards,
Jason
 

Similar threads

D
Shots in the Dark
Replies
4
Views
2K
Inger Sheil
Inger Sheil
P
Shots in the Dark
Replies
3
Views
2K
monica e. hall
M
P
GUNSHOTS
Replies
3
Views
2K
Ryan Patrick Thiessen
R
R
Gunshots on board
Replies
4
Views
2K
Jan Kite
J
P
Who was shot
2 3
Replies
38
Views
13K
Haowei Shi
H
Back
Top