Chronology - Sinking of the Titanic

[Bill Wormstedt]

"In response I have demonstrated that Murdoch was seen leaving the starboard side of the Titanic after sending #13 off the boat deck; he was spotted at #14 by a crewman"

No argument on Murdoch leaving the starboard side after leaving #13, as our timeline has had that in for years. HOWEVER, you have not proved that he went to #14 directly AFTER this. You say he was seen at #14, but either before or after #13 is unprovable.

And just because only one person has testified to something (McGough's movements), doesn't prove it is wrong.

I am well aware of Scott's testimony, as Tad, George Behe and I discussed it quite a bit. But what does "lowered down to the ship's side they were then" mean? Lowered to the boat deck? Or lowered all the way down the ships side? For more details on what we felt it means, read our article.

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Ioannis, how are you? I hope that you are doing well.

You wrote:
"I did not see the problem here. Scott see No.14 lowering into the water and that gunshots were fired...and another lifeboat lowering/or in water (which could have been 16,12 or 10 on which order you prefer)."

Good question. To clarify, George and us agree that the evidence supports a lowering sequence of No. 16, 14, 12, and 10 for the aft port boats. One of the differences in our opinions revolves around the launching of the starboard and aft port boats in relation to each other.

The problem lies in the interpretation of Scott's evidence that he meant that the two aft boats he saw "lowered down to the ship's side they were then" were sitting level with the Boat Deck, rather than that they were "round the ship" in the water.

George stated his belief that one of the two boats Scott saw was No. 14, which Scott certainly believed it was, since he links Lowe and the gunshots with it. Scott may only have been assuming this was No. 14 however, as he says "one of the boats was where the Officer pulled a revolver out..."

Given the wording, this could be interpreted as Scott having seen this or only having heard about it. Ranger says all the boats had left the ship when they came up, and mentions no gunfire.

The issue is, given the order of lowering of No. 16, 14, 12, and 10, Scott couldn't have seen No. 14 still on the deck, without No. 12 and No. 10 still being there, since the evidence from the majority of the witnesses says those boats were launched after No. 14.

However, if he was only saying No. 14/ a boat he thought was No. 14 was alongside the ship in the water, as well as No. 4 being in the water which he mistook as an aft port boat, then his statements make sense in light of Ranger's description of their escape, and in accord with the No. 16, 14, 12, 10 sequence.

You wrote:
"I do not understand why Scott did not mentioned them? I mean, he is looking for a boat to save himself and now there are 2 still on the ship near his spot."

That's exactly the point. If Scott was describing No. 14 still being level with the deck, there is no way he could have missed No. 12 and No. 10 sitting right next to it. Scott had to be saying the two boats were alongside the ship in the water.

As far as Ranger, Scott and he were together when they came on deck and escaped, and both left the ship at the same time. Ranger testified that there were no boats left, and says they were told there were none left when they came on deck. Ranger says they were told this when the were on the aft starboard side near the second class smoking room, which was aft on B Deck, before they headed to the aft port side.

Scott also describes them having looked over the starboard aft side, but didn't specify it was on B Deck as Ranger did. He also says they went to the aft port side next. In any case, Ranger says no boats were left on the ship, and that No. 4 had rowed back.

Scott's testimony is can be interpreted several different ways based on the wording he used.

I hope that you have a great weekend.

All my best,
Tad

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Hi Tad!

Hope you are well too!
Thanks for your answer!

I would too say that Scott means with "lowered down to the ship's side they were then" (5647)that they are not level with the boat deck but on the way down to the water and that he really saw the boat with Lowe in it, and also that he fired his revolver. It comes clear here on his testimony;
5657. Tell us what you saw?
- I saw two boats then, and one of the boats was where the Officer pulled a revolver out and shot it between the ship and the boat and said, "If any man jumps into the boat I will shoot him like a dog."
5788. That is where you saw the shots fired?
- I saw one shot fired, that was by the Officer in one of the boats.
5789. Do you know which Officer it was?
- No.
5792. Did you see him fire any shots anywhere but into the water?
- No, that is all I saw him fire - one shot between the ship's side and the boat.

Scott and Ranger were not at the same time on the boat deck. As you have mentioned, Ranger was on the B Deck while Scott went up to the boat deck (also both use different ways do go up)
5647. What did you do then?
- We got them at the Third class; from there we went up on the boat deck.
They met later on boat deck before getting into No.4 as Ranger stated;
4050. That is just what I wanted to get. Let us get this quite clearly. You heard by that time all the boats had gone?
- Yes.
4053. What did you do then?
- I went to the port side of the boat deck aft.
4054. And then?
- There was me and a greaser by the name of Scott. We climbed up the davit and down the boat falls, and I got into a boat, and Scott dropped into the water.

So far I can see Scott was on the boat deck when he looked over the starboard side seeing no lifeboats and then went to port to see 2 boats. (5647-5652)

Let us forget the lowering sequent (if No. 14 or 16 first etc.) for a moment and have only a look at Scott.
He went to the boat deck to the starboard side first (5649). He looks over the side;
5652. ... We looked, and there was no boat.
5654. And you remember looking over the side?
- Yes.
Then he went to the port side and looked there over the side(5655&5656)and see two boats in one of them was an officer with a revolver (5657&5788).
5658. That is Mr. Lowe, according to the evidence. Do you remember where these boats were? Were they forward or aft?
- Aft.
5659. Aft on the port side?
- Aft on the port side.
5660. There are four aft on the port side. Do you remember which of them you saw?
- I know it was the two after-boats on the port side.
5709. Were all the boats launched then?
- No; all barring two.

For me, if I understand Scott right, it sound that there were no lifeboats left on starboard (aft) and 2 were still lowering on the port side (aft) which are the two after boats, which must be than No. 14 & 16. According to Scott.

Kind regards
Ioannis

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Just a thought to ponder on the evidence available, you may all find some of the observations posted in This Thread to be worthy of note, particularly the post made by Jim Kalafus.

Here's the grabber: The minutes of evidence in the inquiry transcripts are likely as close to any sort of honest and generally (Though not totally) accurate accounting of these events which will ever come to. Forensics investigation will clear up a lot of techinical issues but won't always be all that helpful in sorting out events.

The one thing the inquiry evidence has going for it, as I pointed out, is that it was taken under oath and penalty of purjury. That hardly stopped witnesses from resorting to deliberate falsehoods, or just plain getting it wrong, but it did give the honest a strong incentive to stay honest whilst giving the not so honest an incentive to avoid taking too many liberties with how the facts were spun.

With sources such as newspaper accounts and interviews with periodicals, there is no such incentive, and no incentive for the reporter to even accurately present in context what was told to him even if they did interview a survivor.

Just a little something to think about the next time anybody gets too wedded to Charlotte Collyers account. While I can't prove that it wasn't ghost written, I can't overlook the possibility that it could have been, and would have to treat it with extreme skepticism.

 

[Paul Lee]

The only problem I have with Charlotte Collyer's account is that it is written in a 1st person style but it mentions things that she can't possibly have observed.

 

[Jim Currie]

Ioannis,

I think you are right in that Lowe's boat was in the act of being lowered when he fired that shot-
more than likely a few seconds after the order to lower away was given.

According to Scott, there were two boats still not lowered on the port side when he first arrived there:
"5652. It was the port side that had listed over?
- Yes. We went up the starboard ladder and came this side of her. We looked, and there was no boat. We went to the port side, and there were no boats then lowered to the ship's side.
Does this mean they were not lowered into the water? or no boats which had been - close to the side of the ship?

As you point out, he said:

"I saw two boats then, and one of the boats was where the Officer pulled a revolver out and shot it between the ship and the boat and said, "If any man jumps into the boat I will shoot him like a dog."

'Jumps'? Where from? I suggest it was from a deck level with or slightly above the gunwale of the lifeboat. It seems it was the boat deck on which Scott was standing at the time and some of the men surged forward in an attempt to get in at the last moment. Lowe would most certainly have been concerned about any, sudden added weight. Additionally; if the boat had been lowered much below boat deck level - Scott would have had to surge forward to see Lowe in the act.
Perhaps Scott failed to mention he was one of the ones that tried to make a late boarding. He certainly was in the forefront of volunteers to help the rowers!

Both 14 and 16 were cast off from the ship's side thus the falls would be left
dangling down ward with the lower ends some 8 feet above the surface of the sea. 14 was rowed back toward the ship. The cox of the boat would head for one fall and the other would be a boat's length away. Thus the man on on fall arrived dry while the other had to drop off into the water. A bit like this?

Michael:

With sources such as newspaper accounts and interviews with periodicals, there is no such incentive, and no incentive for the reporter to even accurately present in context what was told to him even if they did interview a survivor."

Spot-on! You should have added 'books written about it long after the event'.

As for others:

I have seen herein some suggestions as to what goes-on during a Public Enquiry/Hearing into marine accidents.
I must say, as one who has participated in not a few of those in my roles as Seaman, Accident Investigator, Marine Surveyor, witness and Expert Witness; I don't recognise what is being described. For one; exchange of evidence between participants and witness Legal Advisor is not automatic - never has been. believe me; lots of 'bomb-shells' are dropped at such hearings. Although they have a legal standing - they are not Courts of Law in the true sense. They are there to gather evidence and information in accordance with a pre-determined remit. The person presiding over such a hearing is guided by experts in any of the particular trades, skills, professions etc that might be relevant to the case in question.

This event is not to apportion blame but to discover facts as reported by witnesses, analyse those facts and produce a report based on them which will be used to make improvements. If during the Enquiry/Hearing, it is found or suspected that a criminal act has taken place then such will be reported to the appropriate legal authority and action taken as found necessary. At this point, the opposing parties are usually legally bound to exchange evidence

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Hi Jim!

From Lowe we know that he fired his gun when his boat passes the A Deck. Most likely the boat was near B Deck when he fired the shots so no one could jump from A Deck into the boat. Scott was on boat deck but did not know why a shot was fired.
5790. Do you know what it was that led to his firing the shot?
- I could not tell you.
5791. You did not see any confusion on deck?
- No, none at all.
5792. Did you see him fire any shots anywhere but into the water?
- No, that is all I saw him fire - one shot between the ship's side and the boat.
5793. You did not see the circumstances that led up to that?
- No.
If I remember right it was also Crowe (who was in No. 14) said that Lowe fired into the water while Lowe and others said into the air.

He does not mention were he was standing at that moment. Maybe he even was at station for No.16 or at the rail behind the aft davit. However it must have been easy to look down and see what happened also Titanic was having a list to port during that time.
5650. And you looked over the side?
- Yes, the highest side of her where she had a list.
5651. The highest side?
- Yes, the port side was where she had listed over, and we went to the starboard side.

You wrote;
"14 was rowed back toward the ship."
No 14 did not row back. Scott and Ranger get into lifeboat No.4 which was rowing aft along the ship side.
Thanks for the interesting drawing. It is not clear if both used the same davit or as in your drawing 2 different. Scott only mentioned that he tried to get down the falls but fell into the water while Ranger was having more luck.

 

[David Gleicher]

Ioannis,

To me what you say makes perfect sense. But doesn't it suggest something is amiss with the time tables of both George Jacub, and BIll, Tad et. al.?--soemthing I address in my book, and which is implicit in the British Inquiry time-table, but which seems to be left out of this discussion.

Namely, Scott's testimony is one more confirmation of the fact that Lifeboat 10 was the first boat to be launched on the port side, not the last one. Further,it was launched by Wilde, not Murdoch.

DG

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Hi David!

Sorry, don't know your book. So something more for my "to buy it" list.

I think Tad is right in one point. He wrote
"Scott's testimony is can be interpreted several different ways based on the wording he used."
In some way I think we can say it for nearly every survivor.
From Scott's testimony we can say 16 and 14 were really the last aft boats leaving the ship.
Ignore Scott or say he is wrong and say someone else is right who said something different (like 14 or 16 etc.) first and you will get another order. And sure there will be another survivor who remember another order etc.

Regarding lifeboat No.10, I personally (which does not mean I am right) are unsure if Murdoch really was involved in the loading and launching of that boat. I know he was mentioned by Evans while Joughin mentioned Wilde. And another crew member only mentioned the Cief Officer. But more interesting I find that Lightoller was too on boat No. 10. From Lightoller we know that he worked on lifeboats were also Wilde was involved. But I can not remember saying that he met Murdoch on the port side while loading and lowering lifeboats.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Ioannis!

I must be getting mixed-up here because of:

"The Commissioner: And they were 14 and 16.

5668. (The Attorney-General.) That is right?
- They were full up with women. There were only two men in one boat and that was the one I got into. They pulled back for two more men, and we got in from the ship's side.

5669. (The Attorney-General.) He is right; that is boat 14; they took off two men?
- Yes; we got up on the davits and went down the falls. I got halfway down and went into the water. Ranger happened to get into the boat without getting wet. I was in the water, I suppose, about four or five minutes and they pulled me in.

5670. You were pulled in and taken into the same boat that Ranger was in?
- Yes.

I read this as Scott and Ranger got into either 14 or 16. However I do see that they both said it was lifeboat number 4 they got into.

Ranger said:
" 4063. I thought you told us that all the boats had left the ship?
- This boat came back to the ship as they only had two men in the boat.

4064. She came back to the ship with only two men in her; is that it?
- She never had enough men in the boat to pull her away.

4065. Not enough men to man her?
- Yes.

4066. Was she full?
- Full of women and children.

4067. Do you know what number the boat was?
- No. 4.

The problem here is that this particular boat with just two men 'came back to the ship'.
I do not read that as 'rowed along the side of the ship' Indeed, for two men to have made any headway at all with such a heavy boat and two oars was a magnificent feat in itself.

Ranger also claimed he boarded number 4 lifeboat and also correctly states that the man in charge of that was Quartermaster Perkis. However in his evidence, Perkis is very clear in his answers but makes no mention of returning to the ship or having two more men arrive from Titanic via the lifeboat falls. Indeed he states he went down the falls of boat 4 himself to join 2 seamen already in it. He also states he picked-up about 8 men from the water after he rowed away from the ship and two of these subsequently died. Ranger also mentions that they picked up 7 but makes no mention of deaths.

Conversely, Scott claimed there were only 2 men in boat 4 when in fact there were 3.

As I see it; we either have have two lifeboats which had men join them via the boat falls or one lifeboat in which three men joined it by the boat falls. What's the truth?

As for Lowe's shot -if he fired it in the air from below deck level toward a crowd of people - oh dear!.
Between the boat and the ship -and incidentally - between a bunch of surging men and the boat makes more sense. Even a shot in the air in the direction of the funnels under the same circumstances would be OK!

If a boat is used to pick up a man from the falls. the trick is to get the bow or stern directly under him as he is descending via the falls - holding onto the falls to create a guide-line so to speak. If these guys were on the same set of falls and the first one landed safely on the boat, it's 10-1 the second one would have landed very heavily in the same area if he let go half way down.
The person on the boat would retain hold of that set of falls to act as a guide for one, two even three or more people to arrive on board the lifeboat in a dry state. Because of this, I'm pretty sure Scott and Ranger used both falls.

I am very suspicious of the evidence given by those two. The other seaman in boat 4 was never questioned. Perkis was questioned in the US but Ranger and Scott had plenty of time to agree their story before arrival back in the UK.

There may be contradictory evidence I've missed if so-sorry!

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Hi Jim!

I don't think that both agree their story.
Scott;
5695. Were you and Ranger the only ones who ran to the port side?
- Well, I do not know whether Ranger came over at the same time as me or not, but there were some stood on the port side then. There were a lot of firemen there, but they did not think about getting up on the davits to get out on to the falls.
5694. When the boat came to the port side we have heard either from you or from Ranger they shouted out from there they wanted two more men?
- Yes.
Ranger;
4068. Did you get any orders to go down into the boat?
- No.
But however you could be right.

That No.4 was near the ships side was stated by Scott and I think a few others. Need to look for taht again. The reason why No. 4 rowed aft (along the ship side?) was because they were ordered to the aft gangway to took up some more people.
Here the affidavit of Mr. Ryerson in No.4
"… Someone shouted something about a gangway, and no one seemed to know what to do.Barrels and chairs were being thrown overboard. ..." And Miss. Eustis and Mrs. Stephenson report; "When we finally were ready to move the order was called from the deck to go to the stern hatch and take off some men. There was no hatch open and we could see no men, but our crew obeyed orders, much to our alarm, for they were throwing wreckage over and we could hear a cracking noise resembling china breaking."
About men comig down the falls Mrs. Ryerson said; "Then they called out: How many seaman have you?" and they answered: "One." "That is not enough," said the officer, "I will send you another"; and he send a sailor down the rope. In a few minutes several other men, not sailors, came down the ropes over the davits and dropped into out boat. (American Inquiry).

As you said right, Ranger get into No.4
4074. And how many men were there in the boat?
- Two.
4075. Do you know who they were?
- Perkins, a quartermaster, and Foley, a sailor.
4085. And you and the other man climbed the davits and dropped down into the boat?
- Yes.
4086. Did the boat then push off?
- We pulled away from the ship after we got the man in the boat by the name of Scott.
4087. You picked him up after he had dropped into the water?
- Yes.
4088. Do you remember which davit it was that you climbed?
- The after davit of all, the port side.
4089. That is the davit for lifeboat No. 16. It is the aftermost one on the port side. If I follow correctly what you said, there was nobody there except you two?
- No one - only us two.

Now let us have a look at Scott;
5892. What was No. 4 boat?
- The boat I got into.
5893. (The Solicitor-General.) How do you know?
- I asked a sailor after I got on the "Carpathia" what the numbers of the boats were.
5905. And then you climbed up the davits and got down?
- Yes, and that boat was No. 4.
5906. (The Commissioner.) Then you were pulled into No. 4 boat?
- Yes.

Hemming also got in No. 4
Senator SMITH: What did you do then?
Mr. HEMMING: I pulled my head above the gunwale, and I said, "Give us a hand in, Jack." Foley was in the boat. I saw him standing up in the boat. He said, "Is that you, Sam?" I said, "Yes;" and him and the women and children pulled me in the boat.
Senator SMITH: Who had charge in that boat?
Mr. HEMMING: Perkis, Quartermaster
One of the people who were picked up after Titanic sunk was Dillon.
Senator Smith: Name what you can of them.
Mr. HEMMING: There was one seaman named Lyons, and there were one or two passengers and one or two firemen. Dillon, a fireman, was one of them.
And Dillon at the BI
3875. Were you picked up by one of the boats?
- Yes.
3876. Do you know which one?
- Afterwards I found out; it was No. 4 boat.
3931. When you were taken into the boat what condition were you in? Were you picked up unconscious?
- Unconscious.
3932. When you came to what did you find?
- I was not properly right when I came to.
3933. Whom did you find with you in the boat?
- Lyons lying on top of me, a seaman, and a passenger lying on top of me dead.
3934. Do you know the seaman?
- One was Lyons.

Lowe said that he shot up into the air but looked that no one was in way to be injured.

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Ioannis and Jim,
Hello, how are both of you doing? Good I hope. I am in the middle of a home remodeling project, and am taking a much-needed break. Some interesting discussion and thoughts here.

Ioannis wrote:
"Regarding lifeboat No.10, I personally (which does not mean I am right) are unsure if Murdoch really was involved in the loading and launching of that boat."

As you said, Able Bodied Seaman Evans mentions Murdoch by name as having been at No. 10. So does Able Bodied Seaman Buley. Both men were members of the deck department, and interacted with the officers more frequently than members of the victualling department or passengers.

In the case of Evans, he knew Murdoch personally and would have been highly unlikely to mistake another officer for him, since he had previously served with Murdoch on the Olympic.

Joughin, a baker and member of the victualling department, never mentioned Murdoch's name until it was suggested to him. He stated the "Chief Officer was there" at #10, and the assessor asked "is that Mr. Wilde?" Joughin replied "Yes", and continued to use that name after this.

Part of the issue with the officer identifications is that we have photographic evidence in the form of a picture of Murdoch and Lightoller in the gangway at Queenstown that Lightoller was still wearing his First Officer's stripes on his uniform even though he was demoted for the maiden voyage. This makes it unlikely that Murdoch changed his uniform for his temporary demotion from Chief Officer to First Officer. This probably led to some of the confusion, particularly on the part of those who didn't know Murdoch or work with him.

Ioannis, Lightoller was not involved in the loading of No. 10, so he didn't say anything one way or another that helps us with the officer identification there. Lightoller did load No. 12.

Ioannis wrote:
"For me, if I understand Scott right...2 were still lowering on the port side (aft) which are the two after boats, which must be than No. 14 & 16. According to Scott."

I understand where you arrived at that conclusion, but if Scott was saying the two boats were lowering rather than in the water near the ship when he says "lowered down the ships side they were then" and that there were two boats "round the ship", then he is in direct conflict with Ranger, who claimed that they were told there were no boats left when they came on deck, and said there were no boats. Ranger also says they slid down the after falls, which would have held No. 16 if it was still there.

Jim wrote:
"I am very suspicious of the evidence given by those two."

Jim and Ioannis, I agree with both of you that Scott and Ranger's stories both don't seem to add up. As I pointed out previously, no matter what order one thinks the aft boats left in, Scott's account is full of problems, and Ranger and he don't even agree with each other.

In regards to the aft port boats, I would direct both of you to our lifeboat launch article, which goes into this very subject in some detail, with all sources listed and documented. There is a whole array of witnesses who give evidence relating to the aft sequence.

The link is: Wayback Machine

I would recommend specifically the section titled "The Stern Port Boats," which covers all of this in more depth, and also the section on No. 16, 14, 12, and 10 under "Combined Launch Sequence and Timings".

Also, the section "The Listing of the Titanic as It Shifted from Starboard to Port" and corresponding information on this in "Combined Launch Sequence and Timings" gives a good deal of evidence as to the order and sequence of the aft port boats based on eyewitness statements and descriptions as to the direction and degree of list. This is further evidence No. 10 left last, as the list was described as being only slight to port during the loading of No. 16, 14, and 12, but had grown to about 10 degrees by the time No. 10, 2, C, and D left. Sam Halpern has done some great work regarding this.

Also, since David Gleicher mentioned his book: I would also recommend that people read his book, as he has some really interesting thoughts and points regarding how the third class passengers were treated, and how they were rescued.

However, the portions of his book that deal with the launch sequence have some serious problems. We discuss and analyze David's launch sequence as presented in his book, as well as his comments regarding our launch article at the following link: home att net/~wormstedt/titanic/crit/Gleicher.htm

Thanks for the friendly and interesting discussion guys.

Kind regards,
Tad

 

[Mark Chirnside]

The lifeboat launching article and related pages Tad referenced are well worth the read.

Best wishes,

Mark.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Hi Tad!

Nice to hear from you!

Regarding Lightoller and No.10.
Mr. Evans: ... I then went next to No. 10, Sir, to that boat, and the Chief Officer, Mr. Murdoch, was standing there, ...
As you said right Joughin first said Chief Officer and than add the name Wilde.
5942. ... Did you go to your boat, No. 10? — Yes.
5943. And what did you find was the situation there? — Everything orderly. The Chief Officer was there.
5944. Is that Mr. Wilde? — Yes, Mr. Wilde.
And Buley was also there;
Mr. Burke: ... As I got to No. 10 boat, the Chief Officer was there. ...
And now it became interesting!
Mr. Burke: ... After I arrived in the boat the Chief Officer seemed to be joined by another Officer, ...
Officer Lowe was standing at lifeboat No. 14;
Senator Smith: Was Mr. Lightoller, the Second Officer, there?
Mr. Lowe: He was there a part of time, and he went away somewhere else. He must have gone to the second boat forward.
If Lowe is right the second boat forward must be No. 10 (if I understand right!)
And what about Lightoller himself?
14014. ... Whether the last boat that I went to was No. 8 or No. 10 I cannot say.

"I understand where you arrived at that conclusion, but if Scott was saying the two boats were lowering rather than in the water near the ship when he says "lowered down the ships side they were then" and that there were two boats "round the ship", then he is in direct conflict with Ranger, who claimed that they were told there were no boats left when they came on deck, and said there were no boats. Ranger also says they slid down the after falls, which would have held No. 16 if it was still there."

5652. It was the port side that had listed over?
- Yes. We went up the starboard ladder and came this side of her. We looked, and there was no boat. We went to the port side, and there were no boats then lowered to the ship's side.
5895. (The Commissioner.) I thought I might have made a mistake about the number. I thought when he came up on the boat deck there were only two boats left?
- Yes.
The Commissioner:
And I thought they were Nos. 14 and 16.
The Attorney-General: Yes, 14 and 16.
The Witness: They were loaded away, Sir. We never got into those two boats.
The Commissioner:
Were the two boats that were left Nos.. 14 and 16?
5896. (The Attorney-General.) I think we had better get it quite clear. (To the Witness.) When you got to the port side there were two boats? - Two boats left.
5897. As I understand from all you said, the aftermost boats on the port side? - Yes.
5898. You did not get into either of those? - No.
5899. Those were just going away? - No.
5900. What happened? - I saw them rush to the ship's side from there. I went over to the starboard side again, and then we come back again.
5901. You came back again to the starboard side?
- We came back from the starboard side to the port side again.
5902. When you came back to the starboard side there was nothing there, and you went back again to the port side? - Yes.
5903. The boats had gone away? - Yes.
For me it sounds (I am only looking at his statement!) that he got on boat deck port side, see no boats on starboard and 2 lowering into the water (14 & 16?). He went again to starboard and then to port. Meanwhile the boats have left the ship. He does not say how long he was on the starboard side before going back again. But that must be the time he met Ranger and both discover a lifeboat coming along (No. 4).
It was about 1:20 a.m. when the order was given to release the crew in the engine rooms.
5706. I want you to tell me with regard to the engineers you saw on the deck, when did they come up? - They came up just after I did.
5707. How long was that? - It was 20 minutes past 1 when I left the engine room.
5708. How long before you climbed down the falls to the boat? - I should say about half-an-hour.
5841. Yes. You left the engine room at 1.20; you got eventually to the boat deck, and I want to know about what time it was you got on the boat deck? - About twenty to two I think it was when I got on to the boat deck.
5842. How long after you got to the boat deck was it till you got on to the davits and down the falls? - About a quarter of an hour, between a quarter of an hour and twenty minutes.
5843. That would bring it to about five minutes to two?
- Yes.

According to this it would have been at 01:40 a.m. when 14 and 16 left the ship. He stay there some 20 minutes before going down the falls together with Ranger. It must have been than during that 20 minutes that Ranger came on deck (01-40-02:00) seeing no lifeboats. And so (by taking his timing) No. 16 would have been not there.

Regarding the starboard side he said;
5660. There are four aft on the port side. Do you remember which of them you saw?
- I know it was the two after-boats on the port side.
5661. That is 14 and 16 on the port side? - I do not know the number.
5662. That is right. They were the last. When you looked over the starboard side you were in the afterend? - In the afterend.
5663. Could you see at all whether there were any boats forward on the starboard side?
- No. I saw a lot of lights a tidy distance away from the ship, and the chaps thought it was a ship overhauling us and somebody said they thought it was a lifeboat, and the others said they could not have got out so far; but we happened to find out it was a lifeboat.
5664. When you did look over the starboard side there were no boats either forward or aft?
- No, not alongside the ship.

Thanks for the link to your article. I have read it some time ago and will have a look again.
So far as I was able to work it out (I have done also work about the list of the ship but I think not so good as Sam did) boats Nos. 10,12,14 and 16 left the ship while she was having a list to starboard.

Kind regards
Ioannis

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Regarding Scott and Ranger, please note that I was looking only about what they said to have seen, especially having a focus on Scott.

Regrads
Ioannis