Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
Collusion
- Thread starter Gordon Mooneyhan
- Start date
No, I don't think they did
Mark Baber
RIP
We'll never know.
Arun Vajpey
Member
Collusion by definition is perhaps too strong a word but if we put ourselves in the position of one or another of those 4 officers, almost all of us would have wanted to discuss both the tragic events that had already transpired as well as how we, as survivors, were going to handle it. All four would have known that they would face a lot of grilling in the investigations to follow and it would NOT have been inappropriate for them to have cooperated and planned ahead. As Mark says, we will never know what points were discussed and agreed/disagreed upon.
Most of us are not squeaky clean and might have gone through situations where we have chosen convenient short cuts to reduce any blowback on ourselves, as long as it was not at the expense of others. That option was definitely open to Lightoller, Pitman, Boxhall and Lowe.
Most of us are not squeaky clean and might have gone through situations where we have chosen convenient short cuts to reduce any blowback on ourselves, as long as it was not at the expense of others. That option was definitely open to Lightoller, Pitman, Boxhall and Lowe.
William Oakes
Member
Collusion is a strong word. They were definitely "Company Men."
So in that sense they were short with their answers, didn't give up anything voluntarily, and tried to portray the White Star Line in the best possible light.
So in that sense they were short with their answers, didn't give up anything voluntarily, and tried to portray the White Star Line in the best possible light.
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
It is generally accepted, at least from what I've read, that Ismay spent most of the trip to New York sedated in the doctor's quarters.
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
And all four never received a command of their own.
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
If you can believe Lightoller in "Titanic and Other Ships", he was also doing his best to protect the Board of Trade.
Arun Vajpey
Member
Sorry to be quoting material from another thread, but IMO it all depends on the purpose behind any alleged or real collusion. As I may have (mis)understood Julian in the Mesaba message post, IF (and a big IF) Lightoller and Bride had talked on board the Carpathia and agreed to shift the blame on to the late Phillips about that warning message, that would definitely have been collusion. On the other hand, if the 4 surviving officers put their heads together and decided to testify in such a way so as to minimise repercussions on themselves, it would not be collusion - since they could not be blamed for the tragedy individually or collectively. Having said that, if there was any agenda to soften the impact on White Star or BoT, IMO it would be collusion of sorts.
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
From the legal perspective, I don't think the purpose enters into whether or not it is collusion.
Agreed, if Lightoller and Bride had agreed to shift the blame onto Phillips, then it is collusion. The conundrum is in the following sentence--
Why is that not collusion? They are agreeing to testify in a way to minimize any effects on themselves. Therefore they agree to agree on their testimony; that is a perfect example of collusion. If it's not, please explain how it's not, and remember that my opening thread defines collusion.
Arun Vajpey
Member
Because of the official definition of collusion - secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others. If the sole purpose of the surviving officers' collective testimonies was carefully calculated only to protect each other, then IMO it is not collusion. I believe that because deceiving someone has to involve personal gain or something nefarious and as I said, the officers could not be held directly accountable. By that token, if their statements included things said (or not said) to cover-up for White Star and/or BoT (who had to be held accountable for the disaster), that would be nefarious and so definitely collusion.
That is IMO only.
Last edited:
There have been some excellent responses to your theoretical question…and since there are no facts to support your question of collusion….I prefer to throw it back on you.
The real question of collusion should be asked of Captain Lord and his first officer and the reluctant younger officer who had to go before Lord Mersey, and the British Board of Trades investigation.
The entire fiasco on board the Californian started with Capt Lord drinking. (my theory) in his cabin and the resultant effect on his sleep and interruptions and verbiage to the bridge. Any normal Captain would have got up for visual verification of rockets & question all witnesses, determined credibility, AND then woken the Marconi operator. ( just think for a moment how Rostron would have handled the bridge’s tube contact)
The collusion came about in the “loss” of the draft copy logbook kept on the bridge and marked by officers on watch. The master copy of the logbook would then be written by the captain and available at the end of each voyage. Lord colluded with certain persons ie First Officer and others? to “dispose” of the draft logbook prior to board of trades investigation.
The BBofT investigation determined (and rightly so) the Californian was 9-19 miles from the Titanic and found Lord guilty of failing to come to the aid of another ship in distress…the missing logbook was a significant factor in the boards final determination. (have a 1912 copy of the Inquiry l bought at Christie’s in the 90’s)
You can tell I have never been a Lordite. The entire Californian incident may have never been factually discovered if it had not been for Earnest Gill and the Boston paper that printed his statement and Smith traveling to meet with Gill personally.
In my opinion Lords actions were not only collusion they were criminal with intent to deceive.
Would love to hear from any Lordites to counter my thoughts on his and others collusion?
Gordon Mooneyhan
Member
Titanicmaster, I don't consider myself a Lordite, although I have felt that Captain Lord may have been mistreated. But, yes, the question was hypothetical, and I don't mind it thrown back at me.
I haven't seen any references to Captain Lord drinking; I would be interested in knowing what the basis is for your theory. I don't sleep in places other than my bedroom, but it has been known to happen and not due to drinking (I have to limit myself to 1 or 2 glasses of wine a month because of a medication I'm on.) I agree, to a degree, about the distress rockets. My only problem with them is that I seem to recall reading that distress rockets were to be fired at one-minute intervals, and Boxhall was firing them at five-minute intervals.
Apparently, each line had its own rules about the ultimate disposition of the ship's scratch log, and Lord had followed the rules of the Leyland Line. Had I been in his place, I would like to think I would have retained the scratch log, but who's to say I would have? Again, we don't know what was in it, and you're right; that does give the appearance of impropriety. But, from a legal point of view, is the fact the scratch log is missing evidence? The fact that it is missing is evidence, but we cannot presume to know what was in it. Therefore it's evidence, but we cannot draw conclusions as to what it may have contained.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the BBOT "determined (and rightly so) the Californian was 9-19 miles from the Titanic." The Titanic was 13 miles east of where she thought she was, as determined by the difference between the SOS position Phillips was sending and the wreck's location, as discovered by Dr. Robert Ballard. By the same token, we don't know that the Californian's dead reckoning position was correct either. IIRC, this was Lord's first encounter with ice at night, and at least one ship captain came to his defense in his decision not to progress through the ice field at night. Lord was a prudent mariner. Also, the first duty of a captain is to the safety of his ship.
Prudence is the skillful or wise management of affairs, attentiveness to possible hazards, caution, or circumspection as to danger or risk. In other words, knowing the potential threats and drawing on your knowledge and experience to mitigate or avoid them. A person can act imprudently yet not suffer punishment because there are no consequences. For example, I could be driving my car on a busy highway, going 40 MPH over the speed limit, and swerving in and out of traffic. By some miracle, no accidents occur, and no one is injured. Yes, I was speeding, and my actions were imprudent, but no one has a cause of action against me because no one suffered any harm or damage (assuming that I managed to avoid encountering law enforcement). With that in mind, Arthur Rostron, although being the hero of the night, was the most imprudent captain there; he went full steam into an ice field that had just sunk a much newer ship than his, in conditions which made the ability to see icebergs at a distance next to impossible.
Last edited:
Arun Vajpey
Member
That is absolute nonsense. In fact, up to and including the time that Captain Lord ordered the Californian stopped for the night, he was one of the better Skippers in the area of the ice. He did all the right moves and gave the right orders as far as his own ship was concerned. He was not in pajamas as depicted in the 1958 film but resting in his uniform in the chartroom. It is my belief that Stone and others did not communicate effectively enough with him abut the queer attitude of the Titanic and the rockets sent up. He would have realized that during the Inquiry but being a proud man, would not accuse his own crew publicly. Instead, he just admitted to "a certain amount of slackness" or something similar on board his ship that night. In other words, despite the realization that his position had started to unravel, he did not point the finger at his duty crew. The same thing most certainly could not be said about the crew of the Californian.
Last edited:
Similar threads
