Error from the British Commission upon D-Deck ?

Hello everyone,

I was reading the testimony of F. CARRUTHERS (British Commission of Inquiry) and I'm confused with TITANIC's bridges : at question 29345, Edwards talks about "Upper Deck" as "D-Deck". But some sources (like the book "Ship of a Dream" and "On a Sea of Glass" -- which is for me very reliable for its authors are all scientists) it said that the Upper Deck is E Deck (Scotland Road, I suppose).

The Commission is supposed to be reliable too for all the technical knowledge is mostly based on it. So what am I suppose to take from it ? Is the upper deck supposed to be E or D deck ?? The more I read and the more I get confused. Is there someone who knows ?? Thanks!
 
D deck was the saloon deck, hence the 1st class saloon.
E deck was the upper deck. There are several errors within the testimony, either by the witness not remembering or stating something wrong, or in a weird way, or the inquirers misinterpreting information, or the stenographers who were taking down the testimony miss writing or hearing what was said. This happens now and then with decks, especially E, D, G and B, and even more so when the person talking most likely had an accent.

Based on the next question
That is at G Deck - Yes my Lord.
It is clear that he really said E deck as the bulkhead may terminate at the next deck below the upper deck. The next deck below the upper deck was F, so they could as high as G deck, but they did not have to rise through F deck. Titanic's did reach to either D deck & E deck.
 
The Commission is supposed to be reliable too for all the technical knowledge is mostly based on it? I would question that as I see it there was lacking of expertise into the short term inquiry. As inquiries to day can takes years to sort out the truth.
Yes I would agree mistakes were made in the one sided inquiry out to protect the interest of the BOT. Those poor seamen been cross examine in the witness box which a nerve racking experience on its own, by a razor sharp barrister Sir Rufus Isaacs and Lord Mersey been an ex barrister himself to. Then not to have a barrister for your defence. Then add the poor acoustics of the hall mistakes are bout to be made.
 
Thank you very much guys, I'm finally getting it. Yes, Lord Mersey was a barrister before being appointed as a Judge in The Queen's Bench Division in 1897. Before that, he was the first counsel of the Queen in 1883. About his partiality, few short stories : first the Wright case. Whitaker Wright was a financier whose empire collapsed. He was prosecuted for fraud and the prosecutor was Rufus Isaacs and the judge, guess who ? Yep : Lord Mersey! From the start of the trial, Mersey had decided that Wright was guilty and showed open hostility. The lawyers of the defendant even complained that Mersey had made fun of Wright and the jury laughed at him.

Another trial was the one of a mother who had killed his child. The sentence was very lenient for the mother was socially very well connected... If you have notice that, Mersey mistreated the witnesses who were low in the social ladder (as Fleet who was very frustrated at the end of his testimony) but took for granted the words of those who were higher in the social ladder, like Charles "Lie-teller" Lightoller who said that the Titanic sank intact when several people had said that the ship had broken.

By the way, there was a stoker who killed his wife and had Lord Mersey for his trial. This stoker once free in 1911 get a job on the Titanic ! I think (but I'm really not sure, take that with circumspection) that he gave testimony before Mersey on the Inquiry.
(Most of the fact here are from "Four Thousand Lives Lost : the inquiries of Lord Mersey Into The Sinking of the Titanic, The Empress of Ireland, The Falaba And The Lusitania" written by Alastair Walker.)

Thanks again for information !
 
Yes you are right about Lord Mersey as he show no mercy with James Whitaker Wright and handed down a seven year prison sentence. Which resulted him committing suicide in1904. There is also a H&W connection here too! As Lord William Pirrie the company chairman brought the palatial splendid mansion Witley Park were Whitaker Wright had spent a vast fortune to the point spending beyond his means. I have seen the photos of the mansion in the Godalming Museum the home of Jack Phillips the senior wireless operator. The Mansion was quite stunning were only the finest material will do. Brought for two hundred thousand pounds (today value over 22 million) in May 1909. Two months after the kneel for Titanic was lay down. Where maximum effect was required. Pirrie had other ideas, the mansion was badly run down over those years were he had to spend large sum of money to bring the place up to scratch as it was. But the running cost were huge as 150 staff were require. 40 minute train ride to his splendid Downshire House in London more running costs. Pirrie certainty knew how to live the life of a millionaire and clearly was not one! Had he fallen into the same trap as Whitaker Wright? I have rather straid of the track what this thread is about. Researching into the background of Pirrie I have a opinion of the man. Not as smart as he made out when it came to money!
Perhaps Lord Pirrie could be another new thread to cover?
 
If you open the profile plan on the home page of this site, scroll to midship in the superstructure then right forward to the bow. There, you will see that the decks were not alphabetically labeled on the plans. They were:
1. Boat deck
2. Promenade deck...........................(A)
3. Bridge Deck.............................. ....(B)
4. 3. Forecastle & Poop decks.
5. Shelter Deck..................................(C)
6. Saloon Deck..................................(D)
7. Upper deck....................................(E)
8. Middle deck...................................(F)
9. Lower deck....................................(G)
10. Orlop deck
11. Lower orlop deck
12. Tank top.
 
Back
Top