How much of a difference would it have made?

[Julian Atkins]

IF the 'story' that you alluded to was manufactured before the Californian docked at Boston, could it have been 'fine tuned' on the way back to Liverpool?

Hi Arun,

In my mind there is no doubt about this. And also it was a high risk strategy.

It relied upon Stone and Gibson not stating to the British Inquiry anything about their 18th April statements to Captain Lord.

It relied upon the British Inquiry knowing nothing of what Captain Lord told the Boston Press.

It relied upon the British Inquiry not picking up on the ‘register of company signals’.

It could also be argued that it relied on the nonsense of Stone saying the rockets didn’t go very high - which Sam has explained was a ridiculous notion.

And lots of little details. The failure of the British Inquiry to ask about the Carpathia’s rockets later on and the failure of Stone to report them to Captain Lord. The failure of the British Inquiry to interrogate Groves as to why he heard no ‘static’ in the Marconi headphones around 12.20am.

I could cite further examples.

But to come back to your question, I think there is clear evidence in some of Stewart’s testimony of a ‘cover up’, and clearly under cross examination Stone, Gibson, and Captain Lord, and Stewart made errors. All witnesses are not going to be perfect in the witness stand. They don’t follow their statements, and get asked probing questions that are challenging.

Recollections may also not be clear, and vital records not kept.

I think that Sam did an amazing job in unraveling the navigation stuff of The Californian in his book. Mistakes were already being made in the Ships Log by noon on the 14th. It was lucky for Captain Lord that none of this was picked up at the time. Then in Booth we have the pic of the original Marconigram sent to the Antillian (in Captain Lord’s distinctive handwriting) of the 3 bergs seen. Giving a different latitude to that recorded in the ships log.

Again, a high risk strategy, because it was not until later that the British Inquiry received the Marconigrams etc.

2 things that immediately spring to mind. The nonsense of the rockets said by Stone not going above this other ship’s masthead light. And the total nonsense of Stone of this other ship steaming away to the south west to the south of them still showing a red port light.

They are not only impossible, but equally as ridiculous as Captain Lord stating to the Boston Press all sorts of stuff that was equally ridiculous.

No one was telling a complete falsehood in it’s entirety. But bits of the testimony (amongst the truthfulness) fall apart as untruths.

And I don’t think that Groves was exempt from this. Little minor details perhaps of timing or other things that were just enough to assist or ‘muddy the waters’. And not disclose what he said to Captain Fry.

I think we can cross reference PV entries as to when Evans was woken up the next morning by Stewart, and the testimony is not in accordance with the PVs.

Cheers,
Julian

 

[Samuel Halpern]

If I were to republish "A Captain Accused" today there would be quit a few changes, mainly additions and modified conclusions, to that work from 2005. The premise back then then was that Lord was not told the true seriousness of what Stone reported to him when first informed about rockets. I am now convinced that Lord should have recognized that even a single white rocket was sufficient for him to have been more proactive even if Stone was not willing to admit to him what he (Stone) was really thinking. There is this series of questions put to C/O George Stewart which I find is quite reveling about what a report of white rockets means to an officer:

8590. (The Solicitor-General.) Let me follow. Did it not enter your head when you heard this, that those might be distress signals? - Yes.
8591. It did? - Yes.
8592. What made you think they might be distress signals? - Because they were rockets.
8593. They were from the description just what you would expect if they were distress signals? - They were white rockets.
8594. And did Mr. Stone tell you he had reported to the captain? - He told me he had reported to the captain, yes.

Stewart was obviously aware that company signals are not used on the open ocean. Lord also knew this. So why would Lord ask Stone that? And when Stone said he didn't know if they were company signals, why remain below and only tell him to keep signaling using the Morse lamp that produced no results before?

 

[Julian Atkins]

I think myself that whatever way I look at the matter of the rockets/rocket Stone reported to Captain Lord via the speaking tube (and I have tried to look at this from both sides and also look at the discrepancies in the 3 accounts of Gibson, Stone, and Captain Lord)…

The simple and obvious fact is that Captain Lord ought not allegedly asked Stone ‘were they company signals?’ But instead ‘were they distress signals?’

 

[Arun Vajpey]

If I were to republish "A Captain Accused" today there would be quit a few changes, mainly additions and modified conclusions, to that work from 2005. The premise back then then was that Lord was not told the true seriousness of what Stone reported to him when first informed about rockets. I am now convinced that Lord should have recognized that even a single white rocket was sufficient for him to have been more proactive even if Stone was not willing to admit to him what he (Stone) was really thinking.

I have always believed that when the OOW of a ship saw another ship that he'd been observing fire a rocket - yes, even just one - in the middle of the night whilst over 400 miles from nearest land, the first thing that he ought to have considered should have been whether it was a distress signal and so checked immediately. The colour of the rocket(s) would have been of no consequence and as I have felt elsewhere, at 11 to 12 miles (as it turned out), it would not have been easy to distinguish colour anyway in a brief flash. In the case of 2/O Stone that became all the more significant because he already had at least some doubts about the other ship even before he saw the first rocket. The paradox here is that IMO the thought that the rockets could be signals of distress did cross Stone's mind - of not the first, certainly the second rocket onwards (just like we discussed in the hypothetical Groves-Stone duty swap situation above) but he was too unsure of himself and intimidated by Captain Lord to press home his doubts with the Master.

After reading Stone's statements repeatedly, I have often wondered about his inexplicable hesitancy to properly alert Captain Lord about his misgivings about the other ship during the Middle Watch. Stone could not have been so timid by nature considering that he was a sailor and had made it to the position of Second Officer of a ship. We will never know of course, but I have often wondered if earlier that Sunday, Stone was at the receiving end of some sort of private admonition from Captain Lord over disagreement on some other matter and that in turn had influenced Stone's thought process during his Middle Watch later that night.

I fully agree with Sam that despite Stone's ineffectiveness in alerting his Captain, Lord himself should have recognized the importance of and then acted upon the report of even a single rocket, irrespective of its colour. While he might have been tired that night, he was still the man overall in charge and the fact he (reportedly) wondered if the rocket was a company signal indicates that the report had registered in his mind. That is one of the reasons why I find it hard to believe Lord's claim that he was told about only one rocket.

If you ever publish a revised version of that article Sam, perhaps the title itself should be slightly modified to "A Captain Accused?".......the question mark as a symbol of skepticism

The simple and obvious fact is that Captain Lord ought not allegedly asked Stone ‘were they company signals?’ But instead ‘were they distress signals?’

That's an interesting observation Julian and I agree. IF Captain Lord had asked Stone of the rocket(s) looked like distress signal(s), Stone, who already had his misgivings about the well-being of the other ship, could not have said that he did not think so or even "I don't know" because that would have dramatically increased his own accountability later. In asking if the rockets were company signals, Captain Lord inadvertently gave Stone his escape clause while adding a couple of nails to his own coffin.

Also, I am not sure if at any stage before Stone testified after him in England, Captain Lord referred to his own question to the 2/O during the middle watch - "Were they company signals?" I have not found any evidence to the plurality but might have missed it. But if Lord did ask the question with a plural reference, then that goes against his statement that he was told of only one rocket.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Lord himself should have recognized the importance of and then acted upon the report of even a single rocket, irrespective of its colour.

You are technically correct about the fact that signals fired one at a time throwing stars of any color meant signals of distress at night. However, signals provided by the companies such as the Cotton Powder Co. to the steamship lines contained white stars because hey could be seen at greater distances and would not be confused with company pyrotechnics which typically were colored. So Lord should have realized immediately when Stone told him they looked like rockets (meaning they threw stars) and they were all white, he should have thought "distress." Even if Stone told him, as he claimed in his report, that they appeared to come from beyond the steamer, it meant some vessel was sending up rockets, and the least you do is investigate further.

By the way, Stone wrote in his report, and testified to the same, that when he reported by speaking tube to Lord it was after seeing 5 of these. If that were true than neither him not Lord have any valid excuse for their inactions. Stone of course outright lied when he testified that the steamer started to change her bearings after he saw the 2nd rocket. We know from Gibson that the red sidelight first disappeared after the 7th rocket was seen, and it was then when Stone first mentioned anything about changing bearings, or should I say, perceived bearing changes. And Stone dispelled his nonsense about the rockets coming from beyond the steamer when he told his interrogator that he didn't understand how the bearing to the rockets changed as the bearing to the steamer changed if they came from beyond. He certainly comes across as a fool to me.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I think it is quite plain in his 18th statement and in his testimony that Stone when asked by Captain Lord ‘were they company signals?’ replied that he did not know. They were by then 5 white rockets via the speaking tube at 1.15am Californian time.

Stone had never seen ‘company signals’ before, and had he himself known a bit more about the ‘register’ of them (I have 2 copies of them prevalent at the time) it would have been a ridiculous suggestion for Captain Lord to make to him. (Stone admitted he didn’t even know what the Leyland Line ‘company signals’ were!)

Also, and this is very important, Lord Mersey had with him a panel of experts who one ought to be expected to have seen the nonsense of all this talk of ‘company signals’.

I am repeating myself from the old but very important and contentious thread on all this that the timings of Gibson returning to the bridge twice to report back to Stone about the taff rail log do not match Stone’s account, and neither do either match the account of Captain Lord.

I simply suggest that something I said on here a few years ago ought to be considered again (if Sam would like to) and that is that there was at least one other ‘speaking tube’ conversation between Stone and Captain Lord when according to Gibson’s 18th April statement he first returned to the flying bridge. Gibson didn’t back this up at the British Inquiry, and might be thought an additional reason for things being ‘managed’ by the time they got back to Liverpool.

For myself, I don’t think we have to resort to anything like this. Just read say Dave Billnitzer’s copy of the ‘register of company signals’ on his old website that is now on the wayback machine.

As to Arun’s suggestion that Stone and Captain Lord had earlier that day a disagreement or falling out, I would like to know a bit more about this. We know that according to Captain Lord’s 1959 affidavit Stone did 2 sightings to fix their longitude around 5pm to 5.30pm on the 14th April, and Groves substituted for Stewart on the bridge at 5.20pm whilst Stewart went for his meal break.

The longitude as found by Stone was ahead of their dead reckoning (if I have remembered without checking late this evening).

By 5.35pm New York Time Captain Lord was aware of the 3 bergs seen at 6.30pm Californian ships time and a MSG was sent to the Antillian.

If Captain Lord was up and about at 5pm to 5.40pm (as others have suggested by being constantly on the bridge) what was the point of Stone doing these longitude observations over 30 minutes, and Groves having to cover for Stewart’s meal break?

 

[Arun Vajpey]

However, signals provided by the companies such as the Cotton Powder Co. to the steamship lines contained white stars because hey could be seen at greater distances and would not be confused with company pyrotechnics which typically were colored.

Stone had never seen ‘company signals’ before, and had he himself known a bit more about the ‘register’ of them (I have 2 copies of them prevalent at the time) it would have been a ridiculous suggestion for Captain Lord to make to him. (Stone admitted he didn’t even know what the Leyland Line ‘company signals’ were!)

Thanks for that both of you. But what would have been the likelihood of any steamer sending-up company signals of any description after midnight way out in the middle of the ocean? I would have thought that even in 1912 there would have been some sort of guidelines, even if not outright regulations, for that sort of thing.

Even if Stone told him, as he claimed in his report, that they appeared to come from beyond the steamer, it meant some vessel was sending up rockets, and the least you do is investigate further.

I agree 100%. By his inaction after he was informed of the rocket(s), Captain Lord sealed his own future reputation and to a lesser extent that of his crew.

I think it is quite plain in his 18th statement and in his testimony that Stone when asked by Captain Lord ‘were they company signals?’ replied that he did not know. They were by then 5 white rockets via the speaking tube at 1.15am Californian time.

IMO, that is significant, especially as AFAIK Captain Lord never offered an outright denial about asking Stone that question after the 2/O had mentioned both in his written statement and testimony. IF Lord had really asked "Were they company signals?" ie in plural, that would place a big question mark about the his testimony that he was told of only one rocket.

Of course, Lord had already testified twice before Stone was called in for the very first time at the British Inquiry, but the Captain had the latter's written statement even before appearing at the US Inquiry.

As to Arun’s suggestion that Stone and Captain Lord had earlier that day a disagreement or falling out, I would like to know a bit more about this.

That was just speculation on my part and no more; there is no way we can find out now unless someone digs up a hitherto unknown memoir from Stone.
I was thinking that if Stone had been reprimanded by Captain Lord in private earlier that Sunday (could even have been something totally unrelated to working out of the Californian's position or approaching ice), the 2/O's reluctance to be more assertive in informing Lord about his misgivings with what he was seeing of the other ship and of course, the rockets would be understandable but not excusable.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I simply suggest that something I said on here a few years ago ought to be considered again (if Sam would like to) and that is that there was at least one other ‘speaking tube’ conversation between Stone and Captain Lord when according to Gibson’s 18th April statement he first returned to the flying bridge.

I was thinking about this too, There is this discrepancy between Stone's 1:10 time for seeing 5 rockets and calling down to Lord, and Gibson saying that Stone told him he called Lord after the 2nd rocket was seen. Gibson said he arrived back after 5 rockets were seen by Stone, which to me puts the time closer to 1:15 for Gibson's arrival back on deck instead of Gibson's 12:55 that Gibson wrote in his statement. This assumes that the 1st rocket was seen about 12:45.

But my thoughts today are this:

What if Stone told Gibson, after Gibson came up around 1:15, that he saw these 5 rockets altogether, and reported to Lord about 10 minutes after he saw the first rocket around a quarter to 1, after seeing the 2nd rocket, the first one he wasn't too sure about, and that Lord told him to keep calling her up and report back if got a reply? That would explain Gibson's recalling a time of 5 minutes to 1 and associating that time with his arrival on deck. In other words, it would have been a misunderstanding of his actual arrival time by him. If the 1st rocket was seen at around 12:45, and say the 2nd one seen 5 or 6 minutes later, and then Stone decided to call down to Lord, that would put the time close to 12:55 when that speaking tube report was made. By time Gibson arrived around 1:10-1:15, Stone had seen 5 rockets altogether.

Gibson testified that he asked Stone what happened subsequently after he called down to Lord, and Gibson said that Stone told him that he saw more rockets fired. That supports his story that the call down to Lord was before all five rockets were seen, not after the five.

When he wrote his report to Lord on the 18th, three days later, Stone may have confused the time he called down to Lord with Gibson's arrival back on deck, and carried that into the inquiry with him. Meanwhile, Gibson confused the time of his arrival back on deck with the time that Stone told him that he first called down to Lord, and he took that into the inquiry as well. Lord's event times that he mentioned at the inquiry probably came from their reports of the 18th. I don't think Lord was thinking about clock times when these events happened except for when he asked Gibson what time it was when the ship disappeared from sight,2:05am by wheelhouse clock according Gibson.

Any of this make sense?

 

[Julian Atkins]

Any of this make sense?

Hi Sam,

I don’t think so, unfortunately.

To rule out Captain Lord and Gibson colluding together and both deliberately lying (which I think we can agree goes completely against Gibson’s 18th April statement and his testimony at the British Inquiry), there are timing issues that are difficult to comprehend or explain.

Unless there were one other ‘speaking tube’ conversation (and there might possibly have been others) when Gibson makes his second and final return to the bridge after looking for this new taff rail log.

I would hesitate to suggest that Gibson was a perfect witness. Especially what we have glimpses of his later career from Paul Lee that is not good.

Gibson is quite good and specific in his 18th April statement timings. On the other hand I can understand Sam’s different view that I presume is based on why Gibson saw the further 3 rockets with Stone but not earlier ones according to Gibson’s timings, but (which according to Stone) Gibson ought to have seen as well.

It is a difficult contradiction in the evidence to resolve.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Both posts #443 (Sam) and #444 (Julian) raise quite interesting possibilities and I believe both presumptions have elements of truth in them; and Julian, they are NOT mutually exclusive mainly because as far as I can see, Sam has not actually ruled out your opinion (one with which I am beginning to agree myself) the likelihood of a second speaking-tube conversation between Stone and Captain Lord.

And while I agree with Sam that there was likely to have been some confusion with correlating times and events between Gibson and Stone, IMO it is far less likely that either man would have forgotten the actual events themselves that transpired during the night, both in terms of what they saw and their own movements and actions on the Californian. That is the reason IMO why there appear to be some improbable discrepancies in the testimonies of the 3 men, particularly Stone and Gibson, who testified only in England. We must remember that Gibson was a 20 year-old Apprentice and would have been in awe of Captain Lord even before the Californian left Liverpool; subsequent events on the night that the Titanic sank, the likely exchanges later (whatever they had been) as the Californian steamed towards Boston and then back to Liverpool and finally Gibson's summons to testify at the British Inquiry a month after the disaster would have had a stressful effect on the young Apprentice. So, I believe his testimony included a combination of confusion due to that stress, his own desire to protect himself and perhaps acquiescence to say only what he was told to say.

I simply suggest that something I said on here a few years ago ought to be considered again (if Sam would like to) and that is that there was at least one other ‘speaking tube’ conversation between Stone and Captain Lord when according to Gibson’s 18th April statement he first returned to the flying bridge. Gibson didn’t back this up at the British Inquiry, and might be thought an additional reason for things being ‘managed’ by the time they got back to Liverpool.

I agree with Julian that there must have been a second speaking tube conversation between Stone and Captain Lord, and I believe that happened after Stone had seen at least 5 rockets. I think that because if Stone, hesitant and uncertain as he might have been, was ready to "disturb" Captain Lord to report to him about just the first rocket, IMO he would have been surer of his ground after he had seen 5 of them and would definitely have made sure that the Captain knew about them. Otherwise, it does not make any sense.

That presumption takes us to an excerpt from Sam's post as below, which as I said is not at all mutually exclusive from Julian's views. I think Sam is right in thinking that there was a confusion of times, especially in Gibson's mind.

What if Stone told Gibson, after Gibson came up around 1:15, that he saw these 5 rockets altogether, and reported to Lord about 10 minutes after he saw the first rocket around a quarter to 1, after seeing the 2nd rocket, the first one he wasn't too sure about, and that Lord told him to keep calling her up and report back if got a reply? That would explain Gibson's recalling a time of 5 minutes to 1 and associating that time with his arrival on deck. In other words, it would have been a misunderstanding of his actual arrival time by him. If the 1st rocket was seen at around 12:45, and say the 2nd one seen 5 or 6 minutes later, and then Stone decided to call down to Lord, that would put the time close to 12:55 when that speaking tube report was made. By time Gibson arrived around 1:10-1:15, Stone had seen 5 rockets altogether.

The highlighted part lends support to that possibility, except that IMO Stone told Gibson about his report to Lord about the first rocket before the Apprentice left the bridge and not after his return at 01:15am. I agree with Sam that Gibson actually arrived on the bridge around 12:55am, at which point Stone told him that he'd seen a rocket (fired at around 12:45am) and reported to Captain Lord about it via the speaking tube. Stone could not have told the Apprentice that the other ship had fired 5 rockets at 12:55am because the Titanic had not fired 5 by then; not yet. So, Gibson's statements at the British inquiry might have been either due to confusion between times and events a month after the disaster or a deliberate slip-up to avoid unnecessary grilling (since he'd already admitted in #7417 that he had been on the 12 midnight to 4am 'Middle Watch' like Stone).

So, I believe that the following was a mistake from Gibson:
7466. Had you not been on the bridge all the time?
- No, Sir. I went down at twenty-five minutes to and came up at five minutes to one.

I believe, like Sam, that Gibson actually went below at 12:55am and returned at around 01:15am.

I think the important thing in that statement is that either way Gibson was away from the bridge for about 20 minutes. It is therefore very likely that Stone had told him about reporting to Lord about the first rocket before Gibson left and then about having seen 5 rockets in all after the Apprentice returned. It is also quite possible, even probable, that Stone had made that second speaking tube conversation with Lord just before Gibson returned; whether he told Gibson about that and/or whether Gibson registered it is open to discussion. But a month down the line when Gibson testified (before Stone), he could easily have either got mixed-up with times and events (with so much having happened in-between) or given a carefully 'edited' version.

Gibson testified that he asked Stone what happened subsequently after he called down to Lord, and Gibson said that Stone told him that he saw more rockets fired. That supports his story that the call down to Lord was before all five rockets were seen, not after the five.

This is where I agree with both Sam and Julian and feel that their opinions are not mutually exclusive like they might seem at first glance. To summarize, I believe that when Gibson arrived on the Bridge at around 12:55am (and not 12:35am like Gibson claimed in #7466 and subsequently), Stone had seen one rocket and already reported it to Lord via the speaking tube, something that he told the Apprentice about. Whether Gibson saw the second rocket or missed it as he arrived is difficult to determine based on the testimonies of the two men. After that, Gibson went below again and was away for 18 to 20 minutes and by the time he returned to the bridge (at 1:15am like Sam says and not 12:55am like Gibson testified), Stone had seen 5 rockets in total. I think Julian is right in thinking that there must have been a second speaking-tube exchange between Lord and Gibson within that timeframe (after Stone saw the 5th rocket), something about which Gibson might or might not have been updated upon his return. All that ties in with Gibson's continued testimony that after he returned to the bridge, Stone and he saw 3 more rockets and Stones subsequent order to Gibson to inform Captain Lord that the other ship had "steamed away to the south-west" after having fired altogether 8 rockets (#7552).

 

[Samuel Halpern]

It amazes me (perhaps it shouldn't) how often Lord lied at the inquiries. Look at this exchange:

6788. A little later did he whistle down the tube and tell you she was altering her bearings? - A quarter-past 1.
6789. Did he say how she was altering her bearings? - Towards the S.W.
6790. Did he tell you whether he had seen any signal? - He said he saw a white rocket.

then later we find:

6910. What did you think this vessel was firing rockets for? - I asked the second officer. I said, “Is that a company’s signal?” and he said he did not know.
6911. Then that did not satisfy you? - No, it did not.
6912. I mean whatever it was it did not satisfy you that it was a company’s signal? - It did not, but I had no reason to think it was anything else.
6913. (The Commissioner.) That seems odd. You knew that the vessel that was sending up this rocket was in a position of danger? - No, my Lord, I did not.
6914. Well, danger if she moved? - If she moved, yes.

Yet back in 6788-6789 he said that he was told that the vessel was moving toward the SW when Stone reported to him at 1:15. So if she was allegedly moving, and he obviously knew that ice was about, then the ship could very well have been in danger, and the rocket should have been recognized for what it really was. As Lord himself also admitted,
6936. I say, if it was not a company’s signal, must it not have been a distress signal? - Well, I do not know of any other signals but distress signals that are used at sea.

According to Gibson's Apr 18 report, Stone first mentioned something about the steamer changing bearings after the 7th rocket was seen. And in Stones report on the 18th, he doesn't talk about changing bearing until after he talks about Gibson's arrival.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Then there is this little slip?

6798. (The Commissioner - To the Witness.) Is that so. Did you hear him? [referring to the conversation between the Commissioner and Attorney General about Titanic sinking to the SW of Californian] - I did my Lord. The steamer was heading S.S.E. by compass till 10 minutes to 1.

Did Lord really mean "10 minutes to 1," which is 12:50am; or did he mean to say 10 minutes after one, i.e., 1:10?
12:50am would have been about the time of the 2nd rocket, the one that convinced Stone to call down to Lord according to Gibson's Apr 18th story.

OK, speculation time (in red).
Stones sees first rocket about 12:45 but thinks it might have been a shooting star. About 5 minutes later, he sees 2nd rocket and calls down to Lord at about 12:50-12:55 to report seeing flashes of light above the steamer, one of which looked like a white rocket. Lord asks if it was a company signal. Stone says he doesn't know, but it looked like a white rocket. (There is no mention about steamer movement.) Lord tells him to call the steamer up by Morse and let him know if he gets a reply. Stones does what he is told, gets no reply (as before) but sees three more rockets go up, and calls down to Lord at around 1:10-1:15 and tells him he saw altogether 5 rockets, and received no reply to his signaling. Stone now expects Lord to do something, but Lord strangely asks about colors in the signals, Stone says they were all white, and is told only to keep calling up the steamer and to send Gibson down if he gets a reply.
Gibson soon arrives back on deck and Stone tells him what's been happening, that he saw 5 rockets, called Lord after the 2nd was seen, and that Lord only told him to keep calling up the steamer, and that the steamer only kept sending more rockets up. It was then that Gibson goes to the keyboard to try calling for about 3 minutes, looks at the steamer through glasses in time to see the 6th rocket go up. Then they both keep talking about everything, including that a ship is not going to fire rockets at sea for no reason, start to notice the weird look of her lights, see the 7th rocket go up, see the disappearance of the red sidelight, see the 8th rocket go up, continue to notice and get confused somewhat by their own ship swinging round, and eventually see the steamer disappear from sight at 2:05am thus prompting Stone to send Gibson down to wake Lord with a report of what transpired. Gibson then does as told, but Stone is still not satisfied by Lord's inaction and his apparent obsession of asking about colors in the signals, finally prompting Stone to call down again to Lord by speaking tube around 2:45 only to tell him exactly the same thing that Gibson reported to him just 40 minutes before.

 

[Julian Atkins]

7466. Had you not been on the bridge all the time?
- No, Sir. I went down at twenty-five minutes to and came up at five minutes to one.

2 points of evidence from my point of view.

In respect of Arun’s quote of Gibson at the British Inquiry, Gibson is saying he left the bridge at 12.35am, then returned at 12.55am. (Just something that Arun stated that requires clarification, if I have understood the rest of his post correctly).

The second point is that I think evidentially, more weight should be attached to the 18th April statements of Stone and Gibson. They are the most contemporaneous, and less likely to be tainted by other ‘matters’. I also think myself that at the British Inquiry there is to my mind evidence of Gibson having ‘witness fatigue’.

I don’t think that there is any evidence of Gibson being ‘in awe’ of Captain Lord. He had his Indenture/Articles with the Leyland Line, and that was that. On the contrary, Gibson (on the basis of Evans’ USA testimony) went behind Captain Lord and tell Evans the next morning things that Gibson had no permission to disclose. Gibson’s 18th April statement shows an independence of mind, and not being ‘in awe’ of Captain Lord at all. He completely contradicts his Captain’s account especially the 2am chart room visit.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

6914. Well, danger if she moved? - If she moved, yes.

I don't quite understand the logic behind that exchange. Why should Captain Lord have considered the other ship to have been in distress "only of it moved"? I would have thought that if a ship was damaged and taking in large volumes of water - as the Titanic was at the time - the last thing the Captain would order was for it to be moved?

In that odd Q&A from #6910 to #6913, Lord had said that he was informed of a rocket about which OOW Stone confessed that he did not know if it had been a company signal. Lord then stated that he was not satisfied with the answer but still did not consider that it might have been a distress signal! And yet, as Sam points out, in #6936 Lord himself admitted that he did not know any other signals but distress ones used at sea!!!

I know that I have alluded to this before, but what amazes me even more than Lord's improbable testimonies on both sides of the Atlantic was a certain former marine investigator's pathetically ridiculous attempts to defend him and even elevate him to a hero status.

I also think myself that at the British Inquiry there is to my mind evidence of Gibson having ‘witness fatigue’.

Why? Apart from his statement to Captain Lord on 18th April, Gibson had not been called to testify until in England on 14th May 1912. So why do you think he would have had witness fatigue any more than Groves or Stone?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I don't quite understand the logic behind that exchange. Why should Captain Lord have considered the other ship to have been in distress "only of it moved"?

The words were "in danger" if she moved. Lord and everyone else on Californian assumed the steamer had stopped because of ice, same reason Californian had stopped. According to his testimony, and also Stone's testimony, he was told the ship was moving after a rocket was seen. Why did the ship move after being stopped for sometime? Why not stop if you became damaged and needed assistance? Why send up distress signals if you are able to move on?
None of this makes sense, and that is the point of them claiming all this fabricated nonsense. Of course, all the more reason that Lord should have gone topside to see for himself and have Evans woken up. It is hard trying to apply logic to any of this.

I fully agree with Julian when he wrote, 'more weight should be attached to the 18th April statements of Stone and Gibson. They are the most contemporaneous, and less likely to be tainted by other ‘matters’.'

I also think myself that at the British Inquiry there is to my mind evidence of Gibson having ‘witness fatigue’.

Could be. There were times where he obviously got confused, especially about the direction his ship was swinging in, and also in some details like a relative bearing when an event took place or the time he left the bridge when compared to what he wrote on the 18th. But non of that do I find significant. He was testifying out of memory, as were others weeks after the events took place. I give much more weight to the details that were written on the 18th.

I know that I have alluded to this before, but what amazes me even more than Lord's improbable testimonies on both sides of the Atlantic was a certain former marine investigator's pathetically ridiculous attempts to defend him and even elevate him to a hero status.

NO COMMENT.