Lights and Californian

[Julian Atkins]

Lots to consider!

I don’t think that Captain Lord’s response was “pathetic” because he had already been told that the only ship Evans had / was near (conflict of evidence on this) was Titanic before Evans sent his “Say OM we are stopped surrounded by ice” to Phillips around 11.05pm. Groves told Captain Lord it was a passenger steamer he saw. Groves told Marine Superintendent Captain Fry when they docked in Liverpool that it was Titanic. Confirmed and corroborated by the taped recorded interviews of Captain Lord in 1961.

Now, and humour me a bit. I don’t think that the only ship Evans had between 10.30pm and 11pm was Titanic. That simply cannot be true if we accept what Sutherland and Cottam said and much else besides not forgetting what Adams on the Mesaba testified to in the British Inquiry and the Ryan Case (admittedly a bit earlier) but neither the Parisian or The Californian mention this.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I think we know pretty much where The Californian was at the time it sent it’s MSG to the Antillian. The original MSG is in Booth’s book in Captain Lord’s own handwriting. I’m pretty sure that I have posted a pic of it on here previously.

He was slightly further south by about 2 nautical miles than his log book showed as read into the British Inquiry proceedings.

It is a peculiarity of UK Maritime Law that at the time the ships log was admissible as primary evidence under statute when otherwise it would have been subject to being secondary evidence and not taken as fact. And would need to be proved. As Captain Lord said in one of his subsequent letters something about him being entitled to rely on his ships log; and he was perfectly entitled to say this as it was in a section of (can’t remember it now without checking the 1890’s Act of Parliament dealing with all this stuff)

Wait for an edit re the Act of Parliament unless someone beats me to it. It’s in my notes upstairs!

Edit:-
(s.239 subsection 6 Merchant Shipping Act 1894 - admissibility of ships logs)

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I don’t think that Captain Lord’s response was “pathetic” because he had already been told that the only ship Evans had / was near (conflict of evidence on this) was Titanic before Evans sent his “Say OM we are stopped surrounded by ice” to Phillips around 11.05pm. Groves told Captain Lord it was a passenger steamer he saw.

That's precisely the point. Groves had reported to Captain Lord that it was a passenger steamer that he saw. So, when Stone later informed him that a ship within their visual distance was firing rocket(s), the very first thing that Lord shoud have done was to have Evans woken up and check what was going on. So, how could Lord offer an excuse that he did not wake Evans up because he, Captain Lord, did not think that the other ship had wireless on board?

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

That's precisely the point. Groves had reported to Captain Lord that it was a passenger steamer that he saw. So, when Stone later informed him that a ship within their visual distance was firing rocket(s), the very first thing that Lord shoud have done was to have Evans woken up and check what was going on. So, how could Lord offer an excuse that he did not wake Evans up because he, Captain Lord, did not think that the other ship had wireless on board?

IIRC, Evans had told Captain Lord the only ship he had made contact with was the Titanic. Apparently Lord, et. al. did not believe the vessel they saw could have been the Titanic. Therefore she did not have wireless. That's the logic of the thought process. Logic will not always give the right answer.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The last time Lord spoke to Evans was around 11pm. Rockets were sighted around 12:45 and Lord was informed (if Gibson's account is true) around 12:55, or if Stone's around 1:10. That's almost two hours after being told by Evans that he had only Titanic. A lot can happen in two hours, including a wireless operator on ship firing rockets woken up, if he was previously asleep, to send distress messages. Anyway, I agree with Gordan. Assumptions based on logic can be dangerous.

 

[marina_irc]

Looking into how far the Californian and Titanic where apart in miles is far from an easy task, and yet one can see there are different opinions.
Two qualified sea men with their extra marine certificates. captain Lord claims 19-20 miles away and forth officer Boxhall claims you cannot see a rocket at 14 miles. Further investigation by Thomas Barnett from Mariner Accidents thought 5-7 miles and Captain James de Coverly thought 17-20 miles away. Sam has about 13 miles. Yet surprisingly the one with least qualified and done no where near the research as the others. Which turns out bad news for Captain Lord. Is the man in charge of the the British Inquiry Lord Mersey who claim 5-8 miles. Since he is the Elite of Society you cannot question him, therefore he is right and others are wrong as captain Lord was to found out. So basic on 5-8 miles away, yes it is possible to reach Titanic in time. But however an earth does one rescue 2,200 from a sinking ship within one hour is beyond a beggar belief. Perhaps the man should of joined the Hollywood brigade.

If Californian had been only 5 miles away and had a clear, open course between the two ships without ice, and if Titanic sank on an even keel, then Captain Lord stood a reasonable chance of rescuing more or less all persons onboard Titanic. None of these three facts were true, but they were not irrational suppositions. You need to stop assuming conspiracy, cover-up and scapegoating that originate from retrospective information decades subsequent to the event and start building scenarios in your mind to fit the information. In this case, the inquiry took place at a time when the idea that Titanic sank on a more or less even keel was already being well established, and it appeared to establish that Californian was only five miles distant and it was easy for Lord Mersey to assume that if the two ships could see each other there was not substantial ice between the two vessels.

If Californian had been able to reach Titanic within 30 minutes of recognizing that she was in distress, assuming that this happened more or less the moment the first rocket was fired, a substantial transfer of people directly between the two ships could have been effected. This seemed reasonable based on the information Lord Mersey had and the suppositions made based on that information.

We now know, of course, that Californian stood at 12 miles distance, we understand how fairly significant pack ice was in the vicinity which would nonetheless not prevent the ships from sighting each other, and we know Titanic was not truly stable during her sinking, and the list would make a transfer perilous. But all of these things were not obvious to Lord Mersey. When you have an inaccurate starting point, you reach an inaccurate destination. That's all there is to it.

 

[marina_irc]

RMS "TITANIC"
Reappraisal of Evidence
Relating to SS "CALIFORNIAN"
Marine Accident Investigation Branch

«Mr. Stone should have gone down himself to the Master when there was no proper response from him, but the impression one gets of Captain Lord is that, far from being slack as has sometimes been suggested, he was in fact something of a martinet, and the young officer may have feared to leave the Bridge (normally a grave dereliction of duty) even though under the circumstances it would have been safe and right to do so. One can readily imagine Mr. Stone on the Bridge, knowing in his heart what ought to be done (he is recorded as saying to Mr. Gibson that "a ship doesn't fire rockets for nothing") but trying to persuade himself that there was no real cause for alarm, and desperately wishing it was four o'clock and the Mate was there. I sympathize with Mr. Stone, but it must be said that he was seriously at fault».

That’s about the only thing Stone could’ve done; «going down himself to the Master». We find here on this august forum, many very brave enthusiasts. One thing that is well known among seafarers is that you cannot break the chain of command. If Stone would’ve wakened up the sparks or even the chief officer, Lord would’ve been informed and possibly made him paid a heavy toll. It was the Master prerogative to call the sparks, no one else and certainly not Stone ones. On crew discharge, the master only had to log NG instead of VG in Stone seaman’s book; meaning big problems ahead.

If Stone didn’t go down to the Master, it was most probably that there was a lot of animosity between the two men. By reading Stone testimony, one could conclude that he didn’t seem to the cleverest on that steamer. If Lord has had the option, I don’t think Stone would have been there. Therefore, I feel that Lord didn’t give a damn of what Stone was moaning about through the speak tube, neither from Gibson fearful message on the tip of his toes. And that form of animosity is something very easy to reach with a Master said politely to be in fact something of a martinet!

I understand and respect your experience, and as a result I am going to ask a very specific question which is critical in the context of my own experience in emergency management to evaluate your statement. Are you saying, as a matter of fact, that the wireless operator was subject to receiving instructions only from the Master of a vessel in 1912, under the terms of contract between the Marconi Company and the Leyland Line or under some other regulation, and it would have been an abrogation of the appropriate chain of command for the OOW to wake him up?

 

[Mike Spooner]

I am certainty coming to think the those ones who are in charge of an inquiry are the wrong people, where we have landed up with a bunch high class legal men who clearly are not qualify as sea men. Their research into navigation position which they not are quality for, is of a poor standard.
Where we land up looking for any excuse to shift the blame else where for the 1500 whom dies. (or precise 1496). Where poor captain Lord gets caught in legal web for the blame. And for him not allowed to have any say in the fancy rescue plan. Must be one of the worse British legal misjustice come out of Lord Mersey mouth. To the point I wander if Mersey wasn't put up by the Government embarrassment of the outdate regulations set by the BOT. Which are ask to put forward the inquiry.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

You [Mike Spooner] need to stop assuming conspiracy, cover-up and scapegoating that originate from retrospective information decades subsequent to the event and start building scenarios in your mind to fit the information.

Well said.

I am certainty coming to think the those ones who are in charge of an inquiry are the wrong people, where we have landed up with a bunch high class legal men who clearly are not qualify as sea men. Their research into navigation position which they not are quality for, is of a poor standard.

Mike, if naval inquiries were left to just nautical people to conduct, you would never get a complete or true story to tell. It is the "legal men" as you call them that are trained at asking the questions that need to be asked in order to cut through some of the smoke and mirrors put up by people being interrogated, especially if those people have something they wish not to tell or admit to. Many of those "legal men" were also involved with Hawke/Olympic trial, some representing the Admiralty and others representing the WSL. They all were well qualified and knew maritime law, the terminology involved, and the fundamentals of navigation. And if there was something they didn't know, they knew who to ask. I've studied the transcripts from that trial, and I was very surprised as to the depth and understanding that these people had, many of whom participated later on in the Titanic inquiry.

As far as the treatment of Stanley Lord and his crew is concerned, I have no sympathy for the "poor man" or any of his crew as some do. No matter how far Titanic actually was from Californian, what can no longer be challenge today is the fact that distress signals from Titanic were seen from Californian that night, and Californian stood still. The poor man, as he is sometimes referred to, initially reacted as if he and his crew knew nothing about anything until he was told the next morning via wireless about Titanic. Upon arrival at Boston he tried his best to hide knowing anything about Titanic until one his crew couldn't keep his mouth shut and broke the story to the press. It wasn't until he and Evans were called down to Washington that he finally admitted that he was informed about "a single rocket" from this tramp steamer that sailed away, and claimed that was reported to him could never have come from Titanic. Meanwhile, he had in his possession written detailed statements by his 2/O and the apprentice officer of what they witnessed and told him about on three separate occasions that night. He never produced those at either inquiry for obvious reasons if you've ever read them.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Mike, if naval inquiries were left to just nautical people to conduct, you would never get a complete or true story to tell. It is the "legal men" as you call them that are trained at asking the questions that need to be asked in order to cut through some of the smoke and mirrors put up by people being interrogated, especially if those people have something they wish not to tell or admit to.

Totally agree and absolutely true, Sam. Even now you have people here with a nautical background who self-righteously feel that others without such an experience have no business to present their views in an analytical manner. Their usual ploy is to quote "Road Rules of the Sea" whether it is relevant to the point or not and dimiss out of hand anything to the contrary. As Sam well knows, we have been though that route before.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Captain Lord was entitles to a fair saying as one is holding him reasonable for the 1500 whom died. Clearly did not get that and wasn't allow to hear his side of the story.
Any transport disaster with many deaths to day will have a full investigation of the verity expects before a inquiry is brought forward. This can take many months if not years before any decision is taken. OK it may how inquiry where held in the past and through years of experience we have learn to do a lot better. If the Titanic inquires where so perfect why we discussion to day.

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

I don't think anyone here is claiming any of the Titanic inquiries were perfect. Remember, there were those in government who had, IIRC, invested in Marconi stock, so there was a desire to keep the Marconi name clear. Also, Lord, although he was eventually terminated by Leyland Line, did not lose his Master's Certificate. That would have required a trial where Lord would have been able to have legal counsel and call witnesses on his behalf. Lord was hired by the Nitrate Producers Steamship Co., where he remained until March 1927, resigning for health reasons. If he had been as guilty as some people believe, and yes, I'm saying that there are degrees of guilt in this instance, he would certainly not have been able to get another job as a ship captain, and, I feel almost 100% certain, a trial would have been held to revoke his Master's Certificates. And I bring the Marconi name into the conversation because I believe that there is some degree of negligence on the part of Jack Phillips, which may have contributed to the accident.

 

[marina_irc]

I don't think anyone here is claiming the Titanic inquiry was perfect. Remember, there were those in government who had, IIRC, invested in Marconi stock, so there was a desire to keep the Marconi name clear. Also, Lord, although he was eventually terminated by Leyland Line, did not lose his Master's Certificate. That would have required a trial where Lord would have been able to have legal counsel and call witnesses on his behalf. Lord was hired by the Nitrate Producers Steamship Co., where he remained until March 1927, resigning for health reasons. If he had been as guilty as some people believe, and yes, I'm saying that there are degrees of guilt in this instance, he would certainly not have been able to get another job as a ship captain, and, I feel almost 100% certain, a trial would have been held to revoke his Master's Certificates. And I bring the Marconi name into the conversation because I believe that there is some degree of negligence on the part of Jack Phillips, which may have contributed to the accident.

I agree emphatically that neither a criminal nor a civil proceeding held in 1912 with the evidence available at the time would have found against Captain Lord. I believe that with the evidence we have in 2023 that a civil but not a criminal proceeding would have succeeded in holding him liable (according to the standards of evidence).

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

I agree emphatically that neither a criminal nor a civil proceeding held in 1912 with the evidence available at the time would have found against Captain Lord. I believe that with the evidence we have in 2023 that a civil but not a criminal proceeding would have succeeded in holding him liable (according to the standards of evidence).

I think that had members of the government not been involved with Marconi, a trial would have been held. That outcome would have been interesting. I think the British inquiry was as much about protecting government ministers as it was about finding the truth.

 

[Bob Read]

I agree emphatically that neither a criminal nor a civil proceeding held in 1912 with the evidence available at the time would have found against Captain Lord.

Anybody who knows how a jury will rule is speaking from the realm of clairvoyance. I assume you mean that in your opinion the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.