Lights and Californian

[Arun Vajpey]

I believe that there is some degree of negligence on the part of Jack Phillips, which may have contributed to the accident.

I agree. I believe Phillips and Bride did not prioritise the ice messages as well as they could have done. Had they made that effort during the course of that Sunday, it is possible - although we cannot be certain of it - that Captain Smith or one of the Officers would have taken more notice and drew attention of other just enough for Smith to order additional precautions.

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.

Speaking objectively, "guilt" in this case is difficult to expalin in the right context. My belief is that during the night, OOW Stone and Apprentice Gibson themselves failed to realize the potential seriousness of the 'queer' lights and rockets that they were seeing. Therefore, they did not impress upon their Captain their concerns strongly enough because they were not seriously concerned themselves at the time. Likewise, Lord somehow did not make the connection and consider all possible implications of what his crew were telling him, and so took no action. But when they all realized their serious folly in the morning, they knew the implications to follow and came-up with various cover-ups and dubious stories to protect themselves. This meant hiding the truth or actually lying during the testimonies, which all 3 did do to varying extents.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

My belief is that during the night, OOW Stone and Apprentice Gibson themselves failed to realize the potential seriousness of the 'queer' lights and rockets that they were seeing. Therefore, they did not impress upon their Captain their concerns strongly enough because they were not seriously concerned themselves at the time. Likewise, Lord somehow did not make the connection and consider all possible implications of what his crew were telling him, and so took no action.

They certainly did not fail to realize the seriousness of what they witnessed. As they admitted saying to each other that a ship is not going to fire rockets at night at sea for no good reason. And they admitted that they thought something was wrong with her. Gibson had no authority to act on his own. He was an apprentice under Stone's wing, so to speak. Stone informed Lord and left it up to him to judge. He said as much. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he thought that by doing so, he had performed what was required of him. If they would have been brought to trial, there is no way how anyone here could predict what the outcome would have been, and exactly what the verdicts would have been. Nothing is that clear cut. In 1913, the WSL was found guilty by a jury of being negligent with regard to the speed that the ship was operated at in a region where ice was expected, and not guilty with regard to having an insufficient lookout. (Ryan trial)

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Stone informed Lord and left it up to him to judge. He said as much. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he thought that by doing so, he had performed what was required of him.

Okay Sam, accepted. It is just that I find it hard to believe that a man who had made it to Second Officer before his 25th birthday got so muddled and was not more forthright in alerting his Captain about his misgivings.

I think you mentioned recently somewhere that had he chosen to do so, as OOW Stone could have woken Cyril Evans off his own back and gotten him to check. Please confirm that was the case. There was a disagreement from another source but I was not convinced by that.

 

[marina_irc]

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.

My opinion such that I would consider a different result a miscarriage of justice founded in dislike for the accused.

Or, simply put: If I had been a juror (as I could not have been, of course) the evidence that was available in 1912 would not have passed even “the preponderance of the evidence” for a civil case that Captain Lord had been negligent, but the modern evidence easily outweighs this (i.e. retrospectively he should have lost his license and perhaps been held financially liable by families if in the modern litigious courts) yet also does not, in that understanding, prove beyond reasonable doubt that Captain Lord committed the misdemeanor of failure to render aid.

Does that clarify what I’m saying? I’m saying what I’d judge if I was on a jury hearing the evidence against him today.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I think some answers require only a simple Yes or No.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

as OOW Stone could have woken Cyril Evans

I have never seen anything that precludes the OOW from taking whatever action he deems necessary to obtain needed information. If he was concerned about it, he could also have asked Lord if he should do so when he called down to report seeing rockets. 3/O Groves visited Evans nightly after getting off duty. The W/O was not off limits to the officers.

 

[marina_irc]

I think some answers require only a simple Yes or No.

You are correct. I needlessly complicated that, and I apologise.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I have never seen anything that precludes the OOW from taking whatever action he deems necessary to obtain needed information. If he was concerned about it, he could also have asked Lord if he should do so when he called down to report seeing rockets. 3/O Groves visited Evans nightly after getting off duty. The W/O was not off limits to the officers.

Yes Sam and I was agreeing with you; just confirming that I had understood you correctly, that's all. Perhaps I should have worded that post better.

I am sure you recall that I have always said that Stone could have and should have woken up Evans to find out what was going on. The "disagreement" that I referred to was by a certain other member who I think has nautical experience but tends to throw the book at everyone. He had recently said what sounded like anyone other than the Captain had no authority to wake the wireless operator.

I have copied and pasted below (rather than quoted) the relevant excerpt from that post earlier in this thread.

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.

 

[marina_irc]

Yes Sam and I was agreeing with you; just confirming that I had understood you correctly, that's all. Perhaps I should have worded that post better.

I am sure you recall that I have always said that Stone could have and should have woken up Evans to find out what was going on. The "disagreement" that I referred to was by a certain other member who I think has nautical experience but tends to throw the book at everyone. He had recently said what sounded like anyone other than the Captain had no authority to wake the wireless operator.

I have copied and pasted below (rather than quoted) the relevant excerpt from that post earlier in this thread.

I remain very interested in the answer to my question, as a matter of fact.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I remain very interested in the answer to my question, as a matter of fact.

Since you have quoted me, I feel the need to respond. I do not have the expertise to answer your question. My knowledge of legal issues is limited. I am sure there are others who'll respond.

By the way, I am sure you know that I the copied excerpt in my previous post is NOT from any of your posts.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

You are correct. I needlessly complicated that, and I apologise.

No need to apologize. I sometimes complicate an answer to a simple question with a long drawn out response myself.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

With regard to Stone waking up the W/O, here is what the MAIB had to say about what they consider Stone should have done:

>>The action which should have been taken by Mr Stone as soon as he was sure that he was indeed seeing rockets was:
The Master should have been called and if he did not immediately respond Mr Stone should have reported to him in person;
Engine Room should have been placed on immediate readiness by ringing ‘Stand By Engines’;
The Wireless Operator should have been called; and
Captain Lord on being called should have at once gone to the Bridge, verified that the Engine Room was at readiness and the Wireless Operator at his post, and then got under way towards the apparent source of the rockets.<<

 

[Bob Read]

What I am unable to understand is why Lord apologists try to shift blame on to those under his command by saying that they should have been more forceful in trying to compel Lord to take some action. Additionally they blame Titanic for not launching enough rockets or launching them at a different interval. I have never figured out what they could have said or done that would have caused Lord to act responsibly but at some point I think if we are honest, we have to admit that the fault was fully Lord’s.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

but at some point I think if we are honest, we have to admit that the fault was fully Lord’s

As Lord wrote in his letter to the BOT on Aug 10th 1912:

"It is a matter of great regret to me that I did not go on deck myself at this time, ..."

 

[marina_irc]

Since you have quoted me, I feel the need to respond. I do not have the expertise to answer your question. My knowledge of legal issues is limited. I am sure there are others who'll respond.

By the way, I am sure you know that I the copied excerpt in my previous post is NOT from any of your posts.

Forgive me. I was trying to reinforce your comment. It was not directed at you. I was chiming in and noting that I was still waiting for clarification from the original author you mentioned, on the matter you addressed. I apologise for not making the context clear.