Lights and Californian

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Sam,

Though I partially agree with you, Captain Lord was never explicitly asked by Dunlop to avail himself of the excuse/defence not to go to a vessel in distress because he would otherwise endanger his own ship and crew.

I find this somewhat bewildering, except that such a degree of questioning might have been unpalatable given what the Carpathia did.

On a separate matter, I note from Eric Clements’ excellent book on Rostron ‘Captain of the Carpathia’ pages 170 and 171 that it was quite common for the Captain to be on the bridge or awake or alert for quite extended periods of time. Included is Captain Rostron being on the bridge for 8 days continuously (August 1917). Captain McNeil provided another example on p. 171.

Bisset confirmed this.

I don’t understand why Captain Lord that night wasn’t on the “Qui Vive”.

Captain Rostron had done his shift then resumed command and stayed up for a very long period of time.

Captain Moore did the same. And very much older.

Yet allegedly Captain Lord couldn’t stay awake and when woken up by Gibson at 2.05am (Gibson was quite clear Captain Lord was awake and asked the time and what colour the lights were) he claimed he could remember only something of what Gibson recorded in his 18th April statement. So if he could remember something of Gibson’s visit to the chart room at that time then he clearly wasn’t fast asleep, and neither would he have been with all that had been going on.

3 and a half hours earlier he had given an order to the Chief Engineer to keep steam up in case they had to move during the night.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

3 and a half hours earlier he had given an order to the Chief Engineer to keep steam up in case they had to move during the night.

That could have been one of the reasons why Captain Lord could not directly state that he did not take any action because he considered it too dangerous to move his stopped ship.

Captain Lord was never explicitly asked by Dunlop to avail himself of the excuse/defence not to go to a vessel in distress because he would otherwise endanger his own ship and crew. I find this somewhat bewildering, except that such a degree of questioning might have been unpalatable given what the Carpathia did.

Good point. Could that have been due to explicit instructions from the Leyland Line? Irrespective of the wisdom of the manner in which Captain Rostron got his Carpathia dash to the rescue and the risks that he took, he pulled it off successfully and the by the time the British Inquiry came around, Rostron was something of a public hero. Fairly or otherwise, Captain Lord's inactions would have shown both him and his employer Leyland Line in poor light by comparison, especially as by then it would have been known that the Californian was closer to the sinking Titanic than any other ship.

That brings me to another point that has puzzled me for a while and which I recalled after Sam's Post #209 above. As far as I could understand, Robertson Dunlop was there representing the interests of the Leyland Company and the Officers & crew of the Californian. I realize that the British Inquiry was just that and not a Court Case, but witnesses were being questioned under oath. Under those circumstances, was it legal for Dunlop to ask very suggestive leading questions like 7407 and 7408 to Lord right before the Inquiry Committee?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I find this somewhat bewildering, except that such a degree of questioning might have been unpalatable given what the Carpathia did.

But Carpathia was not surrounded by ice at the edge of an icefield when she started out. Californian was, and so they had reason (real or imagined) to claim that it was too dangerous to move their vessel if they wanted too.

 

[Bob Read]

Lord’s unwillingness to have his wireless operator awakened betrays his statement that if he had known they were talking about Titanic he would have made all haste to get to her.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Bottom line, Lord boxed himself into a corner by his later statements to the press after reaching Boston, and by what he said he knew at the inquiries.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

it was quite common for the Captain to be on the bridge or awake or alert for quite extended periods of time

Yes, it was quite common when there was danger about. Many examples given in Bisset's Tramps & Ladies book. However, when Lord left Groves on the bridge by himself around 11:45, the only thing around them was this steamer that had apparently stopped for the night as they had done, and seemingly for the same reason. There was no reason why Lord shouldn't have turned in, especially after finding out around 12:35 from Stone that the situation with that steamer had not changed at all. However, by ten minutes later, things did changed. Even if Stone 1st called down around 1:10-1:15, it would have been only about 35-40 minutes after being told all was well. Highly doubt Lord was in any deep sleep on his chartroom settee by then since he had to get up and go into his room to answer the speaking-tube whistle. If he got up to do that, how hard would it have been to go up on deck for a few minutes to see what was happening for himself? As he admitted at the inquiry, he was not satisfied with Stone's answers to his questions. Also, Stone did not say anything to Lord that the steamer was steaming away at that time, as Lord had claimed at the inquiry. Looking at the April 18th statements from Stone and Gibson, that excuse first started after the 7th rocket was seen, after the red sidelight had disappeared, when Stone told Gibson that she appeared to be slowly steering to the SW. Stone, like Lord, was to later claimed at inquiry that the steering away to the SW started after he saw 2nd rocket, but that does not fit with what Gibson wrote, or even what Stone wrote, in their April 18th written statements that Lord kept from the inquiries.

 

[Julian Atkins]

was it legal for Dunlop to ask very suggestive leading questions like 7407 and 7408 to Lord right before the Inquiry Committee?

It was perfectly proper for Robertson Dunlop to raise the issue of this with Captain Lord. And you can ask leading questions at an Inquiry, especially with a ‘tetchy’ Lord Mersey who wanted things progressed. What we do not find from Dunlop’s “summing up” or “closing submissions” much later on is a reliance on the defence/excuse of Captain Lord not going to the aid of a vessel in distress because of it endangering his own ship and crew at night.

Dunlop didn’t ask the right questions when examining Captain Lord. Instead Captain Lord said it would be dangerous but he would have attempted a rescue during the night. If Captain Lord had instead to the second reply at 7408 said ‘I would have waited till daylight’ then potentially he could have then have allowed Dunlop to say something quite else in his summing up/closing submissions, but he could not because Captain Lord had “muffed it” in his answers.

Then there are 2 other highly relevant matters to consider.

Firstly, that Captain Rostron did decide to make the rescue at night when clearly there was ice and icebergs about. That on the face of it by it’s success would make it difficult to argue going to the rescue would endanger your ship and it’s crew.

Secondly, that Captain Lord had very little time to consult with the Leyland Line solicitors and counsel, who arguably were not representing him, or Stone, Gibson, Stewart and Evans in a direct capacity; but their employers and the Leyland Line. If from memory my time line is correct they all got back to Liverpool on the Friday when the wreck commissioner’s statements were done, and were then at the British Inquiry Tuesday (?) 14th May. The weekend intervened. I very much doubt that the Leyland Line solicitors (of whom Captain Lord quotes in the 1961 taped recorded interviews) had anytime whatsoever to provide Robertson Dunlop with a ‘full’ ‘Brief’. Captain Lord recollects (and I don’t disagree with him on this at all) that the first time he met with the Leyland Line counsel Robertson Dunlop was in London on the morning of him giving his testimony after having travelled by train from Liverpool to London that morning, (and also having ‘crossed The Mersey’ from the Wirral).

 

[Julian Atkins]

Section 434 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 subsection 2 is the bit that Sam has quoted as to the penalties for misuse of ‘distress signals’.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Again if my memory is correct, on 21st May 1912 Captain Lord typed out a statement of his own. It is referenced by Harrison, and is now in the Liverpool Maritime Museum with his tapes of the taped recorded interviews in 1961, and the original statements of Stone and Gibson on 18th April 1912.

I’ve never seen these documents or listened to the 1961 taped recordings.

I think that it would be of the greatest importance to have Captain Lord’s 21st May 1912 typed statement to be published, so that at the very least we can see whether the 1959 Affidavit of Captain Lord written by Harrison is accurate. And much else besides.

Of the pic Maloney provided of the Gibson 18th April statement (of a very short section of it) (which seems well written and carefully written out) we simply don’t know how the rest of this statement is written. Again it, and Stone’s 18th April statements have never been published fully in their own handwriting.

There is still a lot more to be done in respect of ‘The Californian Incident’.

Primary source documents that we know exist and where they are that no one seems to be bothered with examining the originals except Maloney.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Primary source documents that we know exist and where they are that no one seems to be bothered with examining the originals except Maloney.

Hopefully, they are still intact.

 

[Steven Christian]

Again if my memory is correct, on 21st May 1912 Captain Lord typed out a statement of his own. It is referenced by Harrison, and is now in the Liverpool Maritime Museum with his tapes of the taped recorded interviews in 1961, and the original statements of Stone and Gibson on 18th April 1912.

I’ve never seen these documents or listened to the 1961 taped recordings.

I think that it would be of the greatest importance to have Captain Lord’s 21st May 1912 typed statement to be published, so that at the very least we can see whether the 1959 Affidavit of Captain Lord written by Harrison is accurate. And much else besides.

Of the pic Maloney provided of the Gibson 18th April statement (of a very short section of it) (which seems well written and carefully written out) we simply don’t know how the rest of this statement is written. Again it, and Stone’s 18th April statements have never been published fully in their own handwriting.

There is still a lot more to be done in respect of ‘The Californian Incident’.

Primary source documents that we know exist and where they are that no one seems to be bothered with examining the originals except Maloney.

If you were to go you might need some time to go thru all they have according to this guys article.

"In Liverpool, I spent days reviewing the archive of Lord’s papers held at the Merseyside Maritime Museum. I wore white gloves, made notes with a pencil and dutifully filled out an application form for each item I wanted photocopied. I reviewed letters, testimonials, Marconigrams, newspaper clippings, handwritten statements, career papers and certificates, interviews, magazine articles and hearing transcripts. I read the original letters to Captain Lord from the second officer and apprentice, written within days of the disaster, describing what they saw and did during the midnight watch on the Californian. They are red-hot, contemporaneous accounts of the Titanic sinking. Lord kept these letters secret for nearly fifty years."

In Search of Captain Lord — David Dyer

Travel to Boston, New York, London, Liverpool, Wallasey and Bootle to research The Midnight Watch. Visiting the homes of Captain Lord and Herbert Stone.

www.daviddyer.com.au

Captain Lord 1961 Interviews Transcript

Captain Stanley Lord master of the SS Californian, interviewed by Leslie Harrison...

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

 

[Julian Atkins]

As ever I am very grateful to Steven Christian for his above post. I have a copy of David Dyer’s ‘novel’. (It isn’t really a ‘novel’ as such). I consider his ‘conclusion’ as to why Stone and Captain Lord did not react in the way they should to more plausible than Leslie Reade’s ‘pseudo’ father son analysis in TSTSS. Reade’s claimed ‘scoop’ of Stone’s son’s letter is patently unfounded.

I don’t know whether David Dyer did get near to the truth. I don’t think so. But I definitely think he did a darn sight better than Leslie Reade did.

One thing that I did particularly find ‘grating’ in Dyer’s ‘novel’ was his portrayal of Captain Lord’s son. Wasn’t based on any evidence I have ever seen (which is the correspondence between Stanley Tutton Lord and Ed Kumada).

Anyway enough for one evening!

 

[Steven Christian]

As ever I am very grateful to Steven Christian for his above post. I have a copy of David Dyer’s ‘novel’. (It isn’t really a ‘novel’ as such). I consider his ‘conclusion’ as to why Stone and Captain Lord did not react in the way they should to more plausible than Leslie Reade’s ‘pseudo’ father son analysis in TSTSS. Reade’s claimed ‘scoop’ of Stone’s son’s letter is patently unfounded.

I don’t know whether David Dyer did get near to the truth. I don’t think so. But I definitely think he did a darn sight better than Leslie Reade did.

One thing that I did particularly find ‘grating’ in Dyer’s ‘novel’ was his portrayal of Captain Lord’s son. Wasn’t based on any evidence I have ever seen (which is the correspondence between Stanley Tutton Lord and Ed Kumada).

Anyway enough for one evening!

I confess I don't know anything about him. Ran across that article looking for transcripts of Captain Lord correspondence around the time of the sinking. I will give him credit for getting around. I'm a fellow traveler so good on him for that at least. But I gave up looking for transcripts/copies because there seems to so much more than just a statement or 2. He was writing a lot of letters to various people from what i found. But I suspect they all pretty much say the same thing more or less. He was trying to defend his reputation. I doubt he would put any smoking gun info in his letters. But what the other crewman wrote in their letters I don't know. Couldn't find much on those either. Did Dyer have those letters in his book? Not just talking about them but actual copies to read? Cheers.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Steven,

David Dyer’s ‘The Middle Watch’ doesn’t have any illustrations or pics. He did however write a separate extremely detailed and long paper fully referenced on ‘The Californian Incident’.

Well worth reading both. The paper is one of the links on Dyer’s website that you very kindly referenced. I have read and re-read it a number of times, then bought a second hand copy of his ‘novel’ because I took the view it was well researched as was his paper.

 

[Steven Christian]

Hi Steven,

David Dyer’s ‘The Middle Watch’ doesn’t have any illustrations or pics. He did however write a separate extremely detailed and long paper fully referenced on ‘The Californian Incident’.

Well worth reading both. The paper is one of the links on Dyer’s website that you very kindly referenced. I have read and re-read it a number of times, then bought a second hand copy of his ‘novel’ because I took the view it was well researched as was his paper.

Thanks for the heads up. I downloaded the article to read later. It's 30 pages long. Interested to read what he found/conclusions he came too. On his opening page this paragraph says the following:
"In my view, the evidence – considered dispassionately and in its entirety – overwhelmingly proves that the Californian saw the Titanic and that the Titanic saw the Californian. For me, the rockets clinch the matter. The Titanic fired eight white rockets, and the Californian saw eight white rockets – at the same time and in the same part of the ocean. What other conclusion could there be?"
Simple logic that I happen to agree with. Thanks again for the recommendation.