Lights and Californian

The Court of Public Opinion has no legal bearing.

Also, in 1913, Lord got another job as a ship captain with Nitrate Producers Steamship Company. IIRC, a Director from Leyland Line helped him get the job because he felt Lord had not been treated fairly.
 
I detest conspiracy theories, and yet the only way I can see the treatment of Captain Lord at the hearing making any sense is by a conspiracy theory.

Lord Mersey et. al. "needed" a scapegoat. Captain Lord, by failing to act, provided the scapegoat. If Lord was truly guilty, then why wasn't a hearing held to revoke his Master's Certificate? The hearing wasn't held because, if it had been held, Lord would then have had the opportunity to call witnesses in his defense. I believe Captain Lord would have been able to refute the charges or establish reasonable doubt. That would have ruined the neat package assigning blame to the Californian. If Captain Lord was "guilty", why was he allowed to keep his Master's Certificate?
By failing to act he was not a scapegoat; he had failed to act.

Almost certainly the proceedings to revoke his license would have foundered on a lack of evidence. Please remember that until Titanic’s wreck was actually located, Lord’s defence certainly prevented a hearing from finding the preponderance of the evidence against him, let alone criminal reasonable doubt for the misdemeanor of failing to render aid.

Now we know with great precision the relative positions of Titanic and Californian. They were twelve miles apart.
 
Lord Mersey did some up the Inquiry by saying, Captain Lord of Californian could have rescued all or more of Titanic company. But captain Lord was denied for a rehearing to hear his side of the story. You call that fair inquiry! You are right they were not on trail but it was court hearing indeed where lawyers and barristers who were in charge and not marine expertise in charge.
Mersey's conclusion in his report was not well thought out, agreed. But he had a number of very well qualified mariners and marine experts to consult with. He was assisted by Rear Admiral S. A. Gough-Calthorpe, C.V.O., R.N.; Captain A. W. Clarke; Commander F. C. A. Lyon, R.N.R.; Professor J. H. Biles, D.Sc., LL.D.; and Mr. E. C. Chaston, R.N.R., as his Assessors.
 
Now we know with great precision the relative positions of Titanic and Californian. They were twelve miles apart.
I'd rather say that we now know with great precision the position of Titanic and the bearing to Californian at the time Titanic foundered. The distance apart has been estimated by analytics to be about 12 miles.
 
I detest conspiracy theories, and yet the only way I can see the treatment of Captain Lord at the hearing making any sense is by a conspiracy theory.

Lord Mersey et. al. "needed" a scapegoat. Captain Lord, by failing to act, provided the scapegoat. If Lord was truly guilty, then why wasn't a hearing held to revoke his Master's Certificate? The hearing wasn't held because, if it had been held, Lord would then have had the opportunity to call witnesses in his defense. I believe Captain Lord would have been able to refute the charges or establish reasonable doubt. That would have ruined the neat package assigning blame to the Californian. If Captain Lord was "guilty", why was he allowed to keep his Master's Certificate?
Hello Gordon,you are spot on with your assessment...Lord had to take it on the chin in the first instance at the time but was not prepared to lie down after the Walter Lord book and 1958 film demonised him again..that's why he and Leslie Harrison fought so hard to clear his name.
 
Mersey's conclusion in his report was not well thought out, agreed. But he had a number of very well qualified mariners and marine experts to consult with. He was assisted by Rear Admiral S. A. Gough-Calthorpe, C.V.O., R.N.; Captain A. W. Clarke; Commander F. C. A. Lyon, R.N.R.; Professor J. H. Biles, D.Sc., LL.D.; and Mr. E. C. Chaston, R.N.R., as his Assessors.
 
Try as they might, to my knowledge nobody has ever been able to rehabilitate Lord’s image.
Well, increasing number of people now view Captain Lord's image more realistically than it was in the aftermath of the disaster and again in the late 1950s. While he made a serious error of judgement in not reacting to the information that he had receivied, with passing years fewer and fewer people belive that he was the villain as portrayed in ANTR etc.
 
The one thing that I have always faulted Captain Lord for was that Evans wasn't woken up to have a listen on the wireless. But not just Lord. Anybody on the bridge could have gotten him up to see if anything was going on. The whole bridge crew failed in that regard to me. There's an old saying that says when in command, command. They must have been sick that day when it was taught.
 
Some would say that is a very charitable evaluation of his failure to act. Others would ascribe a moral dimension to it.
I do not believe Captain Lord would have ignored a CQD from Titanic being reported by Evans. Everything on Californian reeks of procedural errors created by unclear instructions, lack of training and classic analysis paralysis accentuated by a bad command climate. I suspect Lord was not liked because he had not “done his time” being promoted so fast. I have experienced that at jobs myself and it’s remarkable how it can create unending petty backbiking. So I have a degree of real sympathy for him.

But he should have ordered Evans woken up.
 
Back
Top