New inquiry ?

[Aaron_2016]

Moj, you're contriving a strawman on one hand and missing the point on another.

1) Everybody wants to know "The Truth" but there's nothing magical about an official inquiry which would establish any such. That work was done 106 years ago. Forensics studies and historical researchers can do the same or better in the here and now, and in fact they ARE doing it without any need for the services of the lawyers!

2) In the matter of the inquiry and the ever popular "Justice For the Victims" appeal, you have the following issues which don't go away and cannot be argued around.
a) All the injured parties whether they survived the accident or not are now dead.
b) All the next of kin as well as any legal heirs and assigns who would have any possible legal standing to sue for damages are all dead.
c) All the potential witnesses are all dead.
d) All the parties who could possibly be held responsible are all dead.

Dead. dead. dead. dead.

Are we getting it now?

The end goal does not have to lead to a prosecutation. Just the truth. There could be an Inquiry that examines the findings of the previous Inquiries and merits their importance in the Titanic disaster. Is it true that most public inquiries rarely lead to a prosecution? They are probably just used for defensive purposes e.g. There are frequent calls for public inquiries into numerous attacks in Northern Ireland during the troubles but little is ever done. One event that comes to mind is the Omagh bombing and how repeated attempts to find out the truth have been hampered by politicians, witnesses, and even police officers who were apparently uncooperative and defensive. The same could be said for the 1912 Titanic Inquiry. All sides were defensive and feared incrimination. Lightoller described the Inquiry as "a pinning down of blame onto someone's luckless shoulders."


.

 

[Harland Duzen]

Thank you everyone for your comments.
...Maybe no one in 2018 cares to know the truth of that night but I just think that if Titanic is still so interesting that people are willing to pay millions of dollars to just go down and visit its wreck then it should at least be interesting for scientists to examine the wreck and find out new facts...

First off, Welcome to ET Moj!

Secondly, as stated by Michael, "Everybody wants to know The Truth..." and today, interest in Titanic and everyone and everything related to it is now even greater than it might have been back in 1912 with dozens of documentaries, films, books and memorabilia (of varying taste) have been made about her and anyone related to it.

Unfortunately this intense interest could be said to have put the Titanic into legendary status with the side effect of this being that we expect the actual causes or reasons for the disaster happening to be unfathomable or gigantic instead of being explainable.

In the past, numerous claims have been put forward suggesting reckless speeding, poor design, secret fires and more.

In reality, Titanic was captained to perfect seafaring rules of the time (was never attempting to race to New York), had never been built to withstand such extreme damage and the fire was a common occurrence on steamships and caused no damage to the hull's integrity.

In reality, most myths or causes for the Sinking have been explained or logically hypothesised but their not very exciting or climatic. This has happened to other events in the past like the Mary Celeste and King Tutankhamen death having with many theories on aliens, assassinations and supernatural events put forward but the actual causes are not very dramatic but more mundane.

Basically while many people do want to know the truth, they might prefer to keep it hidden (or not search for it) to keep the myth or legend alive. Titanic was a freak accident where multiple things happened at the same time to cause it and had one thing been different, the outcome would of been too. No one person or thing is too blame despite what many documentaries might try to make you think.

Sorry if this really veered off topic and might not make sense. (Back to Topic!)

 

[Michael H. Standart]

could be an Inquiry that examines the findings of the previous Inquiries and merits their importance in the Titanic disaster.

Already been done. Titanic, a Centennial Reappraisal of the Evidence does exactly that.

Seriously, why is it that some of you all are thinking that a renewed formal inquiry is some sort of magic trick which is going to accomplish something above and beyond what a century of research hasn't already done?

What is the assumption here?

 

[Rob Lawes]

What is the assumption here?

While the original inquiries clearly had their faults they did produce a relatively coherent set of conclusions and recommendations.

It's not my opinion but there are a number of people on here and elsewhere who believe the whole UK inquiry was one big conspiracy involving the crew, board of trade, Lord Mersey and all. I presume when those that believe that call for the truth they mean official validation of their beliefs.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Moj. I may as well offer my 10 centimos-worth.

You asked " if new evidence of the sinking comes up is it possible to have new inquiry?"

Judging by today;'s standards, I guess the answer would be only if someone could make money and or political mileage out of it. Or at the very least, recover the taxpayer's money expended in such an exercise.
Michael very neatly pointed out the futility of such an exercise when related to survivors.
However, there are at least two groups of people alive today to whom, the original findings and those who perpetrate them are an anathema. They are thus affected because:
A. They they are related to individuals' whose reputations were ruined at the time. Relations who hide their family connections to the disaster due to those who perpetuate ill-conceived nonsense in their public writings and dramatic portrayals about named individual survivors and 3rd party participants.
or
B: They are Professionals who patiently read the pontifications of enthusiastic amateurs who have built International reputations in the world of Literature and the Arts on the back of the irrational, inconclusive findings of the original Inquiries.
As Mark Twain is alleged to have remarked:
"Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story, unless you can't think of anything better."

 

[Jim Currie]

Already been done. Titanic, a Centennial Reappraisal of the Evidence does exactly that.

Seriously, why is it that some of you all are thinking that a renewed formal inquiry is some sort of magic trick which is going to accomplish something above and beyond what a century of research hasn't already done?

What is the assumption here?

Have to say, Michael: there are as many holes in the basic conclusions of that appraisal than there were in the bottom of Titanic.

 

[Moj]

Moj, you're contriving a strawman on one hand and missing the point on another.

1) Everybody wants to know "The Truth" but there's nothing magical about an official inquiry which would establish any such. That work was done 106 years ago. Forensics studies and historical researchers can do the same or better in the here and now, and in fact they ARE doing it without any need for the services of the lawyers!

2) In the matter of the inquiry and the ever popular "Justice For the Victims" appeal, you have the following issues which don't go away and cannot be argued around.
a) All the injured parties whether they survived the accident or not are now dead.
b) All the next of kin as well as any legal heirs and assigns who would have any possible legal standing to sue for damages are all dead.
c) All the potential witnesses are all dead.
d) All the parties who could possibly be held responsible are all dead.

Dead. dead. dead. dead.

Are we getting it now?

It seems to me from your tone that I have somehow offended you. I apologize for that.

1. No I personally dont think that everyone wants to know the truth . Probably there are very few who still care to know the truth on this matter or many other matters. In my experience dealing with people , they usually want to hear what they like to hear which usually isnt the truth. Also humanbeings like to forget and move on.
I really dont get the dislike for the lawyers which seems to get pointed out repeatedly here and there but I will not comment on that because it really is unrelated to the whole point of what I wanted to say from the beginning. Which has nothing to do with an actual court . What I said from the beginning was an inquiry of any sort. I myself am not sure of the correct name to put on it Maybe a book ? An investigation ? A hearing ? A complete documentry ? I dont know you name it. You cant just dismiss everything because it isnt perfect.

If scientists or forensics are doing research as we speek , there has to be a way to analyaze , discuss and publish it in a way otherwise its pointless.

2. Doesnt a grand daughter or a grandson count as a next of kin in a court ? Or even a son or a daughter during all these 100 years ? If they dont care thats an entirely different matter but they sure exist.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Take the case of the up hill battle Leslie Harrison had in trying to publish his book. Titanic Myth. Were over the years faced threats and intimidation been placed on him. Even the publishes became nervous what he had to say! Final when published they still made changes to want actually wanted to say? I would love to read the book but yet to see a book going for a reasonable price.

Hi Mike,

You have the wrong book quoted and wrong author. It was Leslie Reade's 'The Ship That Stood Still' that had difficulty getting into print.

You ought to be able to get both Harrison and Reade's books from your local library via a request to other libraries for a nominal charge.

Given that one very major criticism of both Inquiries is the treatment of 'The Californian Incident', you really ought to read both the above books as an initial starting point.

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Julian Atkins]

Incidentally, the current Grenfell Tower Inquiry has certain similarities with the 1912 Titanic British Inquiry is so far as both dealt with/are dealing with failings of a UK Ministry to update regulations. The Board of Trade in 1912 in having delayed and delayed revising the regulations for lifeboats etc as new ships got bigger and bigger.

The current Grenfall Tower Inquiry has already heard expert witness evidence that the relevant UK Ministry failed to update (delayed and delayed) the Building Regulations to cover 'high rise' residential blocks of flats being covered externally with aluminium coated plastic cladding with a void then highly flammable foam insulation attached to the concrete superstructure.

Moj, suggest you goggle 'The Marconi Scandal' and how Sir Rufus Isaacs was inextricably linked to 'insider dealing' via his brother, who was head of the UK branch of the Marconi Companies.

To my mind, Marconi operators Phillips and Bride should have been greatly criticised, and by inference also Marconi, and the Marconi Company, for ignoring navigational status messages of ice warnings and failing to take them to the bridge of Titanic. Instead, the dead Phillips was wrongly treated as a hero, and Bride as well, despite the overwhelming evidence against both. That they were not so criticised, is due to Sir Rufus Isaacs and 'The Marconi Scandal'.

Read Sir Rufus Isaacs' closing speech to the British Inquiry. Who does he single out at the end of his speech? Captain Smith? Boxhall? Phillips? Bride? Marconi? The Board of Trade?

No - he saves this for Captain Lord of the Californian who played no part in the reasons why Titanic hit an ice berg and sank whatsoever (except his 2 'ice warning messages' to Titanic were ignored by Bride and then Phillips).

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I presume when those that believe that call for the truth they mean official validation of their beliefs.

That I suspect is pretty much on target.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Have to say, Michael: there are as many holes in the basic conclusions of that appraisal than there were in the bottom of Titanic.

I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of those. The point is that it's been done. No need for the help of legal counsel.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

1. No I personally dont think that everyone wants to know the truth .

Of course they do. What they don't want to do is fall in for some of your preconceived ideas of what it is which constitutes "The Truth" whatever they may be. It seems to me as if you're looking for that mystical and magical "New angle." Understandable since everybody wants to uncover something new but you appear to be over thinking the problem.

Word to the wise: Don't.

If scientists or forensics are doing research as we speek , there has to be a way to analyaze , discuss and publish it in a way otherwise its pointless.

They ARE publishing it by way of hundreds of books, position papers and documentaries. Some of them are even accurate and all of them are being challenged by somebody. That's just the nature of science.

>>What I said from the beginning was an inquiry of any sort. I myself am not sure of the correct name to put on it Maybe a book ? An investigation ? A hearing ? A complete documentry ? I dont know you name it. You cant just dismiss everything because it isnt perfect.<<

You really didn't offer me anything to accept or dismiss. Just vague generalizations and appeals to finding "The Truth" uses a lot of words to say nothing. And I never spoke to anything being perfect so this is another strawman.

>>

 

[Mike Spooner]

Hi Mike,

You have the wrong book quoted and wrong author. It was Leslie Reade's 'The Ship That Stood Still' that had difficulty getting into print.

You ought to be able to get both Harrison and Reade's books from your local library via a request to other libraries for a nominal charge.

Given that one very major criticism of both Inquiries is the treatment of 'The Californian Incident', you really ought to read both the above books as an initial starting point.

Cheers,

Julian

Hi Julian,
The book I have by Leslie Harrison. DEENDING CAPTAIN LORD A TITANIC MYTH Part Two.
He is very critical of Leslie Reade book The Ship That Stood Still which I have say, I am rather surprise as he thinks L Reade book is all about making captain Lord the guilty man for not coming to the rescues of the 1500 who died. As I don't see that way in the book. If any one is the guilty party is the two inquires! Personal I think Lord Mersey was a very intelligent man put in a no win situation.
He must of seen the failure of the Board of Trade not moving with times with lack of lifeboats and management procedures in the operations of lifeboats. I felt very sorry for the eight officers on Titanic who were suddenly confronted with the lifeboat rescue and overwhelmed with the situation on hand. No doubt they do there best and made mistakes by filling the early lifeboats less than half full. Mersey would of pick up on that and probably thought want sort of personal who are in charge of the BoT! Mersey made recommendations changes for the better, rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!
If want another point of view of the inquires. I have the book by Senan Molony TITANIC AND THE MYSYERY SHIP. He has read Leslie Reade book The Ship that Stood Still beforehand. His layout is different were try's to compare what one crew member said in the American inquiry and then what he said the British enquiry. The only problem I see here the two inquires were conducted on very different lines.
Mike.

 

[Jim Currie]

I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of those. The point is that it's been done. No need for the help of legal counsel.

I agree with you, Michael.

However, the fact that some of us disagree concerning the same items of evidence is in itself a good enough reason for a proper, forensic examination of that evidence.
Two such items immediately spring to mind. These are:
1. The evidence concerning Titanic's average speed between Noon and the time she turned onto her final course for New York and
2. The evidence given by Joseph Boxhall concerning the ship observed during the time Titanic was sinking.

I for one would be interested to hear the results of a Naval Academy analysis of these two items. However, in presenting the evidence, the bias should be removed by omitting the sources of the evidence.

Incidentally, I chose these two because I sincerely believe that if they were properly analysed, the final report of both the Official Inquiries would require a considerable amount of re-writing.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Incidentally, I chose these two because I sincerely believe that if they were properly analysed, the final report of both the Official Inquiries would require a considerable amount of re-writing.

Very possible. I've been watching a lot of the give and take on this issues here for years and in the end, I found myself agreeing with Captain David on this point: We proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they didn't have the Global Positioning system back in 1912.

I have a hunch that some parties think another official inquiry would somehow be objective and that one has me scratching my head in wonderment. It wasn't as if either Senator Smith OR Lord Mersey were completely objective and a lot of the players in the game had agendas as well.

All the principles involved in 1912 are gone now, but the new players in the game still have agendas.