Pirates at the Wreck

[Gavin Murphy]

I recently received my ET Voyage No. 42 and there is what appears to be an excellent article by Dave Shuttle, with Bill Willard and Barb Shuttle, on the legal fight for the T. I have not read it yet, but hope to soon. While I don't think it addresses this latest matter, it probably will shed important light on the overal legal battle.

Query: Interesting point to remember. Neither the American Senate nor UK BofT fought WSL negligent for the disaster. While these findings are not binding on courts below (but persuasive), it essentially made it v. difficult for successful claims for damages from family victims.

Nevertheless, a few years later (and in the midst of WWI), a UK lower court DID find negligence, which could have opened the floodgates for claims on both sides of the Atlantic. No doubt this encouraged the $663,000 settlement mentioned in the ET article that we all know about.

This article is a v. helpful addition to the debate. Dave may not be a lawyer, but he could fool me!

G

 

[Susan Leighton]

Thanks for the info, gentlemen.
Susan Y. Leighton

 

[Lee Gilliland]

Another thing that makes me skeptical of such reports - if you are buying something from Titanic, wouldn't you want to know its provenance? Considering we are speaking of a relatively small universe of interested buyers, won't they insist on documentation?

 

[Dave Gittins]

I had a look round some major new outlets and couldn't find the story. Have they over-looked it, or don't they believe it?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Two more options Dave;

Option three: They couldn't find a shred of evidence to support it.
Option four: They don't care. Cold perhaps, but there's quite a war going on that seems to have grabbed everybody's attention.

 

[Lee Gilliland]

I'd be interested in finding out what lab they'd be using for the preservation work, too. There aren't too many of them, either.

 

[Darren Honeycutt]

Maybe the ones pirating the ship is the same company that is building the Titanic II.

 

[Gavin Murphy]

There were some major developments in court today in Norfolk. See the link to Marc Davis's excellent story below. As per usual, Marc has done a first class job on these legal developments.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=52765&ran=239833

 

[Michael Cundiff]

First and foremost, the alleged French sdubmarine, in this case there is only one, the NAUTILE, *WOULD NOT and *COULD NOT* perform diving operations on the Titanic during this alleged NOV. DEC. period.

Anyone familiar with the Titanic expeditions knows that Mother Nature allows but a *quaint* window of opportunity.

The U.S., French, and Russian Oceanagraphic institutes are well aware of this.

Michael A. Cundiff
U.S.A.

 

[Michael Cundiff]

In regards to Standart's comment...in fact the U.S. Navy acted just that (Warship Guardian) during the '86 W.H.O.I. operations over Titanic.

MAC
USA

 

[Michael H. Standart]

With what Mike?

There were no warships detailed to the expedition. The Woods Hole vessels are survey and oceanographic research ships, not combat vessels.

 

[Gavin Murphy]

Here is Marc's follow-up story.....totally unrelated to the previous three messages, but tied in with the "plundering" debate.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=52790&ran=165725

G

 

[Shane Jenkins]

Something that i was wondering....
I saw an article on another website: www.titanicnewschannel.com that a US government Satellite saw a ship over the Titanic wreck site in the fall.It couldn't tell if the ship was stationary or moving. Question: do any modern day shipping routes go directly over the wreck of Titanic?

 

[Michael Cundiff]

ATTN: Mike S.

Sir, I am afraid your facts are incorrect. Contact WHOI yourself, perhaps they will be obliged to confirm this. With many documentaries on hand, I do not not recall, perhaps it was "BATTLE FOR THE TITANIC" (PBS) which disclosed this information.

Think it about, afterall you are ex-Military, correct?

Here's this *brand new* technology being tested. If you will recall, upon Dr. Ballard's successful documentation of the NAVY'S "Thresher" and "Scorpion" wrecks, he was then allowed, what turned out to be, sufficient time to locate and prelimilarily photograph...TITANIC.

So why would this co-NAVY endeavor entertain a compromise when so much is at stake? As much as a career!!

Beings that the innovation and property were
NAVAL originated, in fact J.J., the "swimming eyeball" had to be altered, enabling the vehicle's allowance into the aforementioned torpedo tubes, thereby confirming decompositon
rate of it's *armmagedon* cargo. Surely, and considering the remote locations(s) the U.S.N. would not want their property ending up in the hands of???

(SEE: Subject heading this topic)

In concluding, I can only surmize it were as a precautionary measure.

Michael A. Cundiff
USA

 

[Michael Cundiff]

Hello Shane:

As a token of respect to the loss which occured 15 April 1912, ships of of civilian/commericial orgin veer away from this GPS fix. In fact, on it's regular crossing, the QE-2 announces a proxmity arrival, for the interested parties to engage in whatever private ceremonies one had planned at paying homage to TITANIC's loss.

The closest QE-2 ever got was on, Dennis Cochrane's (TITANIC HISTORIAN of a previous expedition) resurfacing aboard a MIR, in which he *noted* a "...meeting of the QUEENS at sea".
The Captain of this last North Atlantic greyhound
rendered "all ahead stop" to acknowledgement his friend's achievments, and offer condonement to this ongoing endeavor.

It was by far one of the most touching
and logical accounts to date.

However, Ken Marchall's accounting is always to the "T" and on a proifesional level, I was hoping he would share a more personal insight into his dive(s),

For me, his BRITANNIC contribution (THS Commutator) was an "out of body" reading experience.

Thank you Mr. Marschall for taking me there...

Michael A. Cundiff
USA