The inquiries' finding that the Titanic sank intact

[Julie McAllister]

Having read the article, I'm struggling to see where the evidence is presented for a whitewash?

Apart from repeating Lightollers statement regarding his attitude towards the inquiry which, in itself is not proof that the inquiry was a whitewash, there is little in the way of other evidence presented.

At the end of the article it even goes on to state:



So basically, the authors biggest issue is that the board of trade commisioned the inquiry and in part that investigation would involve the rules set out by the board of trade.

This has been the case in all British maratime accident investigations until the formation in 1989 of the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch which came out of a recommendation into the lost of the Herald of Free Enterprise. Ironically the report into the loss of that ship included a report published a in the early 80's that recommended alternative provision be made for maritime accidents due to the nature of the current regulations resulting in the Board of Trade being on occaison both prosecution and defence.

The thing that people often miss with the British Inquiry is that it is not, despite the prensence of the lawyers and the formal nature of it's conduct, a court of law. It was, as is the case with all inquiries, formed to look into the reasons for an accident and how to prevent them from happening again. I think people unfamiliar with this expect it to have been all fire and brimstone much like Tom Hanks in A Few Good Men screaming at the Board of Trade and the White Star Line to tell the truth before they are all marched off to prison for the next 20 years.

If we look at the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry again, one of the crew whose duty it would have been to ensure the bow door of the ship was closed on departure was absent from his place of duty. No recommendation was made by the inquiry for any form of prosecution.

A seperate Coroner's inquest jury returned verdicts of unlawful killing which then meant that prosecutions could take place and 7 members of the company were charged with with gross negligence manslaughter, and the operating company, P&O European Ferries with corperate manslaughter.

Returning to my original point regarding accusations of a whitewash, I say again, when looking at the outcomes from the British inquiry, what exactly did they miss? In the section dealing with the administration of the board of trade there is a paragraph as follows:



So the inquiry did find that the delay in updating the regulations was unjustified. It also discovered that moves to update these regulations were underway in the immediate years before the accident. A lot of regulations were in the process of undergoing changes at this point. There had been several conventions on maritime safety between 1908 and 1910 and their recommendations were yet to be implemented. Another example of this being the requirement to use SOS as a distress signal had been ratified years previously but not widely adopted.

The British inquiry also concludes that more effective inspections of lifeboats and lifeboat equipment needs to be made, saying their performance up to the Titanic disaster had not been good enough.

The inquiry also gave the B.O.T greater legal powers to demand shipping companies submit their designs for inspection.

We can't get drawn in to hindsight. Almost every accident that has ever occured could be solved with perfect hindsight. The fact of the matter is that the British inquiry did get almost all of the facts of the accident in the open and make sound recommendations to prevent another accident of this type occuring.

It is natural for people to want to look for blame and to have people carry the can for the failings discovered. That is what Lightoller was worried about when he talked of keeping his hand on the whitewash brush. He was concerned that he and his fellow officers would be the ones who would carry the can. The fact that no one faced a criminal trial in relation to the loss of the Titanic is what seems to upset people. The problem is, that wasn't the fault of the inquiry as that wasn't within their remit.

Again, people are too focused on the word 'whitewash', thinking Lightoller lied to tried to cover up to save his own skin when in fact the BOT should've been the ones "on trial" not the ones conducting it, that was highly improper and it should've been brought up back then. (Maybe it was)

It's like me being a lawyer and charged with arson but I'm the prosecutor in my own trial.

The BOT especially should've heard from every crew member, but if they heard from one person, they dismiss everyone else thinking they got not only the whole story but the correct one. It wasn't conducted well by the BOT or Lord Mersey.

"The B.O.T. had passed that ship as in all respects fit for sea in every sense of the word, with sufficient margin of safety for everyone on board. Now the B.O.T. was holding an enquiry in to the loss of that ship—hence the whitewash brush."

 

[Rob Lawes]

Again, people are too focused on the word 'whitewash', thinking Lightoller lied to tried to cover up to save his own skin when in fact the BOT should've been the ones "on trial" not the ones conducting it, that was highly improper and it should've been brought up back then.

I never said Lightoller lied to save his own skin. I said he was worried that the inquiry would ask questions that would make him seem like he had done something wrong.

As I said above, this wasn't a trial. No one at the British Inquiry was on trial. It was a board of inquiry to establish the facts regarding the loss of the RMS Titanic. It was not a criminal investigation.

The fact that the B.O.T were involved in both the establishment of the inquiry and were part of the investigation into the events that lead to the approval of Titanic as a safe, seaworthy vessel is unfortunate but that's the way it was until the establishment of the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch in the UK in 1989. This was not the first and by no means the last inquiry run to those rules.

The board of the inquiry was made up of Lord Mersey, 2 retired Royal Navy officers, an officer of Trinity House, a Proffesor of Naval Architecture and a Senior Engineer. None of these people were from the board of trade.

I've asked this same question again and again, but please, tell me, what was whitewashed? what did the British Inquiry fail to identify?

 

[Julie McAllister]

I never said YOU said anything, I also use the term "on trial" in quotes, no it was an inquiry. Just because it was not the first and by no means the last inquiry run to those rules, doesn't make it right, as I stated, it was completely improper.

I already said what was improper and not hearing from every crew member was number one.

 

[Rob Lawes]

They did hear from every crew member. All surviving members of the crew provided depositions. The was mostly done on their return to the UK after landing in Plymouth from the SS Lapland. From these statements the inquiry was able to establish which they needed to call up to London and question further.

Lord Mersey was appointed by the Lord Chancellor and was not a member of the board of trade or had even had previous dealings with them. The assessors appointed to assist Lord Mersey were not linked to the board of trade either.

 

[Julie McAllister]

Hence the "whitewash brush" ... you can't question a deposition.

But by all means call the Duff Gordons

Also, when they inspected the Olympic, they did NOT put 65 men a boat and lowered her from the boat deck... fail.

 

[Rennette Marston]

I would have to check back on this comment, but I think there was a post on it on a
previous thread.
Thayer didn't actually draw the sketches himself but they were drawn by another passenger from Thayer's descriptions.

In later comments Lightoller remarked that the inquiries were "whitewashed" . Possibly meaning that at mentioning the ship broke in two would not be good for the builders.

Before the 1997 movie came out, before the ANTR DVD came out , and before the Internet and this website came out , all I knew about the Titanic story was from the 1953 movie.

He did draw the outlines. Skidmore shaded in the sketch scenes later in the production.

 

[Julie McAllister]

That's why no one believed him because the drawing was absolutely incorrect. He never saw the bow come out of the water and break in a V.

 

[Rennette Marston]

Perhaps so. But we'll never know for sure.

 

[Julie McAllister]

Yes, we absolutely know that for sure.

 

[Rennette Marston]

I meant that we'll probably never know other key details of the disaster that he did see but didn't tell us. But most likely the bow didn't dramatically resurface out of the water after the break-up, as you pointed out.

 

[Julie McAllister]

I meant that we'll never know other key details of the disaster that he did see but probably didn't tell us. But most likely the bow didn't dramatically resurface out of the water after the break-up, as you pointed out.

This is a indisputable fact. Once the bow went under she never came out again, this is what makes the drawing wrong.

Watch this

 

[Rennette Marston]

I've seen this video before and I find it rather interesting. Particularly the part where Titanic Animations tried to explain why the survivors thought the bow resurfaced by showing his Titanic model correcting its list to port when the bridge was about to submerge after narrating Ida Hippach's testimony that Aaron1912 included in one of his last videos that TA criticized above. This element of the video I later incorporated into my theory of the break-up after I watched it a few times.

I also have a theory that maybe one of the large forward funnels was mistaken for the bow section rising.

Of everything else he said, I do agree with TA that the Titanic's forward section most likely didn't resurface after the break-up since it was rapidly filling with water at that point. Though I don't believe the harassment Aaron received for his rather odd theory after Titanic Animations called him out for the inaccuracies in his idea was called for. But that's what I think.