Unintentional hilarity during the Inquiries

[Arun Vajpey]

Perhaps not in the best of tastes considering the magnitude of the disaster but I thought I'd open a thread about howlers by anyone concerned during the investigations on either side of the Atlantic. We all know about the bit where Lowe was asked if he knew what an iceberg was composed of and he replied "Ice, I suppose". I meant similar ones.

While going through Lightoller's testimony at the American Inquiry I came across something that I had missed before and could not help laughing out loud.

Senator SMITH.
How many seamen were there in that boat, and what was the number of it, if you know?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No. 6, I believe.

Senator SMITH.
How many people did it contain when you got ready to lower it into the water?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I think I have given all that in my testimony.

Senator SMITH.
I know; but I have forgotten it.

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Well, I have forgotten it, too.

Not sure if 'Lights' was simply being honest or trying to be funny here.

 

[Thomas Krom]

Don't forget this one:

Senator SMITH.
Do you know what an iceberg is composed of?

Mr. LOWE.
Ice, I suppose, sir.

 

[Kiku]

The Brits sure made Senator Smith out as a r~~~~~. 'A Born Fool...', as some of the English newspapers described him.

I liked this question from Senator Smith...' Did the ship go down by the bow or the head?'

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

In his autobiography "Titanic and Other Ships," Lightoller makes no secret of his disdain for the Senate inquiry. I had believed Lightoller to be a reliable source until reading that book. He says that the SS St. Paul was pulled from its moorings and almost collided with the Titanic as she was leaving Southampton when the ship in question was actually the SS New York. Additionally, he says that Captain Smith ordered the port propeller forward to push the St. Paul away. The event occurred in the confines of Southampton Harbour which means that, although Captain Smith may have been the captain, the Titanic was leagally under the command of the Harbour Pilot, therefore Smith would not have been in command.

Given that, referring to the OPs question, I think Lightoller probably did not know the exact number and gave a guess. Therefore he likely did not remember the number he gave.

I do agree with Lightoller's assessment of the Senate inquiry. If you're going to investigate a marine accident, you'd better have people on the committee who know something about maritime matters.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

The Brits sure made Senator Smith out as a r~~~~~. 'A Born Fool...', as some of the English newspapers described him.

While Senator Smith was perhaps not the best choice, he was no buffoon that the Brit newspapers made him out to be. Some of the questions asked by Lord Mersey were not exactly brain teasers.

I do agree with Lightoller's assessment of the Senate inquiry. If you're going to investigate a marine accident, you'd better have people on the committee who know something about maritime matters.

In all fairness, the American Inquiry was only days after the Carpathia arrived in New York and they had neither enough time nor information to constitute a properly qualified committee. It is easy to criticize with hindsight.

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

In all fairness, the American Inquiry was only days after the Carpathia arrived in New York and they had neither enough time nor information to constitute a properly qualified committee. It is easy to criticize with hindsight.

IIRC, it took three days for the Carpathia to return to New York from the site of the Titanic's sinking. There was enough time to get an inquiry together, there was enough time to get one or two naval experts on the committee. When you have a committee that has members who don't know that a ship going down by the bow, and a ship going down by the head is the same thing, shows just how ill-prepared the committee was. The argument that there wasn't enough time to get a properly constituted committee together doesn't really hold water. Everyone was here, It would have been easy enough to keep everyone here as long as necessary to get a properly qualified committee. If nothing else, get a couple of senior instructors from the U.S. Naval Academy as consultants to the committee.

Arun, I admit that hindsight is 20/20, but really, this was a no-brainer.

 

[Stephen Carey]

I would think many of us reading through both transcripts would think that those asking the questions were either stupid, brain dead or reiterating so many times until it sunk in.
Lawyers are usually quite good at learning other people's trades and emulating them in court, but very few apart from those who were at sea for a living would know how ships worked, and this was obvious in the questioning to me, having spent 18 years at sea.
My eternal question is "Why didn't they get Olympic's engineers in to answer the questions instead of relying on firemen and trimmers who in 4 days on board would know almost nothing about the ship?" Dillon especially who was actually an AB and on his first trip in an engineroom.

 

[Steven Christian]

Yes there were some goofy questions. But they were inquiries not trials. They were trying to get some answers not prosecute. Yes they could have done a better job with better more qualified people. Unfortunately many of those who had the answers went down with the ship.

 

[Mike Spooner]

As second senior officer Charles Lightoller referred the inquiry as a whitewash farce. Not difficult to why to. Who hell pick a 72 old judge Lord Mersey as hundred years ago which to day is like a person well into there eighteens, to be in charge of a major inquiry! Who hadn't got a clue of the working details and working condition on a ship Then referred the inquiry as a court hearing. As for that Right Hon Sir Rufus Issacs a top class barrister not a seaman to. Looking into another court case eight years pervious where these two work together bring down the one time the richest man in Britain, James Whitaker Wright branded him as the worlds most shameless swindler under controversial circumstances. This two new each other well, very much the pally pally act indeed.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

If you're going to investigate a marine accident, you'd better have people on the committee who know something about maritime matters.

D'accord. But equally true is the adage that if you, as a ship's officer, are called to testify at a serious marine disaster which you survived, you'd better be sure what you are talking about.

People who knew about "marine matters" also said things on the night of the accident and later which in retrospect sound really stupid. For example, theoretically at least Captain Smith knew more about such things than anyone else on the ship and yet, he is supposed to have told crew of Lifeboat #6 (and perhaps others) to row to the light in distance, drop off the passengers and come back. As an experienced mariner, Smith should not only have had at least some idea of how far the other ship might have been from the Titanic if he could only see a light on the horizon but also the physical near-impossibility of the crew being able to row there and back to the sinking ship.

Then there is Lowe with his needlessly belligerent attitude, particularly during the American Inquiry. I am not sure if he really meant remarks such as the one below to be funny:

Senator SMITH.
What part did you take or have that day to do on that day with the test, in making the tests.

Mr. LOWE.
I could no more tell you now than fly.

I don't think was anything irrelevant about that particular question, especially as it was being asked of one of the surviving officers of a serious marine accident. I felt that Lowe's response, if intended to be sarcastic, was misplaced. No wonder it lead to this shortly afterwards:

Mr. LOWE.
I do not know, sir. I suppose it would be if you say so.

Senator SMITH.
Well, look it up yourself. You are testifying. I am not testifying.

Lowe, who had claimed earlier in his Testimony that he ran away to sea at 14 and according to himself "had experience with pretty well every ship afloat - the different classes of ships afloat - from the schooner to the square-rigged sailing vessel, and from that to steamships, and of all sizes", said thigs like those below which suggested that he either did not do his homework or simply did not care what he was saying.

Senator SMITH.
You do not know how fast she could have gone?

Mr. LOWE.
I reckon she could easily do 24 or 25 knots.

Lowe should have known that the Titanic could never have done 25 knots, let alone "easily". Such an answer might be forgiven if it was from a Trimmer or Steward but certainly not from one of the surviving officers of a major marine disaster during an official investigation into it.

Even more hilarious was the following from Lowe:

Senator SMITH.
What time were you awakened?

Mr. LOWE.
I do not know. I was awakened by hearing voices, and I thought it was very strange, and somehow they woke me up and I realized there must be something the matter; so I looked out and I saw a lot of people around, and I jumped up and got dressed and went up on deck.

Senator SMITH.
What did you find when you got up there?

Mr. LOWE.
I found that all the passengers were wearing belts.

Senator SMITH.
What did you do?

Mr. LOWE.
I met somebody, and they said she had struck an iceberg, and I could feel by my feet that there was something wrong.

Senator SMITH.
The bow, you say, was down?

Mr. LOWE.
Down, and the stern was up.

Senator SMITH.
Could you tell at about what angle she was at that time?

Mr. LOWE.
Do you want the perpendicular angle or the horizontal angle?

Senator SMITH.
The horizontal angle.

Mr. LOWE.
I should say she was about 12° to 15° by the head.

If the Titanic was really that far down by the head when Lowe first came onto the bridge, he must have been walking underwater. When the head trim reached 12 degrees, it was after 02:15 am and even the higher starboard side of the bridge was flooding.

So, there were really two sides to the coin that has sometimes been described as a "farce".

 

[Mike Spooner]

The trouble with inquiry's, we are dealing with two different professions here. Where legal men are questing qualified seamen, which must be pretty irritating to them and know the way the questing is put forward they are not a seamen.
Now if I reverse the roll and was a professional seamen questing legal men on legal matters, They to would soon know that you not legal expert and feel pretty hack of with them to.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Where legal men are questing qualified seamen, which must be pretty irritating to them and know the way the questing is put forward they are not a seamen

Well, they were official Inquiries into the disaster by properly constituted committees. Therefore, the summoned seamen were required to answer to the best of their ability irrespective of what their personal opinions were about either the committee members or the questions asked.

Now if I reverse the roll and was a professional seamen questing legal men on legal matters

No need to go that far. Even remaining within the legal framework, any witness on the stand is required to answer the questions put to him or her irrespective of what he/she thought of the Cross-Examining lawyer or the questions themselves. Otherwise they would be at risk of Contempt of Court.

Granted, the sessions related the Titanic disaster on either sides of the Atlantic were not the same as Court cases, but they were still official inquiries and so there was really no place for "Smart Alec" answers of the sort that Lowe and some others gave.

 

[Mike Spooner]

I may be very critical how the inquires were conducted and may have to settle that's the way it was in those days. But as any form of a transport disaster today with lost of lives would be total unacceptable how the Titanic inquiry's was run. As today the expertise in those various field are sent in for investigation which can take months or even years. Certainty you do not sent in lawyers at this stage. Lawyers may came in after the technical reports are put forward. As for the US inquiry the 700 survivor return back to New York on the Carpathia ship on 18th April about 9.00 evening, yet the inquiry started next day 19th at 10.30 morning, which about 82 were ask to give evidence. What happen to the other 600 survivor who could have given evidence to? As todays would of taken months if not years. As it turn out the final report for US inquiry was given out on 28th May. 40 days later. Not surprise to see so many mistakes were made.
As for the UK inquiry 97 gave evident started 2th May final report 3nd July 58 days. Again what happen to others 600 survivor who could of given evident to? Sea disaster inquiry's in those days was of a very poor standard.
The one thing I would never forgive for that was the behaviour of Lord Mersey and Sir Rufus Issacs. Who my opinion Issacs manipulated Mersey to think he way for the final report of the inquiry results. Where Mersey would make captain Stanley Lord of the Californian ship held responsible for the 1500 whom perished on flimsy evident. Then had audacity to make sure he could not get rehearing to tell his side of the story. Which over the years prove by marine experts was an impossible task to do so.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I think we are digressing a little from the point that I was trying to make in my OP. What I was trying to say was that it was not just the questions asked that should have been considered as "silly" by some but in many cases the answers as well. And considering those answers were given by experienced seamen, the farcical nature of the whole thing became even worse, as illustrated by those responses by Lowe above. If the Fifth Officer believed that his ship could do 25 knots "easily" when it was obviously not the case and say that the ship was 12 to 15 degrees down by the head just after midnight (when he came to the bridge), IMO it is much worse than any gaffs made by someone who had little or no marine experience.

Remember that it was an investigation into an accident and things such as the ship's speed capabilities and degree of trim against time during its sinking were very important factors.

 

[Mike Spooner]

You could said if Lowe was question by a marine expert who know dam well the ship speed of 25 knots was not achievable his statement would soon fall apart. But that is what I find about the inquiry's run by non marine experts.