...Barrett totally contradicted himself. He claimed he saw water coming into an empty bunker there, but later describes events such as lifting a manhole to get to plumbing beneath the stoker plateslwhich would only have been done in a DRY compartment. My view is that, once again, when Barrett’s testimony is taken in context with the work he performed, his statement about water entering the bunker of boiler room #5 is completely false.
– David G. Brown
Sorry, but both men testified under oath they were in the same compartment (boiler room #6) and the same end of that space (stokehold #10) at impact. Beauchamp corroborates the orders that Barret said he gave and the actions which followed. No serious researcher can deny the synchronous nature of their testimonies.
So, why is testimony of Beauchamp is simply tossed on the scrapheap and ignored. The only plausible answere is that what the stoker said doesn't fit the desired results of modern experts -- that boiler room #6 was inundated when the side opened up and that damage extended into boiler room #5. "Everyone knows" that's what happened. So throw out his eyewitness account even though it corroborates Barrett's story in every other way. Sorry, that's not research. That's simply self-deception and nothing more.
As to boiler room #4, Barrett was never in that comparment. The WT door between it and boiler room #5 was, according to all sworn testimony, never re-opened after Murdoch closed all of the doors at the time of the accident.
Actually that's not the case. At least one person testified (I can't remember his name) that the door was opened to allow an engineer who had been injured (we must assume that was Shepard) through. So it's not according to all sworn testimony.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?