What was Boxhall doing?

[Parks Stephenson]

Cal, I don't think that you're making an ass of yourself. We're just projecting our own perspectives onto a person's testimony. To me, this is no big deal, because I have used "boat" and "ship" interchangeably throughout my life. Maybe because of that, I see Olliver using "boat" to refer to Titanic in the following statement:

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Mr. OLLIVER. The iceberg was about the height of the boat deck; if anything, just a little higher. It was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was almost alongside of the boat.

However, more telling to me was that Olliver obviously knew Senator Burton was referring to Titanic when asked about the "boat:"

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Senator BURTON. What was your position on the boat?
Mr. OLLIVER. Quartermaster.
(...)
Senator BURTON. Were there cries and moaning from the place where the boat had sunk?
Mr. OLLIVER. Yes. It lasted about 10 minutes.
(...)
Senator BURTON. So far as danger of capsizing is concerned, after the boat had sunk you could have gone back, could you not?
Mr. OLLIVER. Yes, sir; we could have gone back.
(...)
Senator BURTON. Did you see the boat sink?
Mr. OLLIVER. I can not say that I saw it right plain; but to my imagination I did, because the lights went out before she went down.

Now, none of this really indicates what term Olliver personally used to refer to Titanic; rather, it shows more of Olliver following Burton's preference. Maybe Olliver used "boat" in private conversation, maybe he used "ship"...the Senate Inquiry was probably not the place for a glimpse into Olliver's personal preferences. In this instance, being questioned by a high personage in a foreign country, I would think he'd be apt to follow his inquisitor to the best of his abilities. Olliver followed Burton along without correction as Burton used the term "boat" to refer to both Titanic and her lifeboats. Olliver certainly never contradicts Burton...at no time does Olliver use the term "ship" when the question preceding it asked about the "boat." Senator Burton even uses the term interchangeably, but who cares about that? The only time I would see Olliver correcting Burton (if he felt he had to, that is) was if Burton made an obvious error, like confusing the ship's hull for an emergency cutter.

So, when I read the flow of the conversation below, it sounds to me that Olliver is using "boat" to describe the ship:

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Senator BURTON. Was it 100 feet? Did it rub against the boat behind where you were?
Mr. OLLIVER. Not behind where I was. It did not, to my knowledge, rub behind where I was; it was before.
Senator BURTON. You can not tell, then, for how many feet it rubbed against the boat?
Mr. OLLIVER. No, sir.
Senator BURTON. But you think it got away from the boat before the place where you were?
Mr. OLLIVER. Yes, sir.

Concerning the tip touching the boat...you're thinking vertically, I'm thinking laterally. In this statement:

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Mr. OLLIVER. The iceberg was about the height of the boat deck; if anything, just a little higher. It was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was almost alongside of the boat.

I read that as meaning that the tip of the iceberg (the portion Olliver could see) passed close by the hull, but did not touch it. Maybe he could have said "...the side" like you mentioned, but he didn't.

It's ironic that you and I were actually in agreement in the beginning. I thought Olliver was on the port side of the ship, so naturally, the iceberg would have had to have been taller than the Boat Deck for Olliver to see it across the bridge. Now that I'm convinced Olliver was on the starboard side, the iceberg just got a little smaller. Not much, but a little.

Parks

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Cal, I don't think that you're making an ass of yourself. We're just projecting our own perspectives onto a person's testimony. To me, this is no big deal, because I have used "boat" and "ship" interchangeably throughout my life. Maybe because of that, I see Olliver using "boat" to refer to Titanic in the following statement:

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Mr. OLLIVER. The iceberg was about the height of the boat deck; if anything, just a little higher. It was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was almost alongside of the boat.

However, more telling to me was that Olliver obviously knew Senator Burton was referring to Titanic when asked about the "boat:"

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Senator BURTON. What was your position on the boat?
Mr. OLLIVER. Quartermaster.
(...)
Senator BURTON. Were there cries and moaning from the place where the boat had sunk?
Mr. OLLIVER. Yes. It lasted about 10 minutes.
(...)
Senator BURTON. So far as danger of capsizing is concerned, after the boat had sunk you could have gone back, could you not?
Mr. OLLIVER. Yes, sir; we could have gone back.
(...)
Senator BURTON. Did you see the boat sink?
Mr. OLLIVER. I can not say that I saw it right plain; but to my imagination I did, because the lights went out before she went down.

Now, none of this really indicates what term Olliver personally used to refer to Titanic; rather, it shows more of Olliver following Burton's preference. Maybe Olliver used "boat" in private conversation, maybe he used "ship"...the Senate Inquiry was probably not the place for a glimpse into Olliver's personal preferences. In this instance, being questioned by a high personage in a foreign country, I would think he'd be apt to follow his inquisitor to the best of his abilities. Olliver followed Burton along without correction as Burton used the term "boat" to refer to both Titanic and her lifeboats. Olliver certainly never contradicts Burton...at no time does Olliver use the term "ship" when the question preceding it asked about the "boat." Senator Burton even uses the term interchangeably, but who cares about that? The only time I would see Olliver correcting Burton (if he felt he had to, that is) was if Burton made an obvious error, like confusing the ship's hull for an emergency cutter.

So, when I read the flow of the conversation below, it sounds to me that Olliver is using "boat" to describe the ship:

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Senator BURTON. Was it 100 feet? Did it rub against the boat behind where you were?
Mr. OLLIVER. Not behind where I was. It did not, to my knowledge, rub behind where I was; it was before.
Senator BURTON. You can not tell, then, for how many feet it rubbed against the boat?
Mr. OLLIVER. No, sir.
Senator BURTON. But you think it got away from the boat before the place where you were?
Mr. OLLIVER. Yes, sir.

Concerning the tip touching the boat...you're thinking vertically, I'm thinking laterally. In this statement:

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Mr. OLLIVER. The iceberg was about the height of the boat deck; if anything, just a little higher. It was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was almost alongside of the boat.

I read that as meaning that the tip of the iceberg (the portion Olliver could see) passed close by the hull, but did not touch it. Maybe he could have said "...the side" like you mentioned, but he didn't.

It's ironic that you and I were actually in agreement in the beginning. I thought Olliver was on the port side of the ship, so naturally, the iceberg would have had to have been taller than the Boat Deck for Olliver to see it across the bridge. Now that I'm convinced Olliver was on the starboard side, the iceberg just got a little smaller. Not much, but a little.

Parks

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Geez, I'll bet I've given more thought to nautical terminology in the past day than I have in a 20+ year career at sea. I should have paid more attention to the way I talked back then.

Parks

P.S. Why did the system post my last message twice?

 

[Cal Haines]

Hi Parks,

Burton's use of "boat" and Olliver going along is not the same thing as Olliver using the word himself. I'm not surprised that Olliver did not correct him: a) it's not that big of a deal--just shows Burton is "nautically challenged", b) I'm sure Olliver was more that just a little awed by the whole thing--I know I would be. Not that all of these guys were completely cowed:

---

Quote:

1873. (The Solicitor-General) ... Where did the water come from?
(Barrett) Well, out of the sea, I expect.

(I have often wondered if a tittering was heard in Lord Mersey's court.)

---

​

---

---

But back to Olliver and the iceberg (sound's like something from Dr. Seuss, eh?) I find it telling that there is only the one place where Olliver arguably might have used "boat" to referr to Titanic, and that's the quote "before the bar" as it were.

Re. the double post: I had that happen to me once. You probably hit the wrong button while editing. If you act quick you can use the "Edit" feature go back in and delete the text out of the duplicate (maybe paste in a naughty limerick).

Warm Regards,

Cal

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Cal,

Well, I've run out of ideas. Like I said, you're looking at Olliver's testimony from your perspective, I'm interpreting it from mine. Only Olliver himself can say for sure what he saw.

Parks

 

[Dave Gittins]

For the record, here's a transcription of Boxhall and his cup of tea story.

"At the time when the iceberg was reported from the crow’s nest, when they struck the bells, I was sitting in my cabin having a cup of tea, and immediately got up and walked along to the bridge about 60 feet away on the same deck. I was about halfway between the officers’ quarters, the entrance to the officers’ quarters, and the bridge when the crash came and it didn’t break my step. She was doing full speed and it didn’t break my step."

 

[George Behe]

It now occurs to me why I've always believed that Olliver observed the berg from the port side of the ship -- it was because Boxhall *failed* to see the berg from his own position on the starboard side. (I suspect Boxhall's view of the tip of the berg was blocked by his being so close to the starboard lifeboats.)

All my best,

George

 

[David G. Brown]

Any officer sitting in his room having a cup of tea during his scheduled watch should have been looking for work in New York! Captain Smith should have thrown such a slackard off the boat (ship?) without ceremony.

Based on his story, Boxhall was either a "goldbrick" or a liar, and probably both. Based on his performance that night, he was neither. We are left with only one option, he lied about being in his cabin just as he lied about not seeing the iceberg -- but he performed his duties as required. This puts him in the same category as Lightolloer and Lowe: good officers who did their jobs, but who also twisted the truth a bit after the fact.

Even with the window of his cabin open, I doubt Boxhall could have heard the lookout's bell. The ship was making better than 20 knots, so there was a lot of wind to disrupt the sound. His cabin was at least 150 feet from the bell. Remember, Olliver did not hear the bell and he was outside, on deck, approximately the same distance from the crow's nest.

Right after Boxhall told Senator Smith that he did not see the iceberg, the fourth officer described in some detail its appearance and its height as well as how it moved down the side of the ship. Either Boxhall saw a video replay of the accident, or he was lying about not seeing the iceberg.

Olliver and Boxhall did not report seeing each other even though they were walking forward and entering the bridge at exactly the same time. If they did not see each other, then if Olliver was on the starboard boat deck, Boxhall was not.

Based on the information about Boxhall's illness, he was likely "coming down" with something that night. That makes his sipping tea plausible.

Based on his testimony, Boxhall saw the berg go down the starboard side of the ship.

Based on Olliver's testimony, Boxhall took no active part in the maneuvering around the iceberg.

Where is the one place on the ship where Boxhall could have enjoyed a bit of shelter while warming himself with a cup of tea and from which he could have seen the iceberg?

Obviously, neither the chart room nor Boxhall's own cabin give visibility of the iceberg. Nor could he have been in the wheelhouse because of its limited visibility to the side of the ship. It is just possible that Boxhall could have been in the center of the enclosed bridge, but this is still not a good enough vantage point.

The one sheltered vantage point where a man in the first stages of illness could sip tea and watch the iceberg was the starboard bridge wing. If Olliver went up the stbd boat deck, an officer inside the stbd wing would not have attracted his attention. After the iceberg passed, Boxhall would have walked past the captain's quarters, just as he described, to enter the enclosed bridge and observe Murdoch speaking to Captain Smith.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Pat Cook]

This is only my opinion here.

First, I agree with George that Olliver was coming up on the port side and would not have seen Boxhall.

Second, Boxhall (in the US hearings) added a bit with regards to whether or not he saw the berg.
____________________

p. 230:

BOXHALL: We all walked out the corner of the bridge then to look at the iceberg.

Sen. SMITH: The captain?

BOXHALL: The captain, first officer and myself.

SMITH: Did you see it?

BOXHALL: I was not very sure of seeing it. It seemed to me to be just a small black mass not rising very high out of the water, just a little on the starboard quarter.
__________________

So he does not say for certain he did not see it, only that he saw something that he was not sure of, describing what he THOUGHT he saw.

As for his being a slacker or a liar, we all end up making up our own minds on these sorts of labels.

Best regards,
Cook

 

[David G. Brown]

Cook -- I used the terms "slacker" and "liar" because they don't seem to fit Boxhall in any context, even this one. But, there does seem to be a slip between cup and lip with regard to his testimony and the other details surrounding the events. The great joy in discussing the unknowable is that even those who are wrong don't know it...including me.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Pat Cook]

Oh, no offense taken, David! I fully (hopefully) understood your points and was just making the point that, as you pointed out, some may call Boxhall (and others) names, it is ultimately up to each of us to make our own decisions. There is so much of the aggressive 'arm twisting' in recruiting others to one's side occasionally on this (and other) forums.

By the way, a very good friend (Rosanne MacIntyre) gave me your book for Christmas and, as soon as I finish the one I'm in now ('Dear Dodie'), I intend to enjoy it thoroughly.

Best regards,
Cook

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Dave,

Small quibble of fact here...Olliver did hear the lookout's bell. It's what caught his attention and prompted him to go forward. He was also back between the 2nd and 3rd funnels, whereas Boxhall's stateroom is in the vicinity of the 1st funnel, which means Olliver was about as far away from Boxhall as Boxhall was from the crow's nest.

You're right, though, about taking time off in his cabin while on watch. Compare Lowe's description of being on watch to Boxhall's actions. I'm surprised Boxhall even admitted to being in his cabin. Maybe that's the whole of it, maybe not.

Another reason why I originally thought Olliver came up the port side of the ship is because he doesn't really "place" with the activity taking place on the starboard side. However, he was a mere roving QM...without an active role, there's no reason why he should have come up in others' (specifically, Boxhall's) testimony.

Another quibble of fact...Boxhall wouldn't pass by Smith's cabin from the starboard bridge cab. Not that that matters...I don't believe Smith was in his cabin, anyway.

I'm still working on a more detailed response, based on your message a night ago.

Parks

 

[David G. Brown]

Parks -- you are right regarding Olliver. I've put my Titanic references on the shelf in favor of 1913 Great Lakes material. So, I'm working from a most fallible memory. With regard to the captain's cabin, I am refering to the window on the front of Smith's "navigation room" and not his actual living quarters.

Parks-- the messages of a night ago: please recal I was somewhat sedated!

-- David G. Brown

 

[Parks Stephenson]

please recall I was somewhat sedated!

Dave,

Who here isn't?

Parks

P.S. For what it's worth, if I had to take a guess as to where Smith was standing at the moment of collision, I would say in that Nav Room you mentioned.

 

[Cal Haines]

Hi Guys,

Just when I thought the thread was winding down, a sudden new surge of life.

As far as Olliver and Boxhall not mentioning each other, there several explanations (other than positing that they were on opposite sides of the deck house). One of them (take your pick) didn't see the other because the other man was behind. The man in back probably did see the man in front, it's just that there was nothing unusual about seeing a fellow watch-stander walking onto the bridge. The magnitude of the events that soon followed would far overshadow such a mundane observation as Olliver seeing Boxhall or vise-versa. (IIRC) Neither man is asked about the other or asked to list all who were on the bridge and when they arrived. They simply talk about those who did something. Olliver's job, at the moment, was to stand around and wait for an errand to run; Boxhall's job was much the same. With Murdock on the bridge, Boxhall's job was to stand and watch, waiting for orders. Neither one would have attracted attention just by being there or by not doing anything.

This sort of thing comes up all the time in car accidents: Witness A does not see witness B and vise-versa because neither one was doing anything unusual and much more striking things were happening. Next time you get out of your car, ask yourself how many vehicles you passed during the course of your drive that you could actually list if you were in a court of law. Then ask yourself why you took note of those vehicles. There will always be something unusual that caused you to remember them. All the other cars, pedestrians, bicycles, chickens, goats, etc., that you passed were just part of the scenery. I suspect that Boxhall and Olliver were just part of the scenery too, no more or less important than the handle on the wheelhouse door and about as likely to be commented on.

To David:
If Boxhall were in the bridge-wing enclosure, why wouldn't he just say so? I can't think of a single reason to lie about such a thing, can you? Now if we were to find evidence that Joe were doing something naughty in there with the Countess of Rothes, you might have a reason.

Warm Regards,

Cal