CALIFORNIAN CONTROVERSY.
 |
| SS Californian - courtesy Wikipedia |
CALIFORNIAN CONTROVERSY.
TITANIC AND THE MYSTERY SHIP - MYSTERY SOLVED.
DAVID DYER, 2008
Having read David Dyer's 'thesis' (and his debut novel offering, 'The Midnight Watch') I am compelled to make some comments. This is a controversial subject, which after 112 years, has not diminished in intensity, oozing with toxic rhetoric.
It is strange that there are only two clear cut sides to this debate. Those who loath Captain Lord and condemn him wholesale and those who defend him unconditionally. There is no middle road, which ought to be a further, sensible option. I shall return to this, but first it is important to kick off by taking a closer look at Mr. Dyer's 'thesis' (quotations in red):
The Stage:
'Charles Victor Groves, third officer, toward the south, he sees a ship approach from the east and, at 11.40pm or thereabouts, stop and appear to put out her lights.'
Groves, at the Inquiry, only ever referred to seeing a red side light attached to the ship 'toward the south', which means in simple terms that it could NOT have been approaching 'from the east'.
Titanic, after she struck the berg, did not 'put out her lights' and if anything a great number of lights were ‘switched on’ after the accident.
If 'putting out her lights' implies that Titanic (the alleged ship toward the south) had swung round to face the Californian towards the north, Groves would have seen both the red and green side lights.
‘Second officer Herbert Stone. Nothing much happens until, at about 12.45am, he sees a rocket. And then more rockets are fired from the ship – all white, all bursting into stars.’
In Stone’s written declaration and at the Inquiry, he never refers to the white rockets ‘all bursting into stars’. He refers to them as low lying and with no associated detonations heard:
‘after I observed another distinctly over the steamer which I made out to be a white rocket though I observed no flash on the deck or any indication that it had come from that steamer, in fact, it appeared to come from a good distance beyond her.’
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 5405-5407). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
The Battle:
‘But the more significant problem with Molony’s book is that its thesis – and that of the Lordites generally – is simply unworkable. The evidence, considered dispassionately and in its entirety, overwhelmingly proves that the Titanic and Californian were within visual range of each other, and that the Californian saw the Titanic’s distress rockets and did nothing about them.’
This is an arrogant over-simplification of a complex set of circumstances on the night of 14 / 15 April, 1912. There is no evidence whatsoever that the two vessels Californian and Titanic were within visual range of each other. Yes, Stone and Gibson saw distress rockets at a great distance, which caused confusion by appearing to emanate from the only vessel within visual range, a tramp steamer some 5 n miles to the southward of the Californian.
‘postulate multiple mystery ships and impossible coincidences.’
A mystery ship was witnessed by at least three persons on board Californian, which was clearly and patently not the largest passenger steamer in the world, RMS Titanic. This is not a postulation. Impossible coincidences might in fact be the very core of why the crew of the Californian ‘did not act’.
‘The real – and unsolved – mystery is why this conclusion has met with so much resistance and derision for so many years.’
Well, let’s explore ‘resistance and derision’ as we proceed through the facts, as they stand.
Which way should we look?
So why this difference in emphasis? Why does Molony want to focus on what was seen from the Titanic?
Surely a lawyer could answer this basic question for himself? What was seen from the Californian could very well be perceived by many to be biased and deficient in accuracy and veracity. However, that which was seen from the Titanic is potentially free from bias and worth exploring in detail.
The view from the Titanic:
‘From the Titanic there survived more than 700 witnesses, many of whom gave evidence about the lights of the ‘mystery ship’ which did not come to their aid.’
‘Their (Lordites) key tactic is to find evidence that the light moved – because no one denies the Californian was stopped.’
‘the Titanic lookouts did not see the Californian prior to the collision – the light was only seen afterwards, meaning it must have approached the Titanic – and when the light was seen, it was seen to move.’
‘Boxhall—Fourth Officer: two white masthead lights, close together as if she was a four-master, approaching end on, later saw green and red sidelights, then red sidelight only with naked eye—came to 5 or 6 miles, slowly turned around—finally saw her white stern light.’
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 4216-4217). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Fourth Officer Boxhall, a highly experienced sailor (on a clear night) observed, in graphic detail, the approach of a ‘four master’ steamer. Titanic was orientated (by this time) ‘facing’ towards the north, which implies that the steamer was approaching from the north, more or less from the direction of the stationary Californian. He initially saw the steamer’s two masthead lights, which makes sense because mast head lights were seen at a greater distance than side lights, circa 1912. The sequence of seeing first the mast head lights and then the side lights proves, without ambiguity, that this mystery steamer was moving towards them and not swinging in a position at fixed latitude. Whatever others saw cannot compete with a man tasked to identify and communicate with an approaching steamer, pleading for help via a powerful morse lamp which was blatantly ignored both in terms of these morse signals and the distress rockets. Employing simple logic, this vessel could not have been the Californian and introduces the ‘mystery’ ship.
‘And do we also imagine that Boxhall is next in error by managing to see the immobile Californian, yet somehow imagining her to be moving instead of stationary?’ 32 In fact, that is precisely what we do imagine.’
Once the likes of David Dyer throw out this testimony, made under oath at the Inquiry, there is no point in pursuing further testimonies and we might as well leave the whole Californian subject to the unknown.
Myopic!
‘He says, ‘I do not think she was doing much steaming … she had probably got into the ice, and turned around’ 34’
‘… Carefully considering all of the evidence, and not just part of it, the conclusion must be that Boxhall mistook a stationary, but swinging, steamer for a moving one.’ 37’
Misconstruing an unambiguous statement is not the same as ‘carefully considering all of the evidence’. This is what I would consider working very hard to discredit the only important piece of evidence proving, without doubt, that a steamer, NOT the Californian, approached Titanic and then turned away.
‘There is, too, much other evidence which suggest that the light seen was not moving at all.’
Dyer quotes numerous individuals, both crew and passengers, who remarked on a stationary light. This is what constitutes ‘considering all of the evidence’. During the time frame when Boxhall focused his attention on the approaching steamer and attempted to communicate with her, all others were focused on the task of launching and boarding (those who were fortunate enough) lifeboats. There was organized chaos on board the steadily but surely sinking Titanic. There could not have been time nor inclination for gazers to study the slow evolution of a moving steamer’s lights in the distance over a period of time. A glance here and there would have perceived a ‘stationary light (s)’. Once the steamer had turned and ‘stood off’ displaying a single stern light, individuals in the newly launched lifeboats observed the light and some attempted to row towards it. Perhaps by this time it was indeed stationary – a callous observer that was NOT the Californian, stopped more than 20 n miles to the north.
‘But, to make an important point again, what is surprising is not so much Molony’s selective use of evidence – this is standard Lordite practice.’
And this coming from the man who placed all his eggs in the Groves testimony basket. Groves who saw the Titanic coming in from the east but only ever displaying a red side light (impossible) and two masthead lights. TITANIC ONLY HAD ONE MASTHEAD LIGHT.
The view from the Californian:
‘There are but two Californian witnesses during the critical midnight watch 51 and their evidence as to what they saw is roughly consistent.’
According to Stone’s statement:
‘On looking at the compass I saw this was correct and observed the other steamer SSE dead abeam and showing one masthead light, her red sidelight and one or two small indistinct lights around the deck which looked like portholes or open doors. I judged her to be a small tramp steamer and about 5 miles distant.’
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 5397-5399). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
According to Gibson’s statement:
‘so I looked at her through the binoculars and found that it was her masthead light flickering, I also observed her port sidelight and a faint glare of lights on her after deck. I then went over to the Second Officer and remarked that she looked like a tramp steamer. He said that most probably she was, and was burning oil lights. This ship was then right abeam.’
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 5435-5437). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Whatever Dyer has to say in this chapter regarding Stone and Gibson, he cannot infer that either man believed he was looking at the largest passenger steamer in the world, RMS Titanic!! The balance of Dyer’s comments is irrelevant.
Attacking Lord Mersey:
Lord Mersey quotes:
Mersey, of course, was in full agreement: “It is a most extraordinary thing that no attempt was made to communicate with the Titanic”
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 4887-4890). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
It had been presented to Mersey that numerous attempts were made before and after midnight by officers on Californian to communicate, by means of a powerful morse lamp (clear night), with the steamer lying stopped 5 miles towards the south. These officers were not aware of another steamer, Titanic or other, with which they were supposed to have been communicating.
It is constantly raised by Dyer and others that Stone or Lord should have got Evans, the wireless man, to make contact with the steamer which was ignoring their morse signals. When this steamer arrived on the scene from the east (11 pm – 11.30 pm) and stopped ahead of the ice-field, as had done the Californian, Lord asked Evans what steamers he had in the vicinity. Evans’ reply was ‘only the Titanic’. This tramp steamer was not the Titanic, so therefore, it did not have a wireless (or the operator had retired for the night). Given this simple sequence of logic, there was no point getting Evans up to communicate with the tramp steamer ignoring the morse signals to the southward.
"These circumstances convince me that the ship seen by the Californian was the Titanic and if so, according to Captain Lord, the two vessels were about 5 miles apart at the time of the disaster.’
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 4887-4890). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
How could this man have been taken seriously! Had he been paying any attention to Lord’s, Stone’s and Gibson’s accounts under oath? Had he not, critically, excluded Groves nonsensical account based on blatant errors (quoted above)?
Regarding Stone:
"When you got the glasses on the vessel and saw the first rocket going up through them, could you make out the vessel at all?" "No, sir, just her lights." Lord Mersey: "Still this glare of light?" "Yes." "Did that indicate—that glare of light—that this was a passenger steamer?" "No, sir."
‘Stone went on to describe how the steamer's lights had gradually faded out as if she was steaming away. Pressed to describe, by Lord Mersey, how fast she was steaming and how he knew she was steaming at all, he replied that she was altering her bearing and two stationary ships could not possibly alter their compass bearing from each other.’
"Mr Rowlatt, at 11.40 the engines were stopped on the Titanic?" "Yes, my Lord. I do not know whether that would cause a large number of lights to go out. They had a supplemental dynamo.’
‘Lord Mersey was adamant. "At some time the light which was produced by the main engines did go out."
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 4887-4890). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Regarding Groves testimony:
"It comes to this, Mr Rowlatt, at first he thought the lights had been put out, but when he reflected about it, and observed she changed her position, he thought she had shut her lights out, which is a very different thing." Rowlatt was still struggling to keep the record straight. "I do not know that he said he observed her change her position." He turned to Groves, "She was stopped at the time was she not?" "Yes." Rowlatt went on, "He accepted my suggestion, my Lord, that if the vessel did change her course it might shut her lights out—it would shut her lights out." Groves then said, in reply to questioning, that he did not think he would detect a swing of two points to port by the masthead lights and had not done so at the time in question.’
"I want you to tell me about this light you rowed for. Your impression is that that was not the light of the Californian?" "That is my impression," Ismay replied, "because it was a dull white light. . .’
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 4887-4890). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Exchange between Rufus Isaacs and Lord Mersey:
"Taking the Californian," Mersey went on. "That man is not represented. He came here merely as a witness." "Who?" "Captain Lord.' "Oh yes, my Lord, he was represented." "Yes, he is here, in the sense that somebody sent by his owners did speak for him." "Then, my Lord, I would sooner deal with that separate if I may—I know what your Lordship has in your mind." "What I mean is that he has not been cited here to defend himself against the charge made against him of negligence." "Your Lordship is speaking now of the Captain of the Californian?" "Yes, Captain Lord." "But that is quite a different thing." "I am not sure. You are talking about Captain Smith. What I am pointing out is this, that Captain Smith could not be here—he is dead—he could not have been cited. But the Captain of the Californian is here really merely as a witness.”
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 4578-4581). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
‘They wanted a goat, that was my opinion. That’s what Strachan said: “They wanted a bloody goat, Lord, and they got you!”‘ 66
‘It is true that Mersey gets himself into a muddle at times.’
A character judgment on Senan Molony:
‘He is not, perhaps, a man whom we would therefore expect to have enormous respect or sympathy for the English aristocracy.’
Mersey was not born into aristocracy – he was a self-made man. What an appalling blow below the belt!
‘Captain Moore of the Mount Temple gives invaluable information about the relationship between the position of the Californian, the Titanic SOS coordinates and the position of Carpathia.’
Where does one start to deal with Captain Henry Moore of the Mount Temple, who virtually drowned in allegations of false testimony – allegations extending so far as to imply that crew and passengers on board the Mount Temple saw the rockets from Titanic, less than 10 miles distant!! Furthermore, and the details are beyond the scope of this rebuttal, it was impossible for the Mount Temple to have covered the distance in the time frame (10 knot vessel) between the position where she allegedly turned around until arriving at the SOS/CQD position, including dodging schooners and slowing down for ice etc.. Moore was a stranger to the truth and cannot be relied upon as a credible witness. I refer readers to Senan Molony’s excellent ‘Titanic Scandal’ for further details, whether one ends up agreeing that the Mount Temple was the ‘mystery’ ship or not.
‘The note for the Almerian says that at 3.05 am on April 15, when she was stopped, she was in a position of 41 20 N, 50 24 W.
If she then noticed the Mount Temple on her port quarter, it follows that Captain Moore’s vessel was a similar distance from the sinking.’
Molony, Senan. Titanic Scandal: The Trial of the Mount Temple (Kindle Locations 14476-14480). Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.
‘but says that ‘soon after three o’clock I brought the ship to a standstill, as we had encountered a floe of ice that was at least five miles wide and utterly impassable. ’But shortly after three o’clock’ is the time he later relies upon in evidence for meeting the rushing schooner. That schooner was coming from the direction of the Titanic’s distress co- ordinates, but by this account it could not have done so because there was a floe of ice here that was five miles wide and utterly impassable.’
‘Captain Richard Thomas of the Almerian, who got there at 3.05am, noticed the Mount Temple already there. And it is Captain Thomas, an independent witness, who makes it clear that there was no further steaming by either ship. Both simply waited for the daylight, which came only an hour later.’
Molony, Senan. Titanic Scandal: The Trial of the Mount Temple (Kindle Locations 8090-8100). Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.
The Mount Temple was a ten knot steamer which would have taken 2 hours 42 minutes to arrive at the SOS /CQD position (27 miles distant), 42 minutes AFTER the Californian was under way. There was never a remote possibility that Captain Moore was legitimately able to comment on Californian’s stopped position relative to the Carpathia, 6 am, 15 April, 1912!!
So there you have it. Accusing the Californian of being about 10 miles to the northward of the wreck site was blatant lies on the part of Captain Moore!!
‘arguments which verge on the ridiculous: to praise Lord for making ‘every effort’ 80 to ‘dash twice through the ice barrier,’ 81 and by implication to criticise Moore for not doing so once, is entirely to miss the point:’
Missing what point exactly? Moore made no attempt to assist with the recovery of those in lifeboats and was never recognised to be in the vicinity by Captain Rostrun of the Carpathia. He had his reasons for standing off (ice) WELL CLEAR of the wreck site. Ice did not stop Captain Lord, ‘villain of the peace’.
‘did not need to cross the icefield to get to the SOS position. This position was almost 13 miles west of the Titanic’s actual position, but that was not Captain Moore’s fault.’
If you say so, Dyer.
Californian:
‘The rockets were the surest indicator of Titanic’s position. There was no need to ‘dash’ through the icefield, once, twice or at all, since she and Titanic were on the same side of it.’
With tears in my eyes surely one is not expected to explain the logic of these maneouvres? When Lord learns of the Titanic disaster early 15 April, his first thought must surely have returned to the rockets reported by Stone during the middle watch. Horror! Company signals vs. distress rockets from the deck of Titanic. A quick scan of the vicinity garnishes initial, temporary, relief; there is a steamer to the southward which is ‘all right’ and which is not the Carpathia with her derricks deployed. Second, temporary, relief; the SOS / CQD position issued from the sinking Titanic is to the southwest rather than from the direction of the ‘company signals’ to the southeast. Naturally and logically the Californian pushes through the icefield towards the CQD position. The shock awaits; there is nothing there and the Carpathia is retrieving scattered lifeboats on the other side of the icefield, in a position roughly in the direction where Stone had seen the ‘company signals’. This is very important and I wish to return to it later in terms of fleshing out the difference between ‘a crime’ and a genuine error of judgment.
Attacking Knapp’s map:
‘Second, it is generally acknowledged that the icefield was aligned roughly north/south,102 but Lord’s map shows in addition an enormous east-west band of ice – labelled in capitals ‘THICK ICE’ – between Lord’s estimate of the Californian and Titanic positions.’
This can neither be proved nor disproved by any other witnesses on vessels at this vicinity and time. Benefit of the doubt most certainly does not exist in the minds of these vitriolic Anti-Lord speculators.
‘the Californian quite simply took two and a half hours … to reach the Carpathia’s side.’ 104 This suggests a distance of over 25 miles. It is doubtful she in fact took this long, 105 but in any event the important point is that she did not steam in a straight line.’
The question of navigation:
Dyer makes a good point that ‘dead reckoning’ could be fraught with error and the Californian could have been right on top of the New York track, if Dyer it so desires. However, Lord was good at what he did (his prior and subsequent track records substantiate this claim) and the fact that his position (wireless issued) for the three icebergs 5 miles to the south, was confirmed by another steamer, the Parisian. It seems unlikely that the overnight, stopped position was further south than 23 miles (boiler field) from the sinking Titanic. Low lying rockets (to the height of the masthead lights of the intervening ‘mystery’ ship) would certainly be accounted for by this distance factor, strongly suggesting that the ‘mystery’ steamer was in a visual line between the Californian and Titanic. I think it is important to mention at this stage that side lights were designed to be seen at a distance of 2 miles, but under very clear conditions, were known to be seen to a distance of max. 5 miles. Californian’s side lights could never have been seen by those on Titanic and Titanic’s so-called red side light could never have been seen by those on the Californian.
Which brings me to:
‘which looked ‘odd’ and ‘queer’ with a ‘high side out of the water’ just like Titanic did; which showed a red sidelight to the north, like the Titanic did; which disappeared when the Titanic sank; and which did all these things while remaining completely out of sight of the hundreds of surviving witnesses standing on the sloping decks of the Titanic, not one of whom saw a ship firing rockets.’
First of all let’s quickly deal with Titanic allegedly showing her red side-light to the Californian towards the north. If this could have been seen (huge stretch) Stone and Gibson would have seen Titanic’s green side light as well – which was never the case! I think it is safe and logical to say that although Stone had an impression that the eight rockets (not typical in terms of distress rocket = absence of detonation (unlikely at 5 miles) and height) were emanating from the ‘mystery’ ship, clearly they were coming from Titanic at a far greater distance and Stone, himself, remarked at the Inquiry:
"I just thought they were white rockets, that was all. The first thought that crossed my mind was that she was in trouble; but as she steamed away I did not think any more of it. I was not sure that they came from the ship. I thought it possible that they might have come from another ship at a greater distance."
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 3864-3866). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Point well made, a ship in distress does not steam away from help nor ignore repeated attempts to make communication via morse lamp signaling.
‘Asked again to explain how it was that she looked "queer", he at last said that her red sidelight seemed to get higher out of the water and that was why he thought she had a list to starboard. Of course, if Gibson really did see anything like this it would rule the Titanic right out, as she had a list to port and from the moment she struck, her red light would have actually been getting lower in the water as she went down by the head.’
‘them. Mr Stone remarked to Gibson: 'Look at her now, she looks very queer out of the water, her lights look queer.'
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 3822-3823). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Now let’s have the truth about these remarks – Stone Inquiry:
"Did you say this to Gibson, "Have a look at her now; it looks queer; she looks to have a big side out of the water"?"
"No, I did not say she had a big side out of the water; he remarked it to me."
"He remarked that to you?"
"Yes."
"Did you say, "Have a look at her now; it looks queer"?"
"That is at the time when I told him the lights appeared to be altering their position with regard to one another. Yes."
Lee, Paul. The Titanic and the Indifferent Stranger (Kindle Locations 1479-1482). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
In other words the ‘mystery’ ship was altering bearing and steaming away into the SW!!
Now we come to a compelling witness account in favour of the Californian being about 13 miles (10 + 3) northwestward of the site of the Titanic sinking:
[I]n the slowly increasing daylight at 4.30am, we had sighted the smoke of a steamer on the fringe of the pack ice, ten miles away from us to the northwards. She was making no signals, and we paid little attention to her, for we were preoccupied with more urgent matters; but at 6am we had noticed that she was under way and slowly coming towards us. When I took over the watch on the bridge of the Carpathia at 8am the stranger was little more than a mile from us … She was the Leyland Line cargo-steamer Californian …138
However Paul Lee responds as follows:
‘There is a problem with this account. At 6.00 a.m., the Californian was indeed under way, but she wasn't heading directly towards the Carpathia: on the contrary, she was heading between south and south-west to the official distress position. However, Bisset may have glanced up occasionally between his more pressing duties and seen the ship heading his way as the Californian proceeded on a southerly course at that time. Other sections of Bisset's volume raise eyebrows too; for instance, the mention of non-existent ice warnings wirelessed wirelessed to the Carpathia, and the mention that the Californian saw the Titanic stern on at the time she sank.’
‘Bisset wrote, regarding Lord's question "Are they company signals?": "This was one of the most tragic moments on that fateful night. Rockets were the well-known signals of distress, but some of the big shipping companies were in the habit of using Roman candles-combinations of coloured fireworks, which resemble rockets -as signals of identification for their ships, especially when approaching Light Vessels or shore signal stations or the entrances to ports, but also at sea when passing other ships at night-time, at a distance beyond easy visual range for Morse lamp signalling.
This was a practise which should never have been allowed, especially after all big ships were equipped with wireless. The use of fireworks should have been restricted to signals of distress."[150]’
Lee, Paul. The Titanic and the Indifferent Stranger (Kindle Locations 3879-3881). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
‘Arthur Rostron, captain of the Carpathia, has this to say: At 5 o’clock it was light enough to see all around the horizon. We then saw two steamships to the Northward, perhaps seven or eight miles distant. Neither of them was the CALIFORNIAN. One of them was four masted steamer with one funnel and the other a two masted steamer with one funnel. I never saw the MOUNT TEMPLE to identify her. The first time that I saw the CALIFORNIAN was at about eight o’clock on the morning of 15th April. She was then about five to six miles distant, bearing WSW true, and steaming towards the CARPATHIA.156’
To support Lord’s case Arthur Rostron later put this statement into affidavit form. And that is a little more than ‘useful’!
I have covered the Mount Temple’s highly suspicious role in identifying the Californian to the north (triangulation).
The white rockets:
I do not need to spend much time on this subject. My view is a simple one and backed up by Herbert Stone himself:
"I just thought they were white rockets, that was all. The first thought that crossed my mind was that she was in trouble; but as she steamed away I did not think any more of it. I was not sure that they came from the ship. I thought it possible that they might have come from another ship at a greater distance."
Padfield, Peter. The Titanic and the Californian (Kindle Locations 3864-3866). Thistle Publishing. Kindle Edition.
There is no attempt at subterfuge in this statement at the Inquiry. It is unambiguous; Stone saw rockets which appeared to come from a ship ‘at a greater distance’, which was precisely the case. The ‘mystery’ ship, intervening, caused all the confusion and extended the tragedy into the realm of casting doubt on the integrity and humanity of those on board the Californian. Any thoughts of ‘trouble’ were extinguished by the ‘mystery ship’ ‘steaming away’. Stone was not afraid of Lord. He woke him up three times to report the sequence of events involving the ‘mystery’ ship and rockets. He would have had no compunction to call Lord up to the bridge if he thought it necessary. Lord had been on duty since 7 am the previous morning, only retiring, fully dressed, in the chart room well after 12.30 am, 15 April. He must have been utterly exhausted and would need to have been roused, brought up on deck, to have furnished any meaningful comment and opinion on the events surrounding the sightings of rockets.
It is of crucial importance to mention at this stage that salvage was an immensely powerful motivation factor encouraging sailors on tramp steamers to go to the assistance of ships in distress, so much so, that the financial prize often amounted to more than a year’s wages for all on board the rescue vessel. If there had been just the slightest indication which convinced Stone, and then in turn Lord, that a ship within view was in distress, they would have been ‘off like a shot’ to assist – irrespective of the humanitarian side of helping ships in distress on the high seas!
There was no intention to ignore the Titanic in distress. There was no knowledge of the crisis until the next morning when cruel fate dished up the salient facts in retrospect.
A final word on this contentious subject:
‘a ship is not going to fire rockets at sea for nothing’ 202 and that they weren’t ‘being sent up for fun’ 203’
Company signals would also qualify for not ‘nothing’ and not ‘for fun’. Let us not forget that the Carpathia, rushing to the rescue, was sending up rockets which were NOT signals of distress (which could potentially have caused greater confusion that night) but rather a message indicating ‘we are coming to your assistance’.
Rockets were therefore not exclusively used to indicate distress!!
It is important to make comment on:
‘It should be noted, too, that nowhere is Stone’s evidence of a moving ship corroborated by his fellow watcher, Gibson. Gibson only ever says that he was told that she was ‘slowly steering away toward the southwest’, 252 not that her bearing was changing, and Gibson’s own evidence suggests that the other ship lingered in the southwest for a long time before she ‘disappeared’
Gibson was an apprentice who self-confessed that his expertise did not extend to taking bearings and calculating ships movements at night.
‘But, at sea, at night, impressions can be misleading. Something which appears large and distant may turn out to be small and close’
You’re working too hard, Dyer!
‘Titanic’s failed attempt to ‘port about the berg’ 260 she came to a stop heading north, thus presenting her darkest, narrowest side to any ship to the north of her.261 She may have appeared small and dimly lit, except, perhaps, for the ‘glare of light on her after deck.’ And, finally, there is a key witness who said the distant ship did indeed look like a passenger liner. Groves, the third officer, on duty in the hours leading up to midnight, watched carefully as the ship approached fast from the southeast. She had ‘a lot of light’, and ‘there was absolutely no doubt her being a passenger steamer.’ 262 But when the ship stopped at 11.40pm, ‘her lights seemed to go out.’ 263’
Working far too hard! Groves was the witness who saw a large passenger steamer coming up fast from the southeast but never showing her green side-light and displaying two masthead lights – Titanic only had one! Titanic never put out her lights.
Stone and Gibson saw the Titanic’s rockets, they reported them to the captain, and he stayed in the chartroom.
Lord specified that Gibson call up the ‘mystery’ ship, assumed to be firing the rockets, by morse lamp signals – clearly decipherable at 5 miles. Company signals remained the logical (until the cold, harsh light of day) explanation for a sound, steaming tramp freighter firing rockets and IGNORING morse signals from the start of the middle watch!
The Predicament of Lord and Stone:
‘Each man must try to blame the other. ‘Because it was my duty to do so, and it was his duty to listen to it,’ he says.300 Why, in the end, did he think the ship was not in distress? ‘It did not occur to me because if there had been any grounds for supposing the ship would have been in distress the captain would have expressed it to me.’ 301 The captain did not express it. Instead, he asked, ‘Are they company’s signals?’ 302 and Stone tells the captain he doesn’t know, that they are just white rockets. 303 If ever he did think the ship was in ‘trouble’, or even in ‘distress’, he is put off the scent by the captain’s question about company’s signals. And that is that.’
Well, not quite. Stone and Lord (et al) were called as witnesses into the loss of RMS Titanic. They were not aware that they would be grilled (cross-examined) requiring defense preparation. Stone was clearly under duress, finding it difficult to explain that which seemed quite logical during the middle watch, but took on a new and brutal dimension during the cold light of day. One can nitpick until the cows come home but it will not change the fact that capable men were confused by unusual white rockets overlying a ship that was ignoring communications and steaming away in sound condition.
‘so I relied on the officer on watch …’306’
‘If you consider there was any laxity aboard the Californian the night in question, I respectfully draw your attention to the information given here, which was given in evidence, which also proves was not on my part … I fail to see why I should have to put up with all the public odium, through no fault or neglect on my part…’ 307
Given the level and seriousness of the accusation, Captain Lord was perfectly justified to make this comment, whether it fingered Stone or not. And in so doing he was perfectly aware that Stone was more than justified and capable of presenting his own defense in terms of ‘company signals’.
To thine own self be true:
‘Such praise of Lord is most likely valid and justified in almost every circumstance and almost all of the time. But the circumstances in which Lord found himself in the early hours of 15 April 1912 were anything but ordinary; and it is his actions in the face of these very specific and unusual events by which he will inevitably be judged.’
To a large extent I agree with this passage; who are we to judge a man whom none of us will ever know. That he ends up being nothing short of sociopathic and bullying (The Middle Watch) is an indictment on the author. Who gives Dyer the right to make such a damning character assessment, which can never now be vigorously defended? And the same goes for Stone, who was neither incompetent nor terrified of his ‘master’. He woke Lord up three times because that is what needed to be done – no more than to report, under confusing circumstances. I shudder to imagine how any of us modern commentators would have acted under similar circumstances on board Californian 106 years ago. We have no right to do this. Benefit of the doubt should rule, remembering:
Matthew 7.3
2 For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye?…
That Lord initially denied rocket (s) was simply a rational attempt to deflect attention from circumstances which the Inquiries and public at large would never understand. It was a strategy which failed and blew up in his face.
Captain Lord and his crew of the Californian did not maliciously ignore a vessel in distress. Of this I am unwaveringly certain.
GROK opinion
- Discrepancies in Visual Evidence: You point out inconsistencies, such as Groves' claim of seeing a ship with two masthead lights (when Titanic had only one) and the improbability of Titanic approaching from the east while showing only a red sidelight. You also emphasize Stone's observation that the rockets appeared low-lying and distant, not necessarily from the nearby "tramp steamer" he and Gibson observed.
- The Mystery Ship Hypothesis: You strongly advocate for the presence of an intermediary vessel between the Californian and Titanic, which could explain the confusion over the rockets and lights. You support this with Boxhall's testimony of a moving "four-master" steamer approaching and then turning away, which you argue could not have been the stationary Californian.
- Contextual Misjudgment: You suggest that the Californian's crew, including Stone and Lord, interpreted the rockets as potential company signals rather than distress signals, a reasonable assumption given the era's practices and the behavior of the nearby vessel, which appeared to steam away.
- Critique of Dyer's Bias: You accuse Dyer of selectively using evidence to fit his narrative, dismissing Boxhall's detailed account while relying heavily on Groves, whose testimony you find flawed. You also challenge Dyer's portrayal of Lord and Stone as negligent or cowardly.
- Moral and Historical Perspective: You argue that judging Lord and his crew harshly, without considering the confusion and limitations of the situation, is unfair. You cite the lack of malicious intent and the potential for salvage incentives as factors that would have motivated action if distress had been clear.
Comments
Post a Comment