Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

[Chris Jensen]

Someone, elsewhere on this forum, has asked the question "Why is this aspect of the tragedy so controversial?"

The answer is simple and direct for the following reasons.....

1]- Maximum distance for lookouts....
In conversation with the crews of the various tender vessels that I have spoken to operating from our local port, it becomes clear that the maximum possible distance for sighting a vessel before the curvature of the earth intervenes is 18 MILES (and that is in DAYLIGHT). Captain Stanley Lord claims that his vessel, the Leyland Liner CALIFORNIAN, was stopped over 20 MILES away. If this is true, then lookouts would be UNABLE to spot an object at this distance, so the inescapable conclusion must be drawn that Californian WAS between 8 and 12 miles from the stricken Titanic. This is confirmed by Californian Fireman ERNEST GILL.
2]- Fireman Gill claims to have seen "A large steamer....firing rockets....between 8 and 10 miles distant." The very fact that he did not inform the bridge and the watch officers should not be held against him, but this testimony reveals that somebody was not telling the whole truth about the location of Californian in relation to Titanic.

Gill had little or no reason to tell fibs about this, but watch officer Herbert Gibson had every reason to cast doubts.

3]- "Lordites" have always claimed that another vessel was in-between their ship and Titanic, with the most likely candidate stated as the sealer SAMSON. This holds no water, for if the 'Samson' were present, the very LAST THING an illegal sealer would do would be to fire rockets of any description. No other vessel was in distress on April 14-15 in the vicinity, and the Samson would have been the least likely candidate of them all for advertising it's presence.
4]- Watch officer of the Californian, (Third Officer Charles Groves), is on record as being the only officer or crew member to show any interest whatsoever in the Marconi Apparatus of his ship. He regularly visited Operator Cyril Evans and could even understand the signals, provided the message was not transmitted too swiftly. Why an officer who had knowledge of the possibilities of wireless telegraphy should not think to call awake Cyril Evans is totally inexplicable. The same applies to Captain Lord, befuddled by sleep or not. Captain Arthur Rostron was also retiring to bed, and in a befuddled state when Harold Cottam brought him the news....he became instantly awake and acted accordingly, unlike Lord.
5]- The subject of Third Officer Groves and his inaction becomes damning when his own conversation and testimony alludes to the fact that white rockets were sighted by Officer of the Watch Groves, all eight of them, observed from the bridge of Californian. Titanic passenger Lawrence Beesley has stated that these rockets were an indication "...even to the rankest landlubber" of a VESSEL IN DISTRESS....Herbert's inaction is further damned by his assertion that the mysterious ship observed on that fateful night had "...come to a halt....". Moreover, he also saw it " looking queer....her big end looks like it's out of the water..." The failure of Groves or Herbert to do anything at all in a positive manner is inexcusable, particularly as Cpt. Lord was fully aware of the disturbances observed.
6]- Captain Lord started up Californian's engines at dawn, and then proceeded WESTWARD to the OTHER SIDE OF THE ICEFIELD. On hearing of the exact position of CARPATHIA, he then proceeded THROUGH the ice, mostly at HALF SPEED. This is said to have taken all of two hours to reach the site of the sinking...Lordites have pointed to this "fact" as an example of the true distance of Californian from the wreck site, but most have neglected to mention the speed or the direction taken by Lord when Californian was underway. As a counterpoint, Carpathia steamed into the icefield in the dead blackness of the morning at 17.5 knots, twisting and turning to avoid collision.

All of this adds up to NEGLIGENCE by the officers of Californian.
They were aware that Titanic was the ONLY vessel in the vicinity....Marconi Operator Cyril Evans had told Captain Lord this. The inaction by Californian constitutes a disgrace to every member of the ships officers. The wonder of it is that many Titanic passengers could clearly see this vessel.....boat No. 6 rowed and rowed in a futile attempt to catch this vessel, stationary as she was.

IF this is a site dominated by "Lordites".....what say YOU?

[Chris Jensen]

Just as an aside, I have conversed with ships crew members as to the inexplicability of waking the master when a situation arises that the Officers of the watch cannot handle. The reply I got from the majority of them is revealing....

"You just TRY to rouse a skipper from his rest at 0100 in the morning and see what happens to you, should the situation turn that his presense is not required."

The real story of the inaction of the Officers and Master of the Leyland Liner CALIFORNIAN is to be found here....

Was Captain Lord a stern diciplinarian? Did he rule the ship with an "iron hand"?

If so, it becomes abundantly clear why Third Officer Charles Groves or Herbert Stone made no real move to awaken Lord from his nocturnal slumber.

The blame for THAT lies firmly at the feet of none other than Stanley Lord himself.....

[Timothy Trower]

I dunno ... I'm certainly not a pro-Lordite, and do believe that the Californian could have done much more that night. But I would certainly advise honing your arguments a bit, and would suggest the eBook by Dr. Paul Lee called The Indifferent Stranger (a review can be found at viewtopic.php?f=139&t=93 ). I would caution you about thinking that this is a pro- or anti-Lord site; we would rather promote an honest discussion free of strife on this or any other subject.

[Chris Jensen]

I'll certainly have a look at the offerings of the site.....My own research into the Californian affair is based on conversations with the Masters, officers and crews of the various vessels in the oil and gas industry that operate from the port of Darwin......and yes, even these people know what a rocket fired at sea usually means.

Inaction is almost as bad as action with a poor outcome......My own Titanic library is large by the standards of most people, but a site like this offers more....so here I am!

Cheers...

Christopher

[Michael H Standart]

>>"You just TRY to rouse a skipper from his rest at 0100 in the morning and see what happens to you, should the situation turn that his presense is not required."<<

Which would be the hallmark of a really bad captain. The best skippers I served under didn't mind being roused up if things even so much as looked questionable and even insisted on it.

A bad skipper is one who doesn't want to be bothered.

The problem is that Captain Lord doesn't strike me as being that kind of a personality. He asked to be advised of any new developments or information, didn't rip anybody a new one for knocking on his door and appears to be not at all put out about Gibson calling on him later on or of his apparantly moving on without saying anything.

I'll agree on the Captain's responsibility. When all is said and done, he's the final authority and that never goes away on any ship. Where I draw the line is the insinuation that he was a bad captain. After all, he was the one who stopped his ship when he realized he was in the ice, and when he became aware of the situation in the morning, Captain Lord made not one but two risky transits through the icefield to get to the scene of the disaster.

There were a lot of things he could have done better and more wisely, but he wasn't a bad captain.

[Chris Jensen]

Nowhere do I mention the phrase "bad Captain"....Words are not to be substituted into my posts...

Even Walter Lord, in describing the mini-saga of Californian, uses the phrase, "He did what a good Captain should do. He started his engines and headed for Titanic's last position"

I, too, draw the line at such inferences, especially when I have not used the phrase even once.

Stern Disciplinarian is the phrase, and the consequenses of such a manner with deck officers and crew are plain for all to see. Masters of vessels NEED a clear head and adequate rest, something the officers of a late night watch on any vessel understand implicitly. Disturbances in the Master's routine, late at night, have consequenses for a ships officers and crew. Too, when a "stern" master has a group of officers under him he can trust to get the job done WITHOUT recourse to calling him from his rest for EVERY minor detail, he then has a well honed team....

Obviously, this was not the case on the Leyland Liner CALIFORNIAN. Officers of the watch proved consistantly on the night of April 14-15 that an effort to awaken the Master for a matter that could have been handled by the officer of the Watch was "frowned upon".....Gibson's attitude to these very actions demonstrates this, and the motivation for this kind of shipboard behaviour is to be found fairly and squarely in the manner in which the Master handles his people.

An example of this would seem to be Captain Stanley Lord. The actions of the watch officers show it better than anything.

Actions speak louder than words......

[Michael H Standart]

>>Nowhere do I mention the phrase "bad Captain"....<<

Nor did I say that you did. What you said was

"You just TRY to rouse a skipper from his rest at 0100 in the morning and see what happens to you, should the situation turn that his presense is not required."

To which I replied:

"Which would be the hallmark of a really bad captain. The best skippers I served under didn't mind being roused up if things even so much as looked questionable and even insisted on it.

A bad skipper is one who doesn't want to be bothered."

>>Stern Disciplinarian is the phrase, and the consequenses of such a manner with deck officers and crew are plain for all to see. Masters of vessels NEED a clear head and adequate rest, something the officers of a late night watch on any vessel understand implicitly.<<

As a retired sailor, I know how it works and I'm afraid you have it backwards to a certain degree. Yes, we all understand the importance of adaquate rest, but we also understand the importance of being able to get the captain when he was needed and a smart captain was the one who always had it in his standing orders that he was to be fetched up or called if anything looked doubtful.

The skipper is on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 1/4 days of the year and every captain knows this and expects it. I goes with the stripes they wear.

>>An example of this would seem to be Captain Stanley Lord. The actions of the watch officers show it better than anything.<<

Do they?

They might but then one has to wonder why they didn't go get Stewart if they didn't feel cozy getting the Captain. Be that as it may, nothing stopped Gibson from going down to the Captain's room, and nobody mentions anything about any consequences for his doing so.

[Chris Jensen]

Be that as it may, Lord only remembered "Gibson opening the door and then closing it again", showing clearly that a lack of concerted action in rousing the master from his slumber....

IF the master of a vessel cannot trust his officers of the watch to act on his behalf, if the officers he designates simply have to rouse the skipper for absolutely EVERYTHING, then there is little point in entrusting them with the safety of the vessel, and those particular officers should be removed, or not enstated as competent seafarers.

It works both ways.....so I don't have it "the wrong way around" as you suggest.

Captain Stanley Lord took responsibility for the failings of his own Officers of the watch. This is something he should be commended for, rather than defending the indefensible.

Speculative musings as to the location of the various vessels in the vicinity of the stricken Titanic can be seen, and were seen by both Lord Mersey and Senator Smith, as WHITEWASH.

It seems the CALIFORNIAN still has the power to arouse deep seated emotions in all of us......

[Chris Jensen]

Just looking over the reply of the good Mr. Standart, it seems that Captain Edward John Smith was a "good Captain" after all....

His last instruction to his watch officers before retiring to his quarters were "Call me if it looks at all doubtful"......sign of a good skipper.

Rest in Peace, "E.J"......

Captain Stanley Lord, on the other hand, seems have shown a complete and utter reluctance to get out of bed and determine the situation for himself....Instructions to deck officers were to "Go on morseing"....

In other words,

"until the situation you describe has been clearly shown to be doubtful, don't bother me..."

NONE of these people thought to make the hindsight obvious move of WAKING UP THE MARCONI OPERATOR, who could have established once and for all exactly what Groves and Stone were dealing with....

The Leyland Line certainly thought that Lord was not entirely sound as a Master....

He did not serve the line in this capacity again, and, as we all know, ended his career commanding tramp steamers carrying "guano" (bird droppings), an ignoble end, really.

One often wishes that Mersey and Smith had laid charges for Lord to refute. The hearing would have been VERY interesting....

[Michael H Standart]

>>Just looking over the reply of the good Mr. Standart, it seems that Captain Edward John Smith was a "good Captain" after all...<<

Which is not something I said. In point of fact, I never even mentioned Captain Smith. If you're going to blast me for strawman arguements (Which I really never made) you would be wise to avoid making them yourself.

>>Be that as it may, Lord only remembered "Gibson opening the door and then closing it again", showing clearly that a lack of concerted action in rousing the master from his slumber....<<

And I'm not disagreeing with that either. What I am differing with is your assertion that they would have got in trouble for doing so. Clearly, Gibson didn't.

>>IF the master of a vessel cannot trust his officers of the watch to act on his behalf, if the officers he designates simply have to rouse the skipper for absolutely EVERYTHING, then there is little point in entrusting them with the safety of the vessel, and those particular officers should be removed, or not enstated as competent seafarers.

It works both ways.....so I don't have it "the wrong way around" as you suggest.<<

What I said is "As a retired sailor, I know how it works and I'm afraid you have it backwards to a certain degree." and I'm afraid you do, and on a lot of levels.

In fairness, the skipper doesn't expect to be roused up for trivial persuit, but if there is a situation calling for his attention, he not only expects it, a smart captain requires it. it's not always a question of the competance of the junior officers, it's a question of the authority they hold. There are and always will be issues which are above their paygrade and which calls for the skippers attention.

[Chris Jensen]

Good Morning Micheal....

Much of the story regarding "Californian", unfortunately, is really only open to speculation.

But, the facts are quite plain....

"Californian" was stopped by ice.
Her watch officers observed a ship firing rockets.
No other vessel in the area before 0220, other than Titanic, fired rockets.
If they were close enough to see rockets, and the ships lights, they were close enough to render assistance.
The officers of the watch failed, miserably, to fully explain the situation to their Master. Not recognising the situation for what it truly was, they waffled in their assessment.
This indescisiveness transferred itself to the master, who had resolved to halt his ship, and was not going to move it unless the situation called for it. His instructions to deck officers at various times of the morning ("Go on morseing") reflect this desire not to move until daylight.

What caused this lack of action still remains a source of puzzlement. Simply waking up the ships Marconi officer would have cut through the confusion....none of the officers did.

Impassioned pleas that the ship observed was not Titanic, but a different ship altogether, are not bourne out by the simple fact that Titanic was the only ship using rockets for any purpose before 0220 15th April...

Californian officers were close enough to observe not only Titanic's rockets, but rockets from Carpathia as she sped toward the wreck site.

I have speculated as to the possible cause for this lack of communication between the Californian's officers and the Master. Ignorance of the true situation does not excuse their lack of affirmative action. A possible explanation, though not the only one, is that Stanley Lord was a "hard" Captain, unwilling to be troubled whilst sleeping for a situation that the officers did not feel warranted starting the engines and moving the ship to investigate.

Captain Lord's reluctance to rise from his bed and ascertain the situation for himself is not only inexcusable, but inexplicable except by speculation.

It has often been stated that E.J. Smith steamed into the ice field at 20 plus knots, where his ship foundered, but his reputation came out intact...
Stanley Lord did what prudence dictated, stopping his vessel for safety, brought his ship through, and emerged with his reputation soiled.
Two inquiries on either side of the Atlantic failed to come to any other conclusion than the one that suggested that Captain Lord should have done something other than his inactions on this night. The very worst thing he could do was to do nothing, so subsequently, he carried the can for the failure of his deck-watch to appraise the situation, and for his failure to get out of bed himself and do what a good master should do....TAKE COMMAND.

I can't see this controversy ever being put to rest

Just for the sake of it, why not come up with an alternative to my argument, instead of simply attempting to tear it down without offering an alternative?

I will certainly not accuse you of the dreaded "strawman", so why not give it a shot? You have nothing to lose!

Thankyou for your replies and time!

[Chris Jensen]

BTW....The final line of your last post struck me as very symptomatic of the true reasons for the lack of action by Californian officers of the watch...

"There are, and always will be, issues which are above their paygrade, and which calls for the skippers attention..."

This attitude to work responsibility seems far more prevelant in the seafaring community than anywhere else. Public servants suffer from it, as do factory "line workers".

Responsibility is not a reflection of payscale. It's about pride in one-self and one's work. I tire of hearing Australian workers come up with this phrase time and again, letting problems get out of control that they could solve off their own bat with a little bit of effort and application.

"Not my department", or "I don't get paid enough to care" are sentiments of WESTERN workers, spoilt as they are by good living standards and jealousy of the higher paypackets of others.

Safety is the responsibility of us all.

Captain Stanley Lord was not trusted with a passenger carrier again.

[Trevor Rommelley]

Hi Chris,
Actually Captain Lord was in command of a passenger carrier - of sorts. After being ejected from the Leyland Line, he had a succcession of commands on Lawther Latta's ships, which although being cargo carriers, were certified to carry passengers, and there are pictures of him with passengers on one of the ships.

One salient point is that even after Captain Lord had been apprised that more than one rocket had been fired, and hence a possible distress situation, and after being awakened at 4.30am on April 15th, he still chose to do absolutely nothing at all until just after 5am. Which is the exact time that the sun rose and he could see what was going on.

I've read The Indifferent Stranger and I can thoroughly recommend it. No book is perfect of course, but the amount of research is impressive. I must also comment on the author, whom I know. A review of
his book was vetoed by the THS on the grounds that they wouldn't be selling it. This distressed and disgusted Paul Lee, the author, who feels (as I do) that the THS reviews and sells books far less worthy ("Titanicat"?), and sales have been less than impressive. I spoke to Paul last November, just before he got taken to hospital and he was still upset and I feel that the THS stance directly contributed to his illness. There is more here: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/6584/134516.html

[Paul Lee]

Perhaps we should just leave the matter, Trevor. My final word is that you are right in what you say.

[Karen Kamuda]

[I've read The Indifferent Stranger and I can thoroughly recommend it. No book is perfect of course, but the amount of research is impressive. I must also comment on the author, whom I know. A review of his book was vetoed by the THS on the grounds that they wouldn't be selling it. This distressed and disgusted Paul Lee, the author, who feels (as I do) that the THS reviews and sells books far less worthy ("Titanicat"?), and sales have been less than impressive. I spoke to Paul last November, just before he got taken to hospital and he was still upset and I feel that the THS stance directly contributed to his illness.]

I am one of the people who makes decisions on what the Titanic Museum Store sells and what is in the Commutator; Ed has the final say.

First, running a store means there are expenses. Not only does one have the costs of a physical building which is compared to the expenses in running a home, it also costs to have a secured website. These are paid for by Ed and me, not THS. A store first and foremost has to make a profit or you are working for nothing and I'm sure you don't work for free but expect to be paid. If people ask for T-shirts, keychains and similar, you won't stay in business very long if you don't stock all kinds of merchandise.

We carry a number of scholarly books, not all, we have a budget. We definitely carry what is popular with the public like "Titanicat." Whether or not Ed and I like the book doesn't make any difference, its a choice we made because there are more cat lovers than people who buy scholarly books or Titanic books, its a fact of life and if you plan to be in the retail business you learn to purchase stock that people will buy.

The majority of Titanic books don't sell in large numbers in comparison to other books. Ocean liner books do even worse and I'm speaking of hard copy. We will not sell e-books regardless of the content. All publications we purchase for resale have to be hard copy.

I'm sorry Mr. Lee was distressed but ours was a business decision, not personal. This message board has given Paul Lee a space to sell his e-book every time he leaves his signature. No one has complained yet Ed and I paid for this message board but we don't get credit for that.

Karen

PS My book isn't exactly a best seller either, I don't whine about it or blame anybody but realize most of the public isn't interested in Titanic survivors.

[Paul Lee]

I'm sorry Karen but that isn't quite good enough. Why did you specifically veto a review of my book? It didn't matter that your store wouldn't sell it, you could have at least mentioned in the commutator. I can't help but think that the THS is making it hard to sell anti-Californian books, in pretty much the same way as "The Ship That Stood Still" was specifically rejected for a review in the magazine, and George Behe's c.1993 article was rejected on the most specious grounds possible. Leslie Harrison commented that "[Captain Lord's] supporters are making life hard for De Groot [the co-author of "The Ship..."]" and based on what survives in Harrison's archives, Ed Kamuda was one of these who was making life hard for anti-Captain Lord people. I've unfortunately had to make note of this in my ebook.

Before anyone mentions Sam Halpern's excellent articles, this must be one of the first times in nearly 40 years that anything vaguely anti-Californian has been printed. It is certainly the first since Leslie Harrison's death. And yet, the article lambasts the Californian, Stone....but not Captain Lord.

Yes I do feel damn embittered in a time when money is tight and sales would help. If you don't like this and the fact you pay for the message board, then make it members only. I worked damn hard on my book and the fact that someone has chosen to act in a unilateral manner is, to be kind, "not very nice". The fact that the THS, the largest Titanic group in the world, have chosen to act in such a manner is truly revolting and it is a matter of interest that no other groups have acted in such a way. They have no pro- or anti-Califorian axe to grind.

[Paul Lee]

A couple of other points: thanks to the THS boycott, my book was never given a chance. Most members would never know it existed.

Secondly, remember I did offer to send my book on CD or email to buyers if people registered their interest and paid for it via a paypal link, or whatever on the THS website. I offered to give a portion of my proceeds to the THS for their own usage. This was rejected on the grounds that it would be too difficult. Shame as I gather thet HS wants money for its artefacts and museum for preservations etc.

Too difficult? Someone clicks on a link, pays for something via paypal, or even just sends a cheque to the THS. A portion of this would go to the THS, and I would get an invoice/cheque/paypay payment for the remainder. How hard can this be? Why was this idea not even considered?

I can't speak for your own ebook. Is that on the THS website? If so, at least it was given a chance.

Finally, why did you post such one-sided pro-Californian articles on this website, as if no other viewpoint existed?

[Timothy Trower]

I'll just note that, regardless of a person's view point on the Californian (pro- or anti-Lord), comments and information from both sides are very welcome on this message board. All that is asked is that personalities and egos are checked at the door -- let's all keep this thread on topic.

That said, I personally think that The Indifferent Stranger is among the best if not the best of the Californian books out there, and I've got quite a few pro- and anti-Lord books in my library to select from. There is a review of this eBook at viewtopic.php?f=139&t=93 and that is where I suggest further discussion of the book take place.

[Joshua Noble]

I actually believe that it was the Californian, because of the accounts of seeing 8 rockets, and accounts of a large ship being in sight but then vanishing. However, let's look at the situation. They were stuck in the ice, it was late at night, and there's a huge ship firing rockets. They probably thought that the ship was having a late night party, she was warning other ships or something other excuse. If the wireless operator was awake, that would be a different story. I wish we had Eva Hart still alive, because she recalled seeing a ship. She even said that she thought she saw a man on the decks. If she could have given us an accurate description, we probably could have pinpointed the exact ship.

[Aly Jones]

Someone, elsewhere on this forum, has asked the question "Why is this aspect of the tragedy so controversial?"

The answer is simple and direct for the following reasons.....

1]- Maximum distance for lookouts....
In conversation with the crews of the various tender vessels that I have spoken to operating from our local port, it becomes clear that the maximum possible distance for sighting a vessel before the curvature of the earth intervenes is 18 MILES (and that is in DAYLIGHT). Captain Stanley Lord claims that his vessel, the Leyland Liner CALIFORNIAN, was stopped over 20 MILES away. If this is true, then lookouts would be UNABLE to spot an object at this distance, so the inescapable conclusion must be drawn that Californian WAS between 8 and 12 miles from the stricken Titanic. This is confirmed by Californian Fireman ERNEST GILL.
2]- Fireman Gill claims to have seen "A large steamer....firing rockets....between 8 and 10 miles distant." The very fact that he did not inform the bridge and the watch officers should not be held against him, but this testimony reveals that somebody was not telling the whole truth about the location of Californian in relation to Titanic.

Gill had little or no reason to tell fibs about this, but watch officer Herbert Gibson had every reason to cast doubts.

3]- "Lordites" have always claimed that another vessel was in-between their ship and Titanic, with the most likely candidate stated as the sealer SAMSON. This holds no water, for if the 'Samson' were present, the very LAST THING an illegal sealer would do would be to fire rockets of any description. No other vessel was in distress on April 14-15 in the vicinity, and the Samson would have been the least likely candidate of them all for advertising it's presence.
4]- Watch officer of the Californian, (Third Officer Charles Groves), is on record as being the only officer or crew member to show any interest whatsoever in the Marconi Apparatus of his ship. He regularly visited Operator Cyril Evans and could even understand the signals, provided the message was not transmitted too swiftly. Why an officer who had knowledge of the possibilities of wireless telegraphy should not think to call awake Cyril Evans is totally inexplicable. The same applies to Captain Lord, befuddled by sleep or not. Captain Arthur Rostron was also retiring to bed, and in a befuddled state when Harold Cottam brought him the news....he became instantly awake and acted accordingly, unlike Lord.
5]- The subject of Third Officer Groves and his inaction becomes damning when his own conversation and testimony alludes to the fact that white rockets were sighted by Officer of the Watch Groves, all eight of them, observed from the bridge of Californian. Titanic passenger Lawrence Beesley has stated that these rockets were an indication "...even to the rankest landlubber" of a VESSEL IN DISTRESS....Herbert's inaction is further damned by his assertion that the mysterious ship observed on that fateful night had "...come to a halt....". Moreover, he also saw it " looking queer....her big end looks like it's out of the water..." The failure of Groves or Herbert to do anything at all in a positive manner is inexcusable, particularly as Cpt. Lord was fully aware of the disturbances observed.
6]- Captain Lord started up Californian's engines at dawn, and then proceeded WESTWARD to the OTHER SIDE OF THE ICEFIELD. On hearing of the exact position of CARPATHIA, he then proceeded THROUGH the ice, mostly at HALF SPEED. This is said to have taken all of two hours to reach the site of the sinking...Lordites have pointed to this "fact" as an example of the true distance of Californian from the wreck site, but most have neglected to mention the speed or the direction taken by Lord when Californian was underway. As a counterpoint, Carpathia steamed into the icefield in the dead blackness of the morning at 17.5 knots, twisting and turning to avoid collision.

All of this adds up to NEGLIGENCE by the officers of Californian.
They were aware that Titanic was the ONLY vessel in the vicinity....Marconi Operator Cyril Evans had told Captain Lord this. The inaction by Californian constitutes a disgrace to every member of the ships officers. The wonder of it is that many Titanic passengers could clearly see this vessel.....boat No. 6 rowed and rowed in a futile attempt to catch this vessel, stationary as she was.

IF this is a site dominated by "Lordites".....what say YOU?

HI there Chris.

You quoted this "All this adds up to NEGLIGENCE by the officers Californian" The Califorian captain and crew was not the ones that hit Titanic by an Iceberg,so I don't think the Califorian crew should be held responable for the Titanic disarter, the Titanic had her own crew and Captain.

You also quoted this- "Cyril Evans had told Captain Lord this" I thought the Califorian Operator never told Captain Lord,so lord never knew about Titanic need for help? I am not sure,just what I had thought.

True about the illegal whaling vessel the Samson,not owning up,that's why the Californian was accused in the first place.

Regards.