by Senan Molony
He certainly did not see any rockets at any time and, by his own evidence (question 8282) did not express a belief immediately after coming off the bridge that the steamer lying off was a passenger steamer, or could have been the Titanic. Yet, in the wake of subsequent events, he concluded in testimony that it was indeed the RMS Titanic that he saw – despite not entertaining the possibility in the slightest at the actual time. Groves is pressed on the issue:
8440. If this vessel which you did see was only some 4 or 5 miles to the southward of you, do you think she could have been the Titanic?
8441. [The Commissioner] That is a question I want this witness to answer. (To the Witness) Speaking as an experienced seaman and knowing what you do know now, do you think that steamer that you know was throwing up rockets, and that you say was a passenger steamer, was the Titanic? — [Groves] Do I think it? [Does this parrying question from Groves, playing for time, indicate a reluctance to confront the hard choice being pushed upon him?]
8442 Yes? — From what I have heard subsequently?
8443 Yes? —Most decidedly I do, but I do not put myself as being an experienced man
8444 But that is your opinion as far as your experience goes? — Yes it is my Lord.
But Groves, who trusted completely the accuracy of his captain’s stop position and said so, was immediately taken to task by Robertson Dunlop, counsel for the owners of the Californian, who aptly asked: ‘That would indicate that the Titanic was only 4 or 5 miles to the southward of the position in which you were when stopped?’ – in other words, vastly off course!
If Groves was squirming (and we do not know) the court itself came quickly to his rescue. The Commissioner interrupted: ‘If his judgment on the matter is true, it shows that those figures, latitudes and longitudes, that you are referring to, are not accurate. That is all it shows’. Californian counsel replied acidly: ‘The accuracy we will deal with, my Lord’. But the Commissioner maintained: ‘I mean to say, if what he says is right, it follows that the figures must be wrong’. Consider the indulgence shown to Groves in the above remark. Everyone must be out of step but him!
Even though Groves himself has agreed to the accuracy of the Californian’s stop position, if the Titanic was nearby as the Commissioner appears to want, then the Californian’s latitude (her northern position) must be pulled south to accommodate the Titanic’s track to New York. It cannot be that the Titanic was in the wrong place! And yet the Californian was bound for Boston, not New York. So why would she be south?
Counsel for the Californian, Mr Robertson Dunlop, obviously chose to interpret the discrepancy differently (question 8445): ‘You will appreciate, Mr Groves, that if the latitudes are right it follows that your opinion must be wrong? — If the latitudes are right, then of course I am wrong’. And in the following question, further clarification: ‘If the latitude of your ship and that of the Titanic are anything approximately right, it follows that the vessel which you saw could not have been the Titanic? — Certainly not’.
Bear these late concessions by Groves very much in mind. For there are many other problems with his evidence, as we are about to see.
GETTING TO GRIPS WITH GROVES
We know the thrust of Groves’ evidence, but it is the detail that is troubling. For instance, he suggested various points of origin for his strange steamer. The Californian was pointing her head north-east, with her starboard beam (or midpoint) offering a 90 degree angle to the south-east. Groves said so in response to questions 8150 and 8157. Therefore her stern, the limit of her starboard side, was backing south-west. Groves said the visitor first appeared ‘a little abaft our starboard beam’ (8135 and 8149), or a little more to the south of southeast. He then changed her origin to three points and then ‘three and a half points abaft the beam’ (8156 and 8157), which puts her from south-by-east to virtually due south. There are eight points in a quadrant, such as that between Californian’s starboard beam and stern. Three and a half points is nearly halfway from amidships to the bottom of the stern. If the Californian is heading north-east and stern south-west, then three and a half points abaft the beam indicates south.
But Groves amended further! He next said the visitor was ‘south by west’ (8159), then ‘coming up on the starboard quarter’ (anywhere from south-east to south-west), finally telling his captain she was ‘coming up astern’. He even confused himself; in response to question 8166 Groves agreed the ship was coming round ‘more on our beam, yes, more to the south and west, but very little’, which would give that ship both south-east and south-west at the same time – a junk statement.
The above are real compass bearings. North is the North Pole, South the South Pole, East is Europe and West is America. The ship coming up, if we attempt to marry Groves’ positions with his later statement of never having seen the vessel’s green side light, then appears to be travelling roughly parallel to the Californian’s heading on a course essentially north-easterly in nature. There is an obvious problem here. Titanic was travelling almost due west when she struck her iceberg. She was also showing her green light (starboard side) to any northern observer. Fourth Officer Boxhall claims, in response to question 15316, ‘I remember the true course was S. 86 W’. And Second Officer Lightoller states (question 13498): ‘… we were making S. 86 true… [question 13500] Within four degrees of due West true? — Yes’. It has nothing to do with perceptions. These are real compass points, let it be said again. Groves emphatically does not agree with Lord, who saw a steamer coming from the east, heading west, and showing a green light.
8179. Could you see much of her length? — [Groves] No, not a great deal; because as I could judge she was coming up obliquely to us. [question 8180] – perhaps an angle of 45 degrees to us (demonstrating).
So far, so impossible; at least if that vessel is to be the Titanic and Groves’ description accurate. A 45 degree line, relating to starboard midpoint, would have that vessel coming from the south, heading north. Either he is accurate and that ship is thus not the Titanic – or else he is wrong in his eyewitness testimony. A lose-lose situation for the third officer. Groves said he could not see much of her length (question 8179). But to the previous question (8178) – ‘Had she much light?’ – Groves had answered: ‘Yes, a lot of light. There was absolutely no doubt her being a passenger steamer, at least in my mind’. Yet he could only see her obliquely…
Then she stopped. Groves, it should be stated, does not say he saw the mystery ship turn. But he now notices that her light was not as brilliant as before, but had been substantially doused – at a time that coincides with the captain coming up to see an ill-lit stranger. We will recall Groves claiming, in reponse to question 8197, that Lord said ‘That does not look like a passenger steamer’, to which he replied ‘It is, Sir. When she stopped her lights seemed to go out, and I suppose they have been put out for the night’. But later Groves accepted a leading question:
8223. I want to ask you a question. Supposing the steamer, whose lights you saw, turned two points to port at 11.40, would that account to you for her lights ceasing to be visible to you? — [Groves] I quite think it would.
This is a question that links Groves’ ship directly with the Titanic, which turned two points to port to avoid her iceberg. But Titanic was heading west. A turn of two points to port would have Titanic facing west-southwest, showing her starboard side – and green light – to a viewer to the north.
Groves did not say he saw his visitor turn, but agreed with a Titanic hypothesis that was in fact contradictory to what he himself described. If Groves’ ship was coming from a generally south or south-by-west position towards Californian, then a turn to port of two points by her (in imitation of the Titanic) would cause her to point north-by-west or north-north-west. That is a whole quarter of the compass – 90 degrees in a 360 degree horizon – away from the heading the Titanic was described as taking by those aboard when she turned two points to port from a westward heading to avoid her iceberg. When she stopped, Groves sai
d he continued to see the vessel’s masthead lights, but for the first time could also see the visitor’s red light of her port side. The Commissioner asks about this in question 8229: ‘When did you see that? — As soon as her deck lights disappeared from my view’. Groves still does not mention a turn. He never says he saw any turn. Did he miss it, if the decklights disappeared from his view? And if his obliquely-seen ship did turn to port, shouldn’t she be shutting in her red port light, not suddenly showing it? There is now an impression of suggestibility in Groves, because he continues to agree with suggestions.
The Commissioner (question 8224) asks whether ‘a change of two points to port would conceal the lights in the ship?’ Groves replies: ‘In my own private opinion it would’. Groves is thus agreeing that a turn or course alteration, which he didn’t see, must have changed the lighting of the ship he was looking at. He has agreed to something in court, after the fact, which is at odds with what he told Captain Lord at the time. He told his skipper that when the lights seemed to go out (question 8197) ‘I suppose they have been put out for the night’.
Here he squirms on the hook of trying to have it both ways:
8258. [The Commissioner] Wait a moment: ‘I pointed the steamer out to Stone and said: “She is a passenger steamer. She put her light out”’. Do you mean by that she shut her light out? — She shut her lights out, my Lord [suggestion is that she shut them out by turning].
8259. [Mr Rowlatt] To get it quite clear, at that time was it your impression she had put her lights out or shut them out? — At that time it was my impression she had shut them out, but I remember distinctly remarking to him that she had put them out [why conclude one thing and say another?].
8260. [The Commissioner] That means that she had shut them out? — Yes.
8261. That is what you intended to convey? — Yes.
8262. That she had shut them out? — Yes.
8263. By changing her position? — By changing her position.
[The Commissioner] Is that right, Mr Rowlatt; is that the answer you expected?
[Mr Rowlatt] I was asking for information, my Lord, because I thought he had said before that he thought she had put her lights out because of the time of night.
[The Commissioner] I think he did say something of that sort.
[Mr Rowlatt] I thought he did, and I asked for information to get it clear.
8264. [The Commissioner – to the Witness] Did you say that you thought she had put her lights out because of the time of night? — I did say that, I think, my Lord.
8265. Then which is it to be, that she shut them out because she was changing her position, or that she had put them out because, in your opinion it was bed-time on board the ship? — [Groves] Well, at the time the lights disappeared I thought in my own mind she had put them out because in the ships I was accustomed to before I joined this company it was the custom to put all the deck lights out, some at 11, some at 11.30, and some at midnight – all the deck lights except those absolutely necessary to show the way along the different decks. But when I saw the ice, I came to the conclusion that she had starboarded to escape some ice.
He is extra ‘helpful’ to the obvious theory at the end, above, to compensate for his contradictions. Now we have the altogether new suggestion of ice as the cause of a turn which Groves never says he saw. Yet he told both his captain and Stone that the nearby ship had merely extinguished her lights. He told Lord the lights went out ‘for the night’. Put out or shut out? Groves does not know quite how to help. Clearly he wants there to have been a turn, but he has a problem. If it was the ice-escaping ‘turn’ that shut in that vessel’s lights, making her appear a smaller ship, then the lights – such as they are – are still burning. They have not been physically doused. But Groves says specifically (questions 8228 and 8229, above) that he only saw the red light when the deck lights had ‘disappeared’ from his view!
He has thus created yet another possibility – that the ship first turned and then doused her lights, such that the red became visible. Groves now agrees with, firstly, a turn, secondly, a dousing and, thirdly, both, as a kind of belt-and-braces insurance. It is difficult not to conclude that Groves, seeking to explain why his captain should see only a tramp where he sees a passenger steamer, is being led or has led himself into ever increasing convolutions. Did he really see anything coherent? If so, why can he not explain it?
One is tempted to the view that he saw no turn as suggested by counsel, but indeed saw her red side light. If she was showing only her red light, then she was also showing a substantial portion of broadside to him and the reality is that she must have been displaying little light overall.
Groves now sees but ‘a few minor lights’ and ‘a few deck lights’ (8484–8485) even if he will not subsequently be able to tell how this undazzling turnaround took place. He is asked in question 8487: ‘What were those deck lights that you saw when the Captain came on the bridge? — [Groves] I do not think that then I could see more than three or four’. Three or four! From a brilliant passenger steamer!
Lord was never in any doubt regarding the vessel’s lack of any impressive light:
6866. Did you see that the deck lights of this vessel appeared to go out? — Not to me.
6867. Did the Third Officer make any observation to you about that? — No.
6868. Did he say to you that her deck lights seemed to go out? — No.
6869. Or that nearly all her deck lights seemed to go out? — No.
6870. [The Commissioner] Was nothing said to you about her deck lights? — Not to me.
Meanwhile, more important clashes in Groves’ own evidence soon begin to emerge. Groves agrees (question 8224) that a change of just two points to port would, in Lord Mersey’s words, ‘conceal the lights in the ship’. But, forty-two questions later, he states that he would have difficulty in perceiving light changes in such a move – at least in the case of masthead lights:
8268. [The Commissioner] Would a change of two points, such as we know took place on the Titanic, cause the two white masthead lights to alter their relative positions? — [Groves] Yes, it would, but I do not think at that distance the difference would be perceptible.
So we have perceptible and imperceptible in the exact same scenario, both out of Groves’ mouth. And next he agrees to more imperceptibility:
8447. Were the two mast-head lights which you saw wide apart, indicating a long ship? — They did not look particularly wide apart.
8448. Did they indicate to you a long ship? — Well, I can form no judgement as to her length. She was coming up obliquely to us.
8449. And at that distance at which you saw her, it would be difficult to estimate the height of those lights? — Oh, quite difficult.
Yet these difficulties do not prevent him from agreeing readily with an off-the-peg hypothesis, nor from believing that he had been watching the largest moving object ever wrought by the hand of man. Remember, also, that the ship Groves believes he saw was on a radically different course to the White Star liner, which would have been bizarrely off course if Californian’s own stop position (which Groves agreed with) was correct. And all this alongside Groves’ obvious handicap of an admitted inability to form any judgement at all about his visitor’s length or height. It is not very satisfactory, is it, this identification of a turning Titanic?
The indications are mounting that Groves simply did not know what he saw. His evidence certainly provides no basis at all for his own belated conclusion that the ship he viewed was indeed the Titanic. It could be argued that Groves was latterly anxious to put himself at the centre of the drama and to reclaim a lost opportunity. Because one of the undoubted ironies of the tragedy is that when he went down to the wireless operator’s room after midnight and listened for traffic, the Titanic may have been desperately transmitting emergency messages – which Groves failed to hear because the instrument had been wound down. He could have been a hero…
In a clumsily-worded account called The Middle W
atch, which he composed in later years, Groves pitifully wrote:
Probably it would not be far from the mark if it is stated that the fate of those fifteen hundred lost souls hinged on the fact that Mr Groves failed to notice that the magnetic detector was not functioning when he placed the ‘phones on his head in the wireless office at which time the ether was being rent by calls of distress which he would not have failed to recognize.
Groves could have saved them all. On him alone hinged 1,500 lives. Or so he says. Returning to his garbled evidence of 1912, Groves does not depart without a final flourish of outright floundering. He becomes hopelessly confused and litters his evidence with mistakes when examined by Robertson Dunlop for the Leyland Line about the nearby ship:
8467. Was she making to the westward or to the eastward? — She would be bound to be going to the westward [this is a contradiction of his earlier descriptions].
8468. Was she? — She was bound to.
8469. Did you see her going to westward? — Well, I saw her red light.
8470. If she was going to the westward and was to the southward of you, you ought to have seen her green light? — Not necessarily [yes, necessarily!].
8471. Just follow me for a moment. She is coming up on your starboard quarter, you told us? — On our starboard quarter.
8472. Heading to the westward? — I did not say she was heading to the westward.
8473. Proceeding to the westward? — Yes.
8474. And she is to the southward of you? — She is to the southward of us.
8475. Then the side nearest to you must have been her starboard side, must it not? — Not necessarily. If she is going anything from N to W you would see her port side [not correct. He has previously claimed his vessel was swinging to port, before correcting it to starboard]. At the time I left the bridge we were heading ENE by compass.
