Category Archives: Life & Death

HOW TO SCAM NIGERIAN FUNDS FOR YOUR TIME MACHINE

If you don’t know about Nigerian scams then you’ve probably never used the internet. Seems like every couple weeks these West-African crooks drop me an email thinking I’m dumb enough to bite. Some people must or the cons wouldn’t keep trying. So it was no surprise when I checked my inbox Tuesday morning and found another Nigerian grab at my wallet.

But it was different this round. For a change, I had little on my plate and time on my hands so I decided to turn the tide on this guy. Here’s what “Mr. Martins Logan Scott” from Nigeria wrote me. Then I’ll show you my reply  🙂

—– Original Message —–
From: “Martins Logan Scott” <voldemars@ngn.lv>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:24:23 AM
Subject: Investment Proposal

Attn: Sir — We have gone through your country’s investment profile and history and we are interested to invest in it, we will be willing to partner with you and invest a substantial amount of money in your company if you have an existing company or we can also partner with you to set up a new one, provided you have a substantial and complete feasibility study and a well prepared business plan on the business/company you wil need us to partner with you.

Our group is a major player in investment in the middle east, Africa and the United States of America, we believe in pursuing a positive goal, in which your ideas can be enhanced potentially for mutual benefit.

As we seek new frontier and opportunities, we look forward to partner with you. Your prompt reply will be most welcome.

Best regards — Martins Logan Scott — martin.loganscott@gmail.com

—– Original Reply —–
From: “Garry Rodgers” <garry.rodgers@shaw.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 7:48:09 AM
Subject: Investment Proposal

Good day Mr. Logan Scott,

Thank you for your investment interest. I trust this reply finds you well and in accordance with the situation.

I appreciate your due diligence in appraising my investment profile and history. That is the primary mark of a careful and prudent investor as I’m sure you and the major players in your group are.

Your unsolicited offer comes at a timely stage in a current venture I’m working on.  I was planning to release investment offerings by-invitation-only prior to a NYSE IPO. However, I’m open to prioritizing your group’s investment of a substantial amount of money during my project’s Research & Development (R&D) stage. Therefore, I’d be pleased to accommodate you and your esteemed business associates in safely appropriating your funds.

With an understanding of your agreement to confidentiality, my project involves a revised form of hyper-velocity, multi-directional transportation. The concept for analogous movement between distant portals, both historic and forthcoming, is nothing new. Space-time dilation based on the Einstein-Rosen bridge theory has been conceptualized for decades. Practical application of Faster-Than-Light (FTL) amplification was bottlenecked due to tachyon condensation which restricted Portal Entrance and Exit (PEE), but there’s now a clear and unique opportunity for a massive breakthrough.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the 1985 works of Dr. Emmett Brown and his DeLorean model. Unfortunately, it’s been three decades since Doc vanished in a timely experiment. Although I patiently await his return, progress must move forward. With this, I’ve acquired Doc’s patent rights to the Flux Capacitor (FC) – the propulsion device central to warping the Space-Time Continuum (STC). Early technology restricted FC Input/Output (I/O) to 1.21 jigawatts, however… I’ve found a method of quadrupling I/O to 4.84 jigawatts, theoretically making the trip four times faster.

An additional advancement is planned in STC vehicle adaptation. The initial Entry/Reentry Velocity (ERV) difficulties experienced by the DeLorean vehicle proved dangerous. It’s now identified the angular, gull-wing profile created a Disturbance-In-The-Force (DITF). Evolving trials using a rounded VW Beetle prototype was thought to calm FTL/STC/PEE/DITF/ERV vibration – also known as Tolman’s paradox. Quickly, I learned the bulky Punch-Buggie (PB) approach brought no returns and I took a hit.

Compounding the situation is the original 1.21 jigawatt FC only required an 88 mph ERV. With a four-times capacity 4.84 jigawatt FC, it’s boosted the ERV to 352 mph. I realized… Great Scott! That’s a lot of ground speed. Fortunately, I’ve identified the new Aston Martin AM RB-001 Valkyrie as the perfect design. Now—here’s where you come in.

As you know, the Valkyrie is a highly advanced work of technology and produced in 25 unit allotments. I’ve placed an order for one Valkyrie to be refitted as a PEE vehicle, however, the Aston Martin Corporation requires pre-payment in full. With your timely offer of substantial investment capital, in return, I’m offering you the exclusive opportunity to fund my Valkyrie acquisition as the PEE vehicle of choice. It’s noble you believe in pursuing a positive goal and ideas than can be enhanced potentially for our mutual benefit.

Appreciatively, I’m accepting your group’s investment of $3.12 million USD. This covers the Valkyrie purchase, shipping, and handling. Please make an immediate monetary transfer via Western Union for deposit into my account #6105-883-464-0901 at Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. In lieu of cash, your direct purchase of the AM RB-001 PEE Valkyrie can be delivered to my Vancouver Island R&D facility.

Thank you for your generous offer, Mr. Logan Scott. Once my project is operational, I confidently assure your investment will be returned to you, along with accrued interest, to any point you prescribe in time. Your prompt reply will be most welcome.

I remain, sir, humbly indebted.

Garry Rodgers

It’s now Saturday morning. I’ve yet to hear from Mr. Martins Logan Scott but I trust he’ll be back in the future.

THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

Russia’s parliament recently voted 380 to 3 favoring decriminalization of domestic violence against women where it doesn’t cause “substantial bodily harm” and occurs “not more than once per year”. So… in Russia—once again—it’s socially acceptable to beat the wife. Makes you wonder how the United States Violence Against Women Act will stand given the Trump administration’s apparent admiration for how Vladimir Putin does business, never mind Donald Trump’s personal treatment of women.

Intimate Partner Violence is the politically correct term for wife-beating. It’s a serious and common criminal offense. For years physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse of female spouses was conveniently overlooked because what went on in private homes was supposed to be no one else’s business. That’s until women fought back and killed their spouses. Then they were prosecuted for murder with all the zeal reserved for serial killers.

Many battered women were convicted of murder and given lengthy jail sentences. There was no regard for the big picture of what created intimate partner violence, how it led to homicidal acts, and what effect it had on entire families—especially children—as well as society in general.

But some women were acquitted of criminal culpability for killing their partners.

They invoked self-defense because they suffered years of cyclic abuse and finally fought back in order to prevent themselves and their children from the imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or being murder victims themselves. These women weren’t claiming temporary insanity or a moment of heated passion. They were telling the truth about years of mental torture that drove them to commit the ultimate act of violent response because they were suffering from the Battered Woman Syndrome.

Battered Woman Syndrome is not a recognized medical or mental disorder according to the psychiatric profession’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Battered Woman Syndrome is a contributing factor to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder but they are two separate issues. On its own, Battered Woman Syndrome is not a specifically accepted defense in most courts. Battered Woman Syndrome is part of an overall defense to criminal accusations. It’s a clinical explanation for using violence to proactively defend one’s self and it’s supported by expert testimony that encompasses the entire case facts. That includes the history of the intimate partner relationship, the mechanism of the killing, and the aftermath that followed.

The battered woman defense component is widely used to establish diminished responsibility of a woman accused of killing her husband under circumstances where he was incapacitated and not able to defend himself nor be an immediate physical threat. The battered woman defense is highly successful in many cases.

The highest-profile battered woman case was portrayed in The Burning Bed, a true-crime movie from 1984 where Farrah Fawcett played Francine Hughes, a severely battered woman who killed her husband in Dansville, Michigan, by setting him on fire while he slept. Francine was charged with first-degree murder and acquitted by a jury who found her not guilty by her having to use a temporary insanity defense.

Thirty-three years ago, the Battered Woman Syndrome was starting to be explored by the courts. There was little psychiatric or psychological science available to establish the reliability of this murder defense tactic. Today, much more is known about the patterns causing intimate partner violence and how they inescapably lead to defensive killings, even when the deceased spouse was incapacitated and not an apparent immediate danger.

Thirty-one years ago, I was lead investigator where a battered woman shot and killed her abusive husband while he slept. Deeana Bingingham suffered years of domestic cruelty at the hands, feet, words, wallet and penis of Lyle (Bing) Bingingham—much of it watched and heard by their 10-year-old son, Logan, and 8-year-old daughter, Kiley.

Bing was on the run from ripping a criminal organization and moved the family to an isolated cabin in the Pacific Northwest. He came home one snowy, stormy night—drunk—as usual—and attacked Deeana. He beat her with his fists and boots, sexually assaulted Deeana in front of their children, then threatened to shoot the family with a 30/30 Winchester. Bing passed out. Deeana took the rifle. She shot Bing in the head.

The first bullet didn’t kill Bing. It tore off his jaw and ripped out an eye. Bing rose in a rage—thrashing—ki-yiiing—gurgling—spewing blood everywhere. He clawed to get up… folded… stood… lunged… then fell and crawled to get at her. Vibrating, gasping and backing away, Deeana levered the gun to reload. It jammed. She threw it. Ran to the closet. And grabbed a 30.06 bolt-action. Deeana scrambled for cartridges, pleading to little Logan for help while Kiley cringed in a corner. The boy loaded the second rifle. The tiny girl watched. As a family… they finished Bing off.

Deeana Bingingham’s children were apprehended. She was jailed on second-degree (non-capital) murder charges—the prosecutor deeming killing Bing was intentionally committed but not premeditated. Deeana spent 2 years on remand while her kids bounced between foster homes and her family abandoned her. She invoked battered woman syndrome in defense and her story was a nightmare to hear. Deeana was offered a plea bargain to manslaughter or an accepted defense of temporary insanity with a compromised offer of family counseling for rehabilitation rather than risking a convict’s chance at parole. Deeana refused. She chose to stay in jail, waiting her chance to tell the court—and other battered women—her plight.

The jury heard a shocking story. A sickening story. A story of horrific psychological, financial, sexual abuse and extreme, prolonged physical violence. The jury acquitted Deeana. They reasoned Deeana was a provoked, trapped and helpless victim of ritualistic domestic violence. They found proactively killing her intimate partner was Deeana’s only reasonable recourse—Deeana ultimately protected herself and her children.

Deeana Bingingham’s case never left my mind. I got a tremendous education into what causes an intimate partner killing that has a legitimate spousal homicide defense. Today, a lot more is known about battered women behavior and the psychological syndrome surrounding their necessary violent acts of defense.

The primary legal principle applied to Battered Woman Syndrome homicide defense is the accused woman being constantly subjected to severe domestic abuse making her unable to take independent action in conventionally leaving the relationship and a firm belief the escalating pattern of violence would end with her death and/or that of her children. Eventually, the situation explodes and the battered woman—hopelessly affected by a clearly-defined, state-of-mind syndrome—takes an immediate opportunity to protect herself by proactively killing her husband through whatever available means.

On its own, Battered Woman Syndrome is part of a self-defense argument and used to explain a battered woman’s experiences that caused her to commit proactive homicide. A crucial part of having Battered Woman Syndrome admitted as trial defense evidence is the case facts being examined by a professional who specializes in the psychiatric and psychological elements of the syndrome and introduces their opinion of the accused’s mental state through expert testimony.

The American legal precedent in having Battered Woman Syndrome admitted as a contributing factor to homicide defense is called the Dyas Standard from the case Dyas v. the United States. It’s simple, yet complicated. First, the defense team must establish the accused is a battered woman within the accepted behavior parameters of the syndrome. Second, they must persuade a court the jury would be aided by expert testimony that Battered Woman Syndrome is relevant to explaining her behavior.

Once Battered Woman Syndrome because of Intimate Partner Violence is determined relevant, it has two more legal hurdles to jump. Expert testimony must be admissible, then it has to show a probative value that outweighs prejudicial impact. Making matters more complicated, Dyas Standard admissibility has a three-pronged test.

  1. The testimony’s subject matter “must be so distinctly related to some science, profession, business or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman (layperson).”
  2. The witness “must have sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in that field or calling as to make it appear that his (her) opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his (her) search for truth”.
  3. Expert testimony is inadmissible if “the state of the pertinent art or scientific knowledge does not permit a reasonable opinion to be asserted even by an expert”.

This might sound like a bunch of masculine, legal mumbo-jumbo but it says a recognized and reliable expert opinion about how a history of spousal abuse led to the accused’s perceptionat the time of the act they had no other recourse than to ultimately defend themselves by killing their intimate partner—is valid evidence that may help a jury deciding if the accused was criminally culpable. Perception in the accused’s mind—at the time of the act—is central to a self-defense claim and Battered Woman Syndrome testimony is meant to educate the jury about the realities of intimate partner violence.

Presenting a spousal abuse history proving Battered Woman Syndrome is difficult. This defense requires detailed investigation into years of abuse that’s often not documented or credibly supported by independent observations or interventions by other family members, friends, acquaintances and support professionals like social workers, medical responders, police officers, and court records.

Sadly, the reality of intimate partner violence or spousal abuse is specific incidents are seldom recorded or reported. Battered Woman Syndrome is based on a cumulative pattern of countless small and large incidents of verbal, mental, financial, mental, physical and sexual assaults that build up to a point of explosion, ending in death. So many cases have mitigating circumstances where the woman victim didn’t report most incidents, many peripheral witnesses have convenient lapses of memory, and responsible professionals fail to intervene.

Battered Woman Syndrome is based on a known, cyclical pattern of abusive behavior and response first identified by Dr. Lenore Walker who is known as the mother of Battered Woman Syndrome. Dr. Walker conducted extensive research into intimate partner violence and established theories of victim’s psychological responses to spousal violence including a behavior called “learned helplessness” and a pattern of violence cycles.

Learned helplessness is a state of mind where the woman has been long subjected to so much abuse that they feel totally incapable of defending themselves or voluntarily leaving the relationship. The emotional, financial, physical and entire realm of abuse causes the woman to lose any motivation to change their situation and they submit, rather than fight. Learned helplessness is a core element of Battered Woman Syndrome and it manifests in all cases.

Cycle theory encompasses the entire relationship period and has various degrees of severity and intervals. Cycle theory is another core element of Battered Woman Syndrome and it, too, manifest in all cases. There are three recognized violence cycles.

  1. Tension building is a phase where minor abuse incidents like emotional outbursts, verbal threats, and subtle punishments cause the woman to become hyper-vigilant to her partner’s cues and changes her behavior accordingly to diffuse them.
  2. Acute battering incidents are the second escalation. These are violent episodes where physical harm or severe emotional damage occurs.
  3. Reconciliation is the third cycle phase. It’s a loving contrition where the batterer claims to be remorseful, is charming, and promises never to harm the woman again. Invariably, the abuser blames his actions on outside influences like impairment substances, financial difficulty, or employment stress.

Battered Woman Syndrome becomes a vicious circle where the violence cycles repeat and become more frequent, making learned helplessness further entrenched. Over time, the tension-building and honeymoon stages get shorter and battering increases. This pattern results in battering incidents that become increasingly longer and more severe. The cycle works to wear women down and to keep them in a toxic relationship by controlling them, chipping away at their feeling of self-worth and independence.

Abused partners hope their abusers will change. They falsely believe the batterer doesn’t mean to harm them, rather somehow they brought it on themselves. Secrecy, fear, lack of opportunity and low self-esteem combine to make leaving an abusive relationship extremely difficult—if not impossible.

Ultimately, the heated cycle boils over and the helpless woman snaps. She takes a spontaneous and opportune, final defensive action without regard to repercussions. In her perception—at the time of the act—she has no recourse than to kill her partner. Otherwise, it’s inevitable she’ll die and so will her children. In law, this establishes a legitimate defense for homicide.

At the core of Battered Woman Syndrome lies a severe psychiatric impact that has four psychological stages.

DENIAL: The woman refuses to admit—even to herself—that she’s been beaten or that there’s a “problem” in her marriage. She may call each incident an “accident”. She offers excuses for her husband’s violence and each time firmly believes it’ll never happen again.

GUILT: She now acknowledges there’s a problem but considers herself responsible for it. She “deserves” to be beaten—she feels—because she has defects in her character and isn’t living up to her husband’s expectations.

ENLIGHTENMENT: The woman no longer assumes responsibility for her husband’s abusive treatment, recognizing that no one “deserves” to be beaten. She’s still committed to her relationship, though, and stays with her husband—hoping they can work things out.

RESPONSIBILITY: Accepting the fact that her husband will not—or cannot—stop his violent behavior, the battered woman decides she’ll no longer submit and takes self-defensive action. That can be leaving the relationship, seeking help and intervention, or taking termination matters into her own hands.

The Battered Woman Syndrome is an ugly reality in many relationships. It may not occur in your intimacy but you can be sure it’s happening in a home near you. You probably know the symptoms of an abuser and recognize the behavior of a decent and loving partner. Here are the character traits of abusive and non-abusive men, irrespective of being physically violent.

An abusive man:

  • Shouts
  • Sulks
  • Smashes things
  • Glares
  • Calls you names
  • Makes you feel ugly and useless
  • Cuts you off from your friends
  • Stops you from working
  • Never admits he’s wrong
  • Blames you, drugs, alcohol, work, stress
  • Turns the children against you
  • Uses the children to control you
  • Never does his share of  the housework
  • Never looks after the children
  • Expects sex on demand
  • Controls the money
  • Threatens or coerces you to get his way
  • Seduces those close to you
  • Expects you to be responsible for his well-being

A non-abusive man:

  • Is cheerful
  • Is consistent
  • Is supportive
  • Tells you that you look good
  • Tells you you’re competent
  • Uses your right name or pet name
  • Trusts you
  • Trusts your judgment
  • Respects you, your dignity, and your body
  • Welcomes your family and your friends
  • Encourages you to be independent
  • Supports your higher learning and career
  • Takes personal responsibility
  • Admits to being wrong
  • Is a responsible parent
  • Is an equal parent
  • Is a role model for the children
  • Is faithful
  • Shares money and assets
  • Does his share of the housework

Statistics show one in four women are—or have been—subjected to some form of intimate partner violence. That includes psychological battering. Much is subtle abuse with a long, dominant pattern of financial control, suggestive degradation, humiliation, unreasonable expectations and emotional blackmail as well as sexual overbearing and verbal assaults. Some abuse progresses to violent sexual and physical aggression.

If you’re in an abuse relationship, take action to stop it. If you recognize others in an abusive relationship, take action to help them. Don’t wait till there’s another battered woman case like Deeana Bingingham who—in my opinion, as well as a jury’s—was fully justified in taking proactive, lethal action to defend herself and her children.

*   *   *

Please Share This Post!

Domestic abuse and battered woman syndrome are huge social problems worldwide. Please help spread awareness of this unacceptable violent behavior by sharing this post on social media and with your sphere of influence. The only way intimate partner violence is going to be reduced is by supporting victims and encouraging them to safely disclose their plight.  

FATAL FLAW – WHAT REALLY CAUSED THE TITANIC TRAGEDY

t29The R.M.S. Titanic was the world’s largest man-made, mobile object when the ship was commissioned in 1912. Everyone knows the Titanic hit an iceberg in the North Atlantic and sank within 2 hours and 40 minutes. It was the highest-profile marine disaster of all time and most people still blame the accident on the iceberg. What few people know is the real root cause — the fatal flaw that sunk the Titanic and killed over 1,500 people.

There were two official inquiries into the Titanic’s sinking. Both concluded the iceberg was the root cause, although the investigation processes considered many contributing factors — natural, mechanical, and human. There were errors found in the Titanic’s design, production, navigation, communication, and especially in the motivation of its builder, the White Star Line. While fingers were pointed, no blame was attached and the only real outcome of the Titanic inquiries was adopting the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) that still governs marine safety today.

t11The Titanic accident investigations used the best resources of the time however, the inquiries were conducted long before the wreckage was found, a forensic analysis was applied, and computer-generated recreation was available. Today, we have a clear picture of exactly how the Titanic disaster took place from a mechanical perspective but finding the root cause has remained buried as deep as its bow in the muddy bottom. It shouldn’t be, because the true cause of what really sunk the Titanic is clearly obvious when analyzed objectively.

Both official inquiries into the Titanic sinking called sworn testimony of the surviving crew members, passengers, rescuers, builders, and marine regulators. They used an adversarial approach that was common for investigations at the time. That involved formulating a conclusion — the iceberg — then calling selective evidence and presenting in a way that supported the iceberg findings.

t28One investigation by the U.S. Senate concluded the accident was an Act of God — the iceberg was a natural feature and shouldn’t have been there under normal conditions. The second investigation by the British Wreck Commissioner agreed with the natural cause conclusion but qualified it with a statement, “What was a mistake in the case of the Titanic would, without a doubt, be negligence in any similar case in the future“. In other words, “In hindsight, it shouldn’t have happened and we’re not going to tolerate it again.”

Both twentieth-century investigations concluded that when the Titanic collided with the iceberg, a gigantic gash was ripped in its hull allowing massive water ingress and compromising the ship’s buoyancy. At the root of the accident, they found the cause to be simply the iceberg.

They were wrong and failed to identify the real cause of the Titanic tragedy.

t31

Today’s professional accident investigators take a different approach to fact finding. They take a “Root Cause Approach” to accident investigation and the industry leaders in Root Cause Analysis or Cause Mapping are the front line company Think Reliability.

t9Think Reliability has done a root cause analysis of the Titanic sinking that’s outlined in an instructional video and a detailed event flow chart that identifies over 100 points of contributing factors. They’re excellent presentations but even Think Reliability missed a few contributors and did not categorically identify the one fatal flaw that caused the deaths of so many innocent people.

In getting to the root cause and finding the fatal flaw, it’s necessary to look at the stages of how the Titanic came to be and then determine exactly what caused it to go down.

History of the Titanic

The Royal Mail Ship Titanic was one of three sister vessels planned by the British ocean liner company, White Star Line. The Olympic was commissioned in 1910 and already in operation when the Titanic was under construction. A third ship, the Britannic, was in planning.

t23The Titanic’s construction was under an extremely tight timeline. Politics were at work, as was economics. Transcontinental ocean travel was rapidly expanding and the once-dominated British control on this lucrative industry was being threatened by German built and operated liners. In protective reaction, the British Government decided to subsidize White Star’s competitor, the Cunard Line. This left White Star resorting to private funding in order to compete and it came from American financier, J.P. Morgan, who put tremendous pressure on White Star to perform.

Harland & Wolff shipbuilders in Belfast, Ireland, built the Titanic. She was 883 feet long, stood 175 feet to the top of the funnels from the waterline and weighed 46,329 tons in water displacement. Her keel was laid in March, 1909, and was set to sea trials on April 2, 1912. Eight days later, on April 10, 1912, the Titanic disembarked Southampton, England on her maiden voyage destined for New York City. Officially, 2165 passengers and crew were on board but this figure is not accurate due to no-shows, an inaccurate crew count, and additional passengers who were taken on in Ireland as well as inevitable stowaways.

t37Some of the world’s most influential and wealthy people were on the Titanic which included the ship’s designer, Thomas Andrews, as well as the head of White Star Line, Bruce Ismay. It was beyond a voyage — it was a cultural event and a chance for White Star to regain its place in international shipping by proving the fastest and most luxurious way to sail between Europe and America. A lot was riding on the Titanic’s success.

The Iceberg Collision

The route Titanic took to New York had been traveled for several hundred years. It was the standard passageway for international liners and the main shipping lane between Europe and North America. The Titanic’s master, Captain Edward Smith, was a thirty-two-year White Star Line veteran and was chosen to command the Titanic due to his experience in international navigation, specifically this plot.

On the evening of April 14, 1912, the weather was perfect. It was clear, cold, and the sea was flat calm however, visibility was limited to ¼ mile due to there being a new moon and the only illumination was from starlight.

t6

At 11:35 p.m., the Titanic approached a point 375 nautical miles south-southeast of Newfoundland where the cold Labrador current from the north met the warmer Gulf current from the south. This location was well known for being the edge of pack ice and was notorious for icebergs which calf or break-off from their parent shelf.

Captain Smith had inspected the bridge at approximately 9:30 p.m. According to testimony from the surviving helmsman, Captain Smith discussed the potential of icebergs although none were yet seen. Smith directed the helmsman to maintain course and to raise him if conditions changed. The Captain left the bridge, retiring to his quarters. He was no longer involved in mastering the ship until after the collision.

t38Testimony from the Titanic’s helmsman, Robert Hitchens who was at the wheel during the iceberg collision, records that the Titanic was at 75 propeller revolutions per minute which calculated to 22.5 nautical miles per hour, just short of its maximum design speed of 80 revolutions or 24 knots. The helmsman also testified the Titanic was actually speeding up when it struck the iceberg as it was White Star chairman and managing director, Bruce Ismay’s, intention to run the rest of the route to New York at full speed, arrive early, and prove the Titanic’s superior performance. Ismay survived the disaster and testified at the inquiries that this speed increase was approved by Captain Smith and the helmsman was operating under his Captain’s direction.

The Titanic was built long before radar became the main nighttime navigational aid. The watch depended on a crew member in the forward crow’s-nest who stared through the dark for obstacles. Other ships were not a concern as they were brightly lit and the only threat to the Titanic was an iceberg.

t2From the dim, Titanic’s watchman saw the shape of an iceberg materialize. It was estimated at ten times the Titanic’s size above water, which equates to a total mass of one hundred Titanics. The watchman alerted the bridge that an iceberg was at the front right, or starboard side, and to alter course.

Testimony shows that confusion may have caused a mistake being made in relaying a course change from the bridge to the steerage located at the ship’s stern. It appears the rudder might have been swung in the wrong direction and they accidently turned into the iceberg. It’s reported that when the helmsman realized the error, he ordered all engines in full reverse. Screw and rudder ships cannot steer in reverse. They can only back up in a straight line but it was too late.

Stopping the Titanic was impossible. It was speeding ahead far too fast to brake within a 1/4 mile, which is 440 yards. Without a speed reduction, covering 440 yards at 22.5 nautical miles per hour would take 36 seconds. Testimony from the inquiries recorded that during the eight-day sea trials, the Titanic was tested from full-ahead at 22 knots to full-stop. This took 3 minutes and 15 seconds and the deceleration covered 850 yards.

t39The Titanic sideswiped the iceberg on its starboard front, exchanging a phenomenal amount of energy. It immediately began taking on water that filled the ship’s six forward hull compartments. Water cascaded over the tops of the bulkheads in a domino effect and, as the weight of the water pulled the bow down, more water ingressed. This caused the stern to rise above the waterline. With the rear third of the ship losing buoyancy and the weight from her propellers being in the air, the stress on the ship’s midpoint caused a fracture. The ship split in two and quickly sank to the bottom. It was 2:20 a.m. on April 15, 1912 — two hours and twenty minutes after the iceberg collision.

Warning and Life Saving Attempts

Captain Smith came to the bridge shortly after the collision. Again, survivor testimony is conflicting and Smith did not live to give his version of what took place in mustering the crew and passengers for safe abandonment.

t36Without any doubt, there was complete confusion — some said utter chaos — in abandoning ship. The voyage had been so hastily pushed that the crew had no specific training or conducted any drills in lifesaving on the Titanic , being unfamiliar with the lifeboats and their davit lowering mechanisms.

Compounding this was a decision by White Star management to equip the Titanic with only half the necessary lifeboats to handle the number of people onboard. The reasons are long established. White Star felt a full complement of lifeboats would give the ship an unattractive, cluttered look. They also clearly had a false confidence the lifeboats would never be needed.

It’s well documented that many lifeboats discharged from the Titanic weren’t filled to capacity. Partly at fault was a “women and children first” mentality, but the primary reason is that no one person took charge of the operation. Testimony is clear that Captain Smith was involved during the lifeboat discharges but there’s no record of what charge he actually took. Some accounts tell of the Captain remaining on the bridge and going down with the ship, as the old mariner’s line goes.

t34Another well-documented issue was the failure of the ocean liner Californian to come to Titanic’s rescue. The Californian was within visual view of the Titanic. In fact, the crew of the Californian had sent the Titanic repeated messages warning of icebergs and the Californian had stopped for the night because of limited visibility and high risk of iceberg collision. These messages were improperly addressed and were never relayed to the bridge of the Titanic.

Further, the crew of the Californian had seen Titanic’s distress flares but the Californian’s Captain refused to respond. This was a major issue brought up at both official inquiries and a reasonable explanation from Californian’s Captain was never resolved.

Eventually, the ocean liner Carpathia responded. It, too, sent the Titanic iceberg warnings before the collision. The inquiries drilled down into the message relay flaws. They discovered the wireless operators on board the Titanic weren’t crewmembers nor directed by White Star. They were employees of the Marconi Telegraph Company privately contracted in a for-profit role to deliver all messages to and from the Titanic. In the few hours before the iceberg collision, the Titanic was within range of an on-shore relay station and this gave them a short window to pass high-priority messages for wealthy passengers. Navigation warning messages to the Titanic were given low or no priority.

t40Hearing testimony recorded that shortly after dark, as early as 7:00 p.m., the Titanic was sent at least five iceberg warnings. There’s no record these were passed on to the ship’s bridge nor the Captain. The Marconi operator aboard the Titanic survived to testify there’d been a severe backlog of paying customer messages and he was being “interrupted” by incoming navigational alerts. The warnings were set aside as they were not addressed “MSG” which means “Master Service Gram”. By policy, MSG messages required the Captain’s personal action whereas non-marked messages were delivered when time permitted.

Finding the Titanic — Design and Damage

Although the Titanic was the largest ship of its time, there was nothing technologically new about its design, materials, or method of construction. The hull was built of large steel plates, some as large as 6 feet by 30 feet and between 1 and 1 ½ inches thick. The technology at the time was to rivet the sections together where today, modern ships are welded at their seams.

t17Riveting a ship’s seams was an entire trade on its own — almost an art. There were two types of rivets used on the Titanic. Rivets in the mid-section of the hull, where stresses from lateral wave forces were greatest, were made of steel and triple-riveted while those in the bow and stern were composed of cheaper iron. The bow and the stern endured less force when under normal operation and only required double riveting by design. Further, with the mid-section of the Titanic being straight and flat, these rivets were installed with hydraulic presses where the curved plates at the ship’s ends had to be hand riveted. That involved setting rivets in place while white hot and hand-hammering them closed.

Anyone who’s watched the movie “Titanic” knows the ship was designed with sixteen “watertight” compartments, separated by fifteen bulkheads that had doors which could be shut off in the event the hull was compromised anywhere along these sections. The “watertight” design only applied below or at the waterline, leaving the entire hull open above the top of these bulkheads.

The bulkheads were the fatal design cause of the Titanic’s sinking but they weren’t the root cause of the disaster.

The ship’s architect, Thomas Andrews, was aware that flooding of more than four compartments would create a “mathematical certainty” that the bulkheads would overflow and cause the ship to sink. Testimony records that Andrews informed Captain Smith of this right after he realized the extent of flooding. This triggered the abandon ship order.

t42

Over the years following the sinking and before the Titanic’s wreckage was discovered, most historians and naval experts assumed the ship suffered a continuous gash in the hull below the waterline and across all six compartments. There was one dissenter, though, who surmised it only took a small amount of opening in each compartment to let in 34,000 tons of water and that was enough to compromise the ship.

Edward Wilding was a naval architect and co-designer of the Titanic who testified at the American inquiry. He calculated that as little as 12 square feet of opening in the hull would have been enough to let in that much water in the amount of time the Titanic remained afloat. Wilding stated his opinion that there was not a long gash, rather it was a “series of steps of comparatively short length, an aggregate of small holes” that were punctured in the hull. Wilding went as far to speculate that the force of the collision probably caused a number of rivets to “pop or let go” and it was “leaks at the ruptured seams” that let in seawater.

t43

In September, 1985, the Titanic’s wreckage was found by a deep sea expedition led by Dr. Bob Ballard. It was in 12,500 feet of water and its debris field covered 2,000 yards. Her hull was in two separate main pieces with her bow nosed into 35 feet of muddy bottom. Since then, a number of dives have been made on the Titanic including one which used a ground penetrating sonar that mapped the section of the bow that was under the mud.

The sonar readings clearly showed six separate openings in the forward six hull compartments. They were narrow, horizontal slits in various spots, not at all in one continuous line like the gash theory held. The sonar map was analyzed by naval architects at Bedford & Hackett who calculated the total area exposed by the slits was 12.6 square feet—almost the exact figure proposed by Edward Wilding in 1912.

t1

The architects also stated the rivets were clearly at fault and they’d failed from the impact. The rivets either sheared off on the outer heads or simply fractured and were released by the impact’s force. Immediately, many experts questioned why only a few rivets in a few seemingly random places failed and not most all along the area of impact.

In one of the dives, a large piece of the Titanic’s forward hull was recovered. This led to a forensic study on the plate steel and rivet composition by metallurgists Jennifer McCarty and Tim Foecke which they documented in their book “What Really Sank The Titanic”. Drs. McCarty and Foecke established a number of the Titanic’s iron rivets had an unacceptable amount of slag in their chemical makeup, contrary to what the ship’s design specified. The metallurgists concluded when the inferior, weak rivets were exposed in below-zero Fahrenheit water temperature on the night of the sinking, they were brittle and shattered from the collision force.

t14The metallurgists went further in their investigation. They found during the rush to complete the Titanic on time, the builders purposely resorted to inferior metal than specified by the designers. The builders were also faced with a critical shortage of skilled riveting labor. This led to a compounded error of inferior rivets being installed by inferior tradesmen that likely explains the randomness of failed areas.

Today, the failed rivet theory stands as the most logical explanation for the mechanical cause of the Titanic disaster but this still doesn’t get at the root cause of the tragedy.

At the core of Root Cause Analysis is the question “Why?”. This form of accident investigation forces the question “Why did this happen?” to be asked over and over until you cannot ask anymore “Whys?”. In Titanic’s case, this path leads to answering the root cause — the fatal flaw in why over 1,500 innocent people lost their lives.

t44

The two official investigations back in 1912 started with a conclusion — the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank. They made somewhat of an attempt to answer why that happened without attaching too much blame. The result was not so much as getting to the root cause but to try and make some good come from the disaster and ensure there was less chance of it happening again.

That is a good thing and, to repeat, it led to improving world marine safety through SOLAS. But that still doesn’t get to identifying the fatal flaw in what really sank the Titanic.

Think Reliability identified five root causes of the Titanic disaster:

1. Iceberg warnings were ignored.

2. The iceberg wasn’t seen until too late.

3. The Titanic was traveling too fast for visual conditions and couldn’t avoid colliding with the iceberg.

4. The rivets failed, compromising the hull’s integrity and letting in enough water to exceed the design buoyancy.

5. Insufficient lifesaving procedures and equipment were in place.

While these five reasons are the prime contributors to why the accident and tremendous loss of life happened, they still don’t arrive at the true, single root cause — the fatal flaw in what caused the Titanic tragedy.

t45

Finding the fatal flaw requires answering ‘Why” to each of these five points.

1. Why were the iceberg warnings ignored?

The answer is a systematic failure of communication operating on the Titanic. There was ample reason to suspect icebergs might be in the Titanic’s path. Any competent captain would be aware of hazards like this and would liaise with other ships along the route for warning information. Navigational communication was not a priority under Captain Smith’s command.

2. Why was the iceberg not seen until too late?

There’s another simple answer here. Night visibility was poor as there was limited light. Testimony from the surviving crewmembers consistently estimated the visibility range to be no more than ¼ mile. Eyesight, combined with compass readings, were the only forms of navigation in 1912. The Titanic was going too fast for the crew to react because Captain Smith allowed his ship to exceed a safe speed for navigation conditions.

3. Why was the Titanic traveling too fast for navigation conditions?

Without question, Captain Smith was under pressure from Bruce Ismay to bring the Titanic into New York earlier than scheduled. While this would never have set a speed record for the route, it certainly would reflect positively on the White Star Line and its business futures. Captain Smith succumbed to unreasonable pressure and allowed his ship to be operated unsafely.

4. Why did the rivets fail?

While Captain Smith had no input into the construction of the Titanic, he certainly knew its design limits. The Titanic was built as an ocean liner, not a battleship or an icebreaker. Captain Smith knew how dangerous an iceberg collision could be yet he still risked his ship being operated in unsafe conditions.

5. Why were there insufficient lifesaving equipment and procedures in place?

The fault began with White Star’s failure to provide the proper amount of lifeboats as well as rushing the Titanic into service before the crew was properly trained in drills and equipment operation. Captain Smith was aware of this. Despite, he allowed the Titanic to sail unprepared.

t18At the root of each of question lies irresponsibility of the Titanic’s captain. It’s long held in marine law that a ship’s captain is ultimately responsible for the safety of the vessel, the crew, and the passengers.

Captain Smith had full authority over every stage in the Titanic’s disaster and he failed on each point. Clearly, Captain Smith is the fatal flaw that caused the Titanic tragedy.

*   *   *

Note: Garry Rodgers holds a Transport Canada Marine Captain Certification which includes training in Ship Stability, Navigation, SOLAS and Marine Emergency Duties. Garry’s also trained in Think Reliability Root Cause Mapping.