Category Archives: Life & Death

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. They 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 60 Ton Transport Canada Marine Captain Certification which includes training in Ship Stability, Navigation, SOLAS, and Marine Emergency Duties. Garry’s also formally trained in Think Reliability Root Cause Mapping.

COURTROOM COMEDY — GREAT LINES FROM GOOFY LAWYERS

A2Yesterday, I ran into Bert King. He’s my adversarial friend—a defense lawyer with an honest, ethical, and realistic streak. Bert and I stood on the street and bullshitted. Here were two old guys reminiscing old times—who’s still in jail, who made parole—bitching about a stupidly screwed system and the hopelessly dysfunctional new breed of cops and counsels. Then our stuff turned to hilarious things we’d seen and heard within the hallowed halls of honor.

A3One of the great moments took place in our city’s old courthouse. It’s a beautiful stone building with maple woodwork and regal red carpeting. It was a hot summer day and the sheriff nodded off during a jury trial. He snapped awake, then gawked—the prisoner dock was vacant. “M’Lord!” he exclaimed. “The prisoner has escaped!” “Relax, Mister Sheriff,” the judge replied. “The accused has been testifying on his own behalf for the past twenty minutes.”

A5Then there was the time I was on the stand during one of the most vicious double murder trials of my career. I was under cross-examination by this big-shot, downtown lawyer who was grandstanding—waving his hands like a traffic cop on meth. Smack! He whacked his water pitcher, dumping the jug over his files and down the front of his pants. The guy looked like he’d been caught with porn. He stared open-mouthed as Kay, our wonderful sheriff, calmly got up, grasped a roll of paper towels, and purposely approached the spill. The mouthpiece looked mighty relieved. Then Kay stopped. Kay winked at the jury and she handed Mr. Barrister the roll.

A6I’ve seen melt-downs and make-ups, mockeries and manhandlings in the courtroom. I’ve heard a judge slurring words, seen a prosecutor quit, a clerk split his pants, and an accused do an impressive stand-up routine. I’ve seen and heard some crazy, funny things in that public place of prosecution and protection of personal rightsit’s not all pomp and pious.

So, I thought I’d lighten up the DyingWords blog this weekend and share some legalese gems I’ve dug up. Here are whacky words from wonderful wizards of warranted wisdom.

— — 

Judge addressing the jury: “Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all present information and prejudice from your minds, if you have any.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Now sir, I’m sure you are an intelligent and honest man.”
  • Witness: “Thank you. If I weren’t under oath, I’d return the compliment.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “This myasthenia gravis…does it affect your memory at all?
  • Witness: “Yes.”
  • Lawyer: “And in what ways does it affect your memory?
  • Witness: “I forget.”
  • Lawyer: “You forget. Can you give us an example of something you’ve forgotten?

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?
  • Witness: “No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Do you know how far pregnant you are now?
  • Witness: “I’ll be three months on November 8.”
  • Lawyer: “Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?
  • Witness: “Yes.”
  • Lawyer: “And what were you doing at that time?

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Have you lived in this town all your life?
  • Witness: “Not yet.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp?
  • Witness: “I didn’t see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital.”
  • Lawyer: “It was covered?
  • Witness: “Yes, bandaged.”
  • Lawyer: “Then, later on…what did you see?
  • Witness: “I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head.”

— — 

Lawyer: (realizing he was on the verge of asking a stupid question) “Your Honor, I’d like to strike the next question.

— — 

  • Lawyer: “You say that the stairs went down to the basement?
  • Witness: “Yes.”
  • Lawyer: “And these stairs, did they also go up?

— — 

Judge addressing the accused: “How do you plea before I find you guilty?

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Now, do you know if your daughter has been involved in voodoo?
  • Witness: “We both do.”
  • Lawyer: “Voodoo?
  • Witness: “We do.”
  • Lawyer: “You do?
  • Witness: “Yes, voodoo.”
  • Lawyer: “Who do…you do…voodoo…I seem to be confused…

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Did he pick the dog up by the ears?
  • Witness: “No.”
  • Lawyer: “What was he doing with the dog’s ears?
  • Witness: “Picking them up in the air.”
  • Lawyer: “Where was the dog at this time?
  • Witness: “Attached to the ears.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Now, sir, what is your marital status?
  • Witness: “I’d say fair.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Are you married?
  • Witness: “No, I’m divorced.”
  • Lawyer: “And what did your husband do before you divorced him?
  • Witness: “Apparently a lot of things I didn’t know about.”

— — 

Lawyer: “You don’t know what it was, and you didn’t know what it looked like, but can you describe it?

— — 

  • Lawyer: “What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?
  • Witness: “He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?‘”
  • Lawyer: “And why did that upset you?
  • Witness: “My name is Susan.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Sir, what is your IQ?
  • Witness: “Well, I can see pretty well, I think.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?
  • Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “What happened then?
  • Witness: “He told me, he says, ‘I have to kill you because you can identify me.'”
  • Lawyer: “And did he kill you?
  • Witness: “No, he did not.”

— — 

  • Lawyer: “Now, Doctor. Isn’t it true that when a person dies in their sleep they wouldn’t know anything about it until the next morning?
  • Witness: “Did you actually pass the bar exam?

— — 

And no lawyer post would be complete without a lawyer joke.

A7A Mafia Don discovers his bookkeeper ripped him for ten million bucks. His bookkeeper’s deaf—that was the reason he got the job in the first place—the Mafioso assumed a deaf bookkeeper wouldn’t hear anything that he might have to testify about in court. So when the Don goes to confront the bookkeeper about his missing $10 million, he brings along his lawyer, who knows sign language.

The Don tells the lawyer, “Ask him where the 10 million bucks he embezzled from me is.”

The lawyer, using sign language, asks the bookkeeper where the money is.

The bookkeeper signs back, “Don’t know what you are talking about.”

The lawyer tells the Don, “He says he doesn’t know anything about what you’re talking about.”

The Don pulls out a handgun, puts it the bookkeeper’s temple, and says, “Ask him again.

The lawyer signs to the bookkeeper, “He’ll kill you if you don’t say.”

The bookkeeper signs back, “Enough! Money’s in a brown briefcase, buried behind the shed in my cousin Enzo’s backyard in Queens!

The Don asks the lawyer, “Well, what’d he say?

The lawyer replies, “He says you don’t have the balls to pull the trigger.”

A8

— — 

UnderTheGround8I’m promoting a book this weekend. Under The Ground is my new psychological crime thriller based on the true story of an undercover operation done on a guy who murdered his girlfriend and hid her body. He confessed to the u/c operator and turned over the body. What he’d done and where he’d put her was shocking, as was the psychological manipulation done to trick his confession.

Yesterday, Under The Ground hit the #1 spot on Amazon in the Crime-Murder category. Get a FREE Kindle copy of Under The Ground at:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IW3J5RK    Click Here

THE BONEHEADS ON THE PAROLE BOARD

A19

— — 

Sometimes I come across things that are so colossally stupid, irresponsible, and incompetent that I have to take the idiots to task. This time, it’s the members of Canada’s Parole Board who made the boneheaded decision to spring Larry Takahashi.

Who’s Larry Takahashi?

A14He’s the Balaclava Rapist. Takahashi terrorized Edmonton, Alberta, in the 1970s and 80’s. He faced 70 charges involving 22 women where he broke into apartments and raped defenseless women at knife point while hiding behind a ski mask. Larry Takahashi admitted to attacks on 29 different women. Police suspect Takahashi in 100 offenses. He was given three concurrent life sentences—plus an additional 73 years for good measure. If that sentencing judge didn’t flag a dangerous offender, I don’t know who did. But this week, Larry Takahashi—now 63—was granted unsupervised day parole.

Now how boneheaded a move is this?

A15Before getting into how Canada’s parole system works and who the irresponsible decision-makers are, let’s take a closer look at what Larry Takahashi did and is obviously still capable of.

His MO, Modus Operandi, was predictable and, like all serial offenders, he progressed in violence and deviancy. Takahashi lived a double life. By day, he was a model citizen with a good job, a wife, a child, and a black belt in karate. By night, he was a violent sexual predator—a knife-carrying, mask-wearing rapist.

Takahashi began as a Peeping Tom where he’d stand in the dark outside bedroom windows and masturbate. He escalated into breaking into women’s apartments and attacking them while masked and armed with his knife. He raped one woman in front of her kids, caused another to miscarry her twins, and raped another while her family slept in the next room. Takahashi got caught in the act, beat-up the police, fled, and was taken down by a tactical team.

This isn’t the first time the parole board tested Takahashi.

A16The Board gave him a chance in 2005 and he promptly screwed up. Takahashi was sent to the slammer until 2013 when he conned the Board once again. Within two weeks, Larry Takahashi was associating with another known sex offender and ingesting intoxicants. His parole was revoked and now, three years later, these boneheads on the board are sucked in again.

It’s under control, the boneheads boast. “We’ve got him with conditions.”

They include:

  1. Residing at a half-way house in Vancouver.
  2. Curfew from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
  3. No contact with his victims.
  4. Not to be in areas of colleges or universities.
  5. Not to pick up female passengers while driving.
  6. Not to possess weapons or disguises.
  7. Not to possess pornography.
  8. Not to use the internet.
  9. Not to possess intoxicants.
  10. Undergo psychological counseling.
  11. Participate in sex-offender treatment.
  12. Report all sexual and non-sexual relationships with women to his parole officer.

A17Despite the Board’s statements to Takahashi during his July 2016 hearing—“You are capable of extreme violence. You planned and pursued your victims; you were a cold, callous sexual offender with no regard for the plight of your victims,” and “To your own admission, you still have violent fantasies about raping women,”—the boneheads on the board saw fit to give this psychopathic, dangerous-offending deviant another shot.

What about the protection of the public? What about the rights and dignity of his victims? Why did the Board refuse to notify the victims and warn the public about his release? And why does the Board refuse to disclose the location of Takahashi’s half-way house?

A10Well, it seems the boneheads on the board who made this moronic decision have high regard for Takahashi’s “personal development”. That’s a quote right from the spokesperson from the Board.

So who are these boneheads? How does the Parole Board of Canada find them? How are they compensated? And who holds them accountable for putting the public at risk?

Let’s look at how the PBC operates. Here’s their mandate from their playbook. The Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR):

Overview

Section 100. — The protection of society is the paramount consideration for the determination of all cases.

Principles Guiding Parole Boards

Section 101— The principles that guide the Board in achieving the purpose of conditional release are as follows:
A8(a) Parole Boards take into consideration all relevant available information, including the stated reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge, the nature and gravity of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, information from the trial or sentencing process and information obtained from victims, offenders and other components of the criminal justice system, including assessments provided by correctional authorities;
(b) Parole Boards enhance their effectiveness and openness through the timely exchange of relevant information with victims, offenders, and other components of the criminal justice system and through communication about their policies and programs to victims, offenders, and the general public;
(c) Parole Boards make decisions that are consistent with the protection of society and that are limited to only what is necessary and proportionate to the purpose of conditional release;
(d) Parole Boards adopt and are guided by appropriate policies and their members are provided with the training necessary to implement those policies; and
(e) offenders are provided with relevant information, reasons for decisions, and access to the review of decisions in order to ensure a fair and understandable conditional release process.

A9

Criteria For Granting Parole

Section 102 — The Board may grant parole to an offender if, in its opinion
(a) the offender will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to society before the expiration according to the law of the sentence the offender is serving; and
(b) the release of the offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen.

Okay, so that’s what Board members are required to operate within. How about their personal behavior and accountability? This is from the PBC’s Code Of Professional Conduct:

Board Members’ Responsibilities to the PBC

General Conduct

A11Section 1 — In the discharge of their official duties and at all other times, Board members must conduct themselves in a manner that promotes respect for the law and public confidence in the fairness, impartiality and professionalism of the PBC, and reflects the high standards of behavior and attitude required of those charged with the administration of justice.

Decision-Making

Section 15 — Board members render decisions in which the protection of society is the paramount consideration in accordance with s. 100.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA).
A20Section 16 — Board members shall render decisions in accordance with PBC policy and standards, as well as in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the CCRA and Regulations, the Criminal Records Act and Regulations, other applicable statutes; and consistent with the principles of natural justice and the duty to act fairly.

So they linked the Board members’ responsibility to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—the highest form of constitutional law in the land. Here’s what The Charter says about protection of society:

Section 7 — Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

You tell me how releasing a dangerous offender like Larry Takahashi protects a woman’s paramount right to her life, liberty, and security of her person. This is a guaranteed, fundamental, constitutional right of her existence in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice—she-has-the-right-not-to-be-raped. It’s what the Board has a legal mandate to consider as their top priority in assessing offenders: “The protection of society is the paramount consideration for the determination of all cases.”

What am I’m not getting about “The protection of society“?

A21

Who are the boneheads on the board who disregarded their duty of protecting the public to favor a felon?

It took me hours to ferret them out. To be fair, it looks like “The Board” who sat on Takahashi’s recent case was composed of two of twelve members. I don’t believe all twelve Board members are boneheads. But at least two are. Because at least two made this boneheaded decision. This case was heard in British Columbia so it fell within the Pacific Region’s jurisdiction. There are twelve appointees in the Pacific Region—six are full-time and six are part-time.

You have to be appointed to the Parole Board by the federal government, just like a judge. There’s no application, no job posting, no competition, no bidding, no election, and… there’s no public input into selection nor assessment. No transparency. No translucence. It’s just who you know who gets you the job.

A22Board members sit for a fixed term. It’s usually renewed. They’re generously compensated. Full-times get a maximum salary of $132,600.00 per year along with benefits and expenses. Part-times get up to $730.00 per diem. Plus the perks. Good work if you can get it.

Their hearings are deemed public, but with a lot of restrictions, and the reasons for their decisionas well as who made themare jealously guarded. I wasn’t able to isolate which boneheads sat on the recent Takahashi hearing but I’ve submitted an application for disclosure.

But this group of twelve are public servants and the public are entitled to know who they’re paying to protect them.

Here are the Pacific Region’s full-time Parole Board members.

A1Stuart James Whitley —  This guy’s the leader of the pack. He’s from North Vancouver, British Columbia, and designated Vice-Chairperson to the PBC Pacific region. Whitley was appointed as a full-time Board member in November 2012. Prior to joining the Board, he was the Yukon Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services. Whitley also worked as Senior Regional Director and Director of Policy, Programs and Integration at Justice Canada, Deputy Minister of Justice for Yukon, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Manitoba.

Colleen Zuk — Prior to her appointment to the Board, Zuk was Deputy Protection Coordinator in Sudan for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). She also held positions with the ICRC, such as Deputy Protection Coordinator in the Philippines, and Field Delegate in the Philippines, Ivory Coast, and Guinea-Conakry. Prior to working for the ICRC, Zuk was a Naval Combat Systems Engineer in the Canadian Forces and became Head of Department onboard a Canadian frigate. She also held the position of Protocol Officer with the Multinational Force and Observers in Egypt during her service. Zuk received a Bachelor of Science from Royal Military College and a Master of Arts from the University of Essex, in the United Kingdom.

A4Ian MacKenzie — He’s from Abbotsford, British Columbia, and is re-appointed a full-time member.  Mackenzie was first put on the Board in February 2009.  With 32 years’ experience in municipal policing with the Abbotsford Police Department and the Vancouver Police Department, Mackenzie also taught criminal law, criminal procedure, and civil liberties courses at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of the Fraser Valley. Mackenzie is a Member of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces.

Laura Hall — She’s re-appointed as a part-time member and was named to the Board in 2010. Hall has 16 years of experience working for the Family Services of Greater Vancouver, a community-based not-for-profit organization providing social services to children, youth, adults, and families across British Columbia’s lower mainland. Prior to her appointment to the Board, she was the Community Services Manager of the National Parole Board.

A7James Alexander (Jim) Hart — From Vernon, British Columbia, Hart was recently appointed as a full-time member. Prior to entering political life, Hart worked in the broadcasting industry as a radio host, television host, account executive, and radio station manager. Before being put on the Board, Hart was a consultant and a Democracy and Governance Practitioner.  From 1993 to 2000, Hart was an elected Member of Parliament, and between 2004 and 2011, he was a technical advisor to foreign parliaments and governments. Hart was the subject of serious controversy when he received $50,000.00 in compensation for resigning his Parliament seat so party leader, Stockwell Day, could slide into it. Hart was not charged.

H. Alexander Dantzer — Alex Dantzer was first appointed to the Board in February 2009 and re-appointed as a full-time member.  He’s a lawyer who specializes in administrative law. Dantzer’s career began in the Foreign Service of the Government of Canada when he was named Vice-Consul in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria as well as Vice-Consul in New York City. Dantzer is an active community member affiliated with numerous organizations including the Surrey Public Library, Friends of the Surrey Museum and Archives, Knights of Columbus, Western Canadian Society to Access Justice, and the Newman Association.

These are the part-time Parole Board appointees.

A3Maryam Majedi — This lady’s from Vancouver and manager of the Special Prosecution Office of the B.C. Ministry of the Attorney General since 2002. From 1988 to 2002, Majedi was Regional Manager of the Crown Counsel Victim/Witness Services in the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. In 1972, she received her Bachelor of Arts and Law degree at the National University of Iran. Majedi served as an executive member of various organizations including the Multicultural Organization MOSAIC, the People’s Law School, the Criminal Justice Program, the Immigrant and Multicultural Services Society, the Canadian Scholarship Trust Foundation, and the Native Education and Criminal Justice programs at Langara Community College.

Bent Andersen — From Victoria, British Columbia, Andersen was first appointed to the Board in 2007. He was re-appointed in 2010. Prior to joining the Board, Andersen served as Chief Constable of the Oak Bay Police Department between 1995 and 2007. Prior to that, he served 27 years with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), from 1968 to 1995, and was posted to various locations in Canada. Andersen retired from the RCMP with the rank of Inspector. 

A6Catherine Dawson — She holds an MA in Criminal Justice (UFV) and an M.Ed. in Administrative Leadership (SFU) as well as an undergraduate degree from SFU. Her research interest is images of child sexual abuse, particularly crimes facilitated by the Internet. She’s also explored the nexus between exploitative phenomena including cyber stalking, human trafficking, and “sexting”. Dawson has spoken locally, nationally, and internationally on the subject of online safety, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking—advocating for change that improves the safety of children. Also a faculty member at the University of the Fraser Valley as a research associate in the Center for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research, Dawson is newly appointed as a part-time Parole Board member.

Gordon McRae — From Mission, British Columbia, McRae is re-appointed as a part-time Board member after his first appointment in 2008. He served as a regular member of the RCMP for 25 years, with postings in Penticton, Maple Ridge, Coquitlam, and Surrey. McRae also worked as crime prevention specialist for the City of Surrey.

A7Dr. Kim Polowek — She’s  a Professor at the University of the Fraser Valley in the faculty of Criminology and Criminal Justice . Previously, Polowek served as a Research Consultant, a Probation Officer, and a manager of Research and Policy with the Ministry of Attorney General. Polowek spent time as a Volunteer Research Consultant with Odd Squad Productions, a member of the Port Moody Police Board, and a member of the Chilliwack Restorative Justice. She holds her Bachelor of Arts, her Master of Arts, and her Doctorate in Criminology from Simon Fraser University. Dr. Powolek has been a member of the Pacific Region Parole Board since 1996.

Linda Cross — Cross is re-appointed as a part-time Board member. She got her first appointed in 2009. A criminology graduate from Simon Fraser University, Cross worked as a dispute resolution officer for the Residential Tenancy Branch of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development. She was also the Adjudicator of the Student Appeals Branch, Board of Education and Tribunal Member of the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal. Cross worked as an Assistant Professor at Okanagan College and served as a lay member on the Vernon and Area Health Services Bioethics Committee. She’s a criminology graduate from Simon Fraser University.

These are the paid appointees who make up Canada’s Pacific Region Parole Board. At least two of these non-gratuitous government employees—these compensated civil servants—are responsible for the boneheaded decision to let Larry Takahashi loose on the public.

I’m sure it’ll be a while before I get disclosure from the PBC so I can give credit where credit’s due.

 

*   *   *

Update on 14 October 2016

I obtained the documented reasons for granting day release for Larry Takahashi from the Parole Board of Canada. It’s 11 pages long and very wordy. My read of this is that they reviewed his criminal history and concurred he still presents a risk to the public however they’re willing to take a chance with the insurance of giving him every condition that’s in the formatted box on the form.

This is an interesting quote from the report:

The file information that you continue to have sexual fantasies about rape are very concerning: however, at least you admit to it whereas you previously denied such occurrences.”

My take on it is that the bureaucrats look at him as an old man taking up space in a crowded prison system and need to get him out of the warehouse and back on the street where someone else can look after him and pay the bills. Of course, they don’t say that.

If anyone would like to read the decision and see if they can agree on the justification for putting the public at risk – which they agree in the report that it’s a distinct possibility he’ll reoffend – give me a shout and I’ll mail you a copy.

By the way, the two boneheads who made the decision are Colleen Zuk and Gordon McRae.