Re: Erebus 25 years on
snaga,
You said,
"However, what you seem to miss is that Mr. Justice Mahon was fully entitled to conclude that some witnesses had been less than truthful and that this finding was not overturned"
I said,
"I do believe that covers what his peers in the Appeal Court, and later the Privy council, thought of this matter and his findings, in the matter of witnesses, were in fact overturned."
You followed with,
"That authors attempt to use the Appeals Court and Privy Council findings to, in effect, argue that all of the findings of the Royal Commission were overthrown is an interesting argumentative strategy. While it appears to appeal to you, it does little for me. It certainly does little to advance our understanding as to why (a) this accident occurred, and (b) how to explain the (genuinely) intriguing puzzle as to how the evidence can be (convincingly) marshalled to support two utterly contradictory findings."
You will perhaps note that the argument was in the matter of witnesses, it had nothing to do with the rest of the findings of the Royal Commission. I will attempt to locate a copy of the Appeal Court findings, and the Privy Council findings in this matter. You will note that the fine of $150,000 was imposed by Mahon as punishment on the Company for this so called conspiracy, this fine was quashed by the Appeal Court, that is a well known fact.
It appears you are drawing your information for your opinions from the book Mahon wrote after the event, "Verdict on Erebus". This can only be his version of events, The reference I quote, by John King, first published 1994, has the opinions of many people involved, and has the advantage of much hind sight.
Prospector