No, the dock is where the accused sits during the trial. « stand « or « box » is where the witness testifies.
Don’t you have a dock in US courtrooms?
No. Though surprisingly, according to Wikipedia, they were once in limited use:
In the British Commonwealth (and many other countries), a courtroom used for trials of criminal cases often has a dock: a space exclusively reserved for seating a criminal defendant. It is marked off with a barrier, like the jury box and the witness stand. As late as the 1970s, some American courtrooms also had docks, but they gradually fell out of use.[10] Defendants argued that they were prejudicial and interfered with the accused’s right to counsel, since defense attorneys were traditionally seated at the table for defense counsel and were not normally allowed to sit next to the dock.[11]
I’ve heard defence counsel say the last thing they want is their client sitting next to them at counsel table, distracting them with their running commentary and bright ideas about what defence counsel should do next.
Here’s a simulation on youTube that looks to me very much like it shows simulation software features and display methods I had been using in the last several years, as well as capabilities I’ve seen in software maker’s demo films.
In particular, software often has a feature that calculates where all the little cell volumes of fluid go including how they influence one another, but lets you display only the volumes of interest to you that are identified ahead of time in some way. What they’re doing with this software feature here is displaying where the substances of the human bodies go without obscuring them by displaying all the water, carbon fiber composite, metal, and so forth. They would have tagged the cells that were originally inside human bodies and turned everything else off in the display.
It’s also common to make a variety of choices about how to display the simulation, and run one simulation but then create numerous of displays with different choices.
To this physicist that spent most of the last several years doing CFD simulations of moving fluids, this looks like a good quality simulation of the Titan implosion as I’ve been reading about it. This is the most believable interpretation of known facts I’m aware of.
I find it interesting that the bodies don’t so much get moved around, for example bending at the joints and jostling into new positions, as they do splashing and getting rapidly mixed with everything else in high energy turbulence. The bodies melt against inrushing water and debris.
They were simply converted almost instantly into a very thin “oatmeal” made of meat cells & bone dust. Which is rapidly dispersed in all the following violence. A half second later the pressure is equalized everywhere and the red-tinted haze slowly disperses in the 2- or 3- knot current.
Damn! Now I’m hungry!
Here’s what I said in a different thread:
“Molecules” was perhaps very mild hyperbole, but not by much. The result was still a thin meat soup.
The energy was equivalent to perhaps 6 m^3 of seawater dropping by 3500 m. That’s 200 MJ, or about 50 kilograms of TNT. A few human bodies aren’t going to put up much resistance.
Thanks. I think.
I wonder about this picture. Seems to me most of the human tissue would have disintegrated to this degree, but some items like teeth are pretty small and very strong. If I had to guess, I’d say there are a few teeth, maybe even a few bone fragments as big as a pinky finger. It was striking to me that the fairly flimsy shrouds external to the chamber, the ones covering external equipment, were still quite recognizable, given that they were so close to such an energetic event.
Not to overindulge, but it’s remarkable that suicide bombers carrying enough explosive to be weighed down with it often leave major body parts intact. In that case, and in the case of this submersible, it’s true the bodies don’t put up much resistance overall, and don’t come anywhere close to surviving, and yet sizable parts can survive intact. I think it’s like small regions of relative order in, for example, cars after devastating collisions, or houses mostly disintegrated by tornados. So much depends on how the ample forces in these scenes get coupled to various targets.
Yeah, I know; so, you’re certainly welcome, as far as that goes. Beyond any morbid fascination, these things are of technical significance. I know somebody who claims he had a lot to do with making aircraft seats safer for extremities, especially feet, and he’d go on and on about the things that can go wrong. And the back story behind collapsible steering columns in cars is pretty riveting and did lead to a big improvement. Let us hope somebody here has a bright future in making the world safer for the rest of us, and let us hope that any… well, collateral interest… is harmless enough.
Overall I agree. Mostly. Although you’re the actual physicist amongst the two of us.
A rule of thumb in explosions such as munitions or construction blasting is that there’s an exponential distribution of fragment sizes. A couple of large chunks, and a zillion dust particles, with an exponential curve of particle size in between. Lots of engineering effort goes into munitions design, both of case and of explosive, trying to defeat that default and produce a reliable number and distribution of fragments of known size that are each large enough and energetic enough to do the desired damage, but small enough to be numerous. Both the big chunks and the dust are ineffectual waste from the designer’s POV.
So much for the agreement part. Now comes the “mostly.” 
We can quantify the total energy release during the implosion as X kilos of explosive. Or as Y tonnes of water falling from a height of Z meters. But the dynamic event itself it isn’t an explosion of gas and fragments radiating from a point. Neither is it water falling in a single uniform effectively 2D vector. Instead it’s an implosion, where the force is 3D converging on a point. On every point in the formerly protected space. Not quite all simultaneously, but close.
Teeth are solid until you set one on an anvil and hit it with a hammer. The water coming in from one way is an anvil and from the other a hammer.
I’d certainly expect some surviving macroscopic fragments exactly as you say, but I think the mental model of a car crash is more unhelpful than helpful.
I think the intact nature of the parts from the submersibles’ exterior is a little misleading as well. All the water outside that suddenly got inside “meets in the middle” in a thunderclap that has no net energy or momentum vector. Everything is shaken pretty good, but only briefly.
IMO YMMV, and I’d be curious to watch / red any cites on implosion damage of simple compact structures.
I’m not into conspiracy theories, but there would be very few ways for a billionaire to fake their own death without providing evidence of a body, but this would be one of them…
Was the ‘possible failure point’ based on any evidence from the scraps that were left or picked at random? Of course, from the look of it, it doesn’t seem to make much difference, one end, the other, or somewhere amidships.
Really?? You seemed to have thought this one out pretty well. 
Needs more cowbell.
If I accomplish step one, become a billionaire, I’ll have plenty of time to come up with plans b-z in detail.
I’m not aware they had evidence to decide where the ‘possible failure point’ was, but believe as you say it doesn’t make much difference. Once any of it starts to buckle or shatter, the whole thing goes. If you want to know in which direction the red cloud spreads the fastest, maybe you need the right point, but the overall characteristics of the event likely don’t depend on that at all.
Kind of like asking which link of the chain failed when the piano was dropped on the sidewalk.
But Wile E. Coyote always springs back to full height after that happens. Stockton Rush, not so much.
Columbo or Thomas Magnum would figure this out.
Magnum would use his knowledge if underwater demolition to spot the one clue that doesn’t make sense.
Columbo would just hound someone until they confessed.
If the viewing port was missing then that’s probably an indication of direction the passengers took when exiting the sub.