The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

As for what it is like to be in a flooding ship.
Here is the RN training school.



From 6 minutes brings back memories. 'Hands to Action Stations, Assume NBC State One, Condition Zulu'

At 7.30 minutes there is a good example of the 'free surface effect' in a partly flooded compartment

Exactly. Something like a flooded car deck should be quite easy to deal with. Slow down, turn the ship around away from the waves and release the water naturally. Job done.

But...if there is a hole in the hull....


Remember, these cruise liners sail every day of the year, every year and know about car decks.

 

[Vixen]

But you claimed it's suspicious that the crew of the Estonia were twice as likely to survive as passengers were. Yet crewmembers from the Empress of Ireland were three times as likely to survive. So exactly how is it suspicious?

I said some people think it suspicious because on a passenger ship the crew are supposed to see to the safety of passengers above all else. As the main witnesses to the event (the passengers were not heard, with their anonymised accounts generalised into a few paragraphs without names) of course the crew will be eager to emphasise everything they did for the passengers. Some did hand out life jackets, others launched life rafts. However, how did a lifeboat containing nine crew members manage to get rescued, whilst the passengers were left to the fate of the sea.

This is a reasonable question IMV.

The Empress of Ireland was in 1905, and in relatively early days in the marine passenger industry. Without wishing to be cynical, maybe the crew understandably each had their own survival instinct kicking in and that is where they had the advantage over the passengers.

 

[JayUtah]

I said some people think it suspicious...

Are you saying it's suspicious? Do you think it's suspicious?

This is a reasonable question IMV.

So are you asking it?

Without wishing to be cynical, maybe the crew understandably each had their own survival instinct kicking in and that is where they had the advantage over the passengers.

Is that a phenomenon limited to 1905? Are there other similar factors that apply in all shipwrecks regardless of time era? Why do you consider 1905 to be the genesis of passenger seafaring? Were there no sea passengers before then?

 

[JayUtah]

So you keep saying but you haven't advanced any rationale for why it should not be reopened or even discussed on a forum.

Why do you assign the burden of proof that way? I have a shelf full of NTSB accident reports, nearly all of which have at least some controversy attached to them on the basis of various people seeking judgments of liability for this or that claim. Does the author of every official report following an investigation bear the burden to show why it should not be challenged? Or does the person challenging the record bear the burden to show that the original investigation was substantially flawed?

 

[Vixen]

I'm afraid I agree with Steve.

Are you able to expand? "I'm afraid [please don't be] I agree with Steve'...because:

[Set out your reasoning here.]

 

[Vixen]

Is it your contention that operating a rowboat is the same as serving as an officer or crew on a major oceangoing vessel such as MS Estonia? You seem to position yourself as an expert on what officers and crewpersons in such a situation should be doing. Do I have that right?



Are you claiming that forensic accountancy gives you the insight into what goes into a serviceable forensic engineering report?



Are you claiming such effects occurred in the official investigation of the loss of MS Estonia?

By the way, I can answer yes to both the questions I asked you. You said that some people can tell the difference between a fake report and others can't. Do you claim to be someone who can tell that difference? Do you claim that your critics cannot?

No, I do not claim to be an expert in marine engineering. I never have done. However, ethics are essentially the same in any profession: objectivity being one of the most important. If there is a 22foot tear on the side of the sunk vessel with a 12 foot vertical tear, making a hole, how can that be left out of a report into the accident? If witnesses come forward, whose narrative doesn't fit with your findings, you have a duty to at least mention the disagreement, especially in respect of time line. In law, time line and chronology of events is key to understanding any issue. Likewise, the issue of transporting the military equipment of a hostile foreign power (Nota bene there is a reason men between 17 and 28 have to do national service by law in Sweden and Finland...guess what that reason is?) should have also been included in the report. The fact the remaining members of the JAIC - many having resigned in disagreement - thought it appropriate to simply put out a sanitised version of the Herald of Free Enterprise - perhaps it thought it would be 'diplomatic' and keep the public appeased - indicates to me the report is a disgraceful one.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I do not claim to be an expert in marine engineering. I never have done.

You said some people know a fake report when they see it. Do you claim to be the one in this case who does? Do you claim that your critics in this case do not?

However, ethics are essentially the same in any profession...

Well, yes and no. Every profession has the responsibility to act ethically. But what that means in each profession varies from profession to profession. Do you claim to be an expert in what it means to act ethically in the maritime profession? Do you claim to be an expert in what it means to act ethically as a forensic engineer?

If witnesses come forward, whose narrative doesn't fit with your findings, you have a duty to at least mention the disagreement, especially in respect of time line.

Is that the case even if more objective evidence precludes the testimony? Do you claim to be an expert in eyewitness testimony?

In law, time line and chronology of events is key to understanding any issue.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[Vixen]

Are you saying it's suspicious? Do you think it's suspicious?



So are you asking it?



Is that a phenomenon limited to 1905? Are there other similar factors that apply in all shipwrecks regardless of time era? Why do you consider 1905 to be the genesis of passenger seafaring? Were there no sea passengers before then?

I do find it odd that nine crew members could vanish shortly after being rescued. The Treaty of Rome 1988 and as signed by Sweden itself prohibits the 'disappearance' of people. Yet disappear they did. Or seem to have done.

Well of course there were passages to India, Africa the USA and many other British colonies and protectorates but on the whole, these took up to six weeks and were generally reserved for the families of the colonial masters, the officers, not the casual walk on walk off type of passenger ship we know today. As you know, the Titanic for all of the boasting of the Irish shipyards was not seaworthy - the rivets in the hull were weak, the stoking rooms caught fire due to a fault (some believe it was smouldering when it set off), etc., etc.

The Estonia was built by one of the world's leading shipbuilders, Meyer Werft of Papenburg. It disagrees strongly with the JAIC report and as the architects and designers, as well as builders of this vessel and many others, it should be listened to.

 

[JayUtah]

I do find it odd...

Your post does a very lengthy job of not answering my questions. What are your claims?

 

[Vixen]

Why do you assign the burden of proof that way? I have a shelf full of NTSB accident reports, nearly all of which have at least some controversy attached to them on the basis of various people seeking judgments of liability for this or that claim. Does the author of every official report following an investigation bear the burden to show why it should not be challenged? Or does the person challenging the record bear the burden to show that the original investigation was substantially flawed?

A report - being a legal document in the case of a public inquiry into an accident - should be thorough. Thorough enough to answer any questions in he public mind. One thing a judge absolutely hates is someone successfully winning an appeal against your verdict, because it means that as a judge, you have erred and failed to apply the law properly, as judged by a superior courts. This means, the average judge where they have to produce written reasons, will go to great pains to make sure every aspect is covered because that means a lesser likelihood it can be appealed against successfully.

If your judgment has been fair and the report fair, you wouldn't have any reason to worry about someone challenging it.

 

[JayUtah]

Thorough enough to answer any questions in he public mind.

Even questions that a subject-matter expert would consider naive? There are innumerable ways in which to be ignorant on any given subject. Is a forensic investigation report expected to address questions raised in ignorance? Or is the questioner required to display sufficient subject-matter expertise to justify his challenge?

If your judgment has been fair and the report fair, you wouldn't have any reason to worry about someone challenging it.

I disagree. A fair and balanced report may still be challenged on insufficient grounds. Does the mere fact that a challenge arises legitimize the challenge? You mentioned Anders Björkman, who challenges nuclear weapons and space exploration on completely ignorant grounds. Are his challenges valid simply because he makes them? Or must he demonstrate some degree of proper understanding before subject-matter experts are obliged to respond?

I know next to nothing about forensic accounting. If I were to raise questions regarding the Enron malfeasance and the role of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm in auditing them, would my questions be considered operative simply because I raised them? Or would I need to demonstrate some knowledge of forensic accounting in order to establish a legitimate basis?

 

[Vixen]

Your post does a very lengthy job of not answering my questions. What are your claims?

I set it out earlier (scroll back a couple of days) that I think the JAIC in view of all the disagreements amongst itself and lack of any physical wreck to examine had an armchair theory it was 'like the Herald of Free Enterprise and was a 'paper investigation' rather than any real investigation. Don't get me wrong. I am sure the Swedish navy did its own thorough investigation but that was quite separate and a military secret. An early copy of the minutes turned up in which one of the investigating marine engineers does mention that the torn off bow visor seemed to have made a hole in the hull, which would appear to me they knew very well there was a hole in the hull yet chose not to mention it further.

In the end, they just put out a report justifying to themselves that it was 'in the interests of national security' not to mention various issues.

The fact they have now agreed to relook at the case is similar to winning an appeal on a legal point (= new evidence). It means it erred it and now has to put it right, as it were.

Three nations plus the signatories to the Estonia Treaty would not do that lightly except were it is strongly likely the report will have to be rewritten should the hole in the hull be found to be substantially material to the case, and a Norwegian Professor has calculated it would need a tremdous force to have cause that damage (for example another vessel colliding with it). Rene Arikas of the new expedition has also said in his descriptive narrative at the press conference two weeks ago that the damage would appear to have been caused by a substantial impact. Now, if that impact was the ship hitting the seabed...why is it not in the report...?


Of course the Swedish navy saw it.

 

[JayUtah]

I set it out earlier...

Are you claiming that JAIC report was intentionally inaccurate? I'm somewhat interested in claims made by others, but I intent to hold you accountable only for claims that you're willing to defend. If you're simply going to point to claims made by others and hold people here responsible for addressing them, I don't see the point of that exercise.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I do find it odd that nine crew members could vanish shortly after being rescued.

What does "vanished shortly after being rescued" mean? And what is your source for this? According to the JAIC report, all 138 of the initial survivors were admitted to hospitals upon arrival on shore. All the surviving crew members, and all but a handful of passengers, were subsequently interviewed by authorities. At what point did these nine disappear?

 

[Vixen]

Even questions that a subject-matter expert would consider naive? There are innumerable ways in which to be ignorant on any given subject. Is a forensic investigation report expected to address questions raised in ignorance? Or is the questioner required to display sufficient subject-matter expertise to justify his challenge?



I disagree. A fair and balanced report may still be challenged on insufficient grounds. Does the mere fact that a challenge arises legitimize the challenge? You mentioned Anders Björkman, who challenges nuclear weapons and space exploration on completely ignorant grounds. Are his challenges valid simply because he makes them? Or must he demonstrate some degree of proper understanding before subject-matter experts are obliged to respond?

I know next to nothing about forensic accounting. If I were to raise questions regarding the Enron malfeasance and the role of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm in auditing them, would my questions be considered operative simply because I raised them? Or would I need to demonstrate some knowledge of forensic accounting in order to establish a legitimate basis?

When it comes to a public inquiry, which this investigation was, being the issue of at least 852 people losing their lives, including children and from up to seventeen different nationalities, I am afraid you do need to answer public concerns even if to your mind they are naive. For example, in the case of Grenfell Tower, some of the residents spoke little English, some were poorly educated (many were the opposite). Were many to report they saw the cladding on fire or being advised t 'stay put' by the emergency phone operators, is it wise to then leave all of this out of your report? If they say they were ascending the stairs at say 1:00 but the firemen didn't arrive until 1:30, are they not allowed to challenge your report if you state a completely different time, perhaps on the grounds that you know better than 'these people'? Or that the architects who deny their cladding was unsafe re fire proofing should be better believed because they are better qualified and attended the same school/gentlemans club as yourself? Do you think your report would go down well?

As for Enron, all kinds of new financial regulations come into being every time there is a financial crime. For example, insider dealing or rifling of pension funds. One now has to do all kinds of ridiculous 'fair value' calculations.

Likewise, marine accidents, after Herald of Free Enterprise and indeed, Estonia all kinds of new regulations were introduced. In the case of the latter, better life raft and life saving provisions.

 

[Vixen]

You said some people know a fake report when they see it. Do you claim to be the one in this case who does? Do you claim that your critics in this case do not?



Well, yes and no. Every profession has the responsibility to act ethically. But what that means in each profession varies from profession to profession. Do you claim to be an expert in what it means to act ethically in the maritime profession? Do you claim to be an expert in what it means to act ethically as a forensic engineer?



Is that the case even if more objective evidence precludes the testimony? Do you claim to be an expert in eyewitness testimony?



Are you a lawyer?

Professional ethics are much the same, regardless of the field. Medical ethics probably being more complex than say a lawyer's. I am not a forensic engineer but common sense should tell you that all damage to a piece of machinery should be noted, not just the bit that you conclude caused the issue.

You will find that courts value eyewitness testimony highly and is considered as good evidence as any. It is up to cross examination to discover whether the eye witness is credible or naive or mistaken or whatever.

No I am not a lawyer. If I went into law I would be a barrister, not a lawyer, as that is where the 'meat' is.

 

[JayUtah]

I am afraid you do need to answer public concerns even if to your mind they are naive.

Can you cite to another forensic engineering report where this practice was followed?

For example, in the case of Grenfell Tower...

You cite this as an example, but then you simply apply a lot of hypotheticals that aren't actually addressed.

As for Enron...

As for Enron, you didn't answer my questions. Am I qualified to question the investigations into the Enron and Arthur Anderson malfeasance, having no training or qualification in forensic accounting?

 

[JayUtah]

Professional ethics are much the same, regardless of the field.

That doesn't address my objection. All professions have a responsibility to act ethically. But what that means in terms of each profession is a matter of the specific best practices and longstanding conventions in each profession. Do you claim that your experience as a forensic accountant qualifies you to determine what is ethical practice for engineering?

I am not a forensic engineer but common sense...

Engineering is a rigorous, licensed profession requiring years of education and apprenticeship. Are you claiming that your uninformed "common sense" is of commensurate value?

You claim that some people are able to determine a fake forensic engineering report from a real one. Are you claiming to be such a person? Are you claiming your critics cannot? I've asked this question a number of times, and I don't see where you've answered it.

You will find that courts value eyewitness testimony highly...

That wasn't my question. Do you claim to be an expert in eyewitness testimony?

...and is considered as good evidence as any.

Are you familiar with the scholarship of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus?

No I am not a lawyer.

Then what qualifies you to determine what the law considers appropriate to an investigation? You seem to want your "common sense" to substitute for expert knowledge and judgment in a number of professions in which you cannot document any significant training or experience. Do you think this should be common practice?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

What do you mean 'evil gossip'? It is stated by several seamen that they were in their beds when they were able to get fully dressed and to climb out of the window (this indicates they knew there was trouble, no?) .

I’m not seeing your point here. The suggestion was that the crew’s behavior was somehow suspicious and indicative of foreknowledge of the accident. What you describe here sounds like people scrambling to react to an emergency in real time. That doesn’t suggest foreknowledge to me, just resourcefulness.

They also knew exactly which staircase to avoid - the passengers mostly made their way up the main centre staircase, which only leads to a large lobby. The crew and staff knew to head for the side stairs for the deck. One seaman said he was desperately trying to get downstairs to investigate but came up against hordes of passengers rushing up the stairs.

The crew knew their own ship better than the passengers. So what?

Then there is the issue of the nine Estonian crew members who appear to have been rescued by M/S Viking Mariella from a lifeboat. However, as the ship sank rapidly the witnesses said the lifeboats could not be launched or they would have crashed onto the deck being at a 40° list. Some passengers got into the life boats anyway, and presumably did not survive, as they were not actually launched.

Sounds like they got lucky. The Mariella rescued a total of twelve people from that lifeboat. Since you only mention nine crew, I guess that means the other three were passengers. Did those three passengers have foreknowledge, too?

One tenacious Swedish guy - tenacious in more ways than one! - clung onto an upturned lifeboat he chanced upon in the sea for over six hours until rescue. This poor chap had to witness his fellow clingers on drop away one by one, either from pounding waves, hypothermia or exhaustion. H was the only one left.

Yet the nine crew picked up in their life boat - everybody else had to rely on inflatable rafts and life jackets - vanished shortly after rescue.

I'll ask again what this actually means, and what your source for this is. According to the JAIC, all the survivors were admitted to hospitals on shore, and all of the crew were subsequently interviewed by authorities.

In addition, seaman Sillaste on several occasions, did draw for the benefit of the investigators and the press a drawing of how the car ramp looked from his life raft (or was it a life boat) and it was plainly up each time he drew it. Yet the report says it fell open with the bow visor dragging it down when it fell off.

Witnesses sometimes remember things differently from the way they actually happened. So what?

Another seaman, Silver Linde, was later jailed for nine years for drug smuggling, so clearly is not a person of good character or reliable witness.

Is there something important we're being asked to take Silver Linde's word on? Otherwise, how is this relevant? How is it anything other than evil gossip?

Given that at least some members of the crew would be privy to the fact of military vehicles on board ushered in under great secrecy then it becomes clear that all is not as it seems and is not at all 'evil gossip' for the families of the victims to understand how this impacted on the safety of their deceased loved ones.

This is not a given at all; it is very much in the realm of gossip. And yes, that goes for your bloke saying he’s retired MI6 and knew all about it.

 

[junkshop]

Questions for those who believe the news of the M/S Estonia being reinvestigated is 'fake news':

I don't recall anyone saying this, Vixen.

There are several vociferous people who want to close the thread down.

No one in this thread has claimed that sinking is not being reinvestigated, therefore no one is saying that "the news of the M/S Estoniia being reinvestigated is 'fake news'".

While several posters have opined that this thread should be moved to a different subforum (and i am inclined to agree), if any have called for it to be closed I missed that.