The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

For which he has no evidence.

Margus is far better placed than you. He got to interrogate the crew, or some of them, up to three times.

He is an appointed state prosecutor. He is not some bozo mouthing off in a bar.

A prosecutor gets to see what charges police want to bring and approves or denies them. Margus is in the unique position of having his ear to the ground. It is not worth his reputation to suddenly become an anarchistic anti-global extinction rebellion-type. He is establishment.


And he has the authority to exercise power appropriately.

 

[Steve]

Or maybe the bow fell off and the ship flooded

Or was the bow thing just a coincidence?

It seems much more likely that all the things adding up to the "not a conspiracy theory" happened. I mean:

- collision with a submarine
- secret military vehicles
- disappeared crew members
- on duty crew members dressed properly in the middle of the night
- unusually high survival rate among crew members
- flooding of "watertight" sections of the ship, including "the hull"
- classified Soviet "material"
- Anders Bjorkman
- enhanced memories of persons under extreme duress
- "Professor Amdahl did various calculations"
- Last minute loading of military trucks and gear, witnessed by exactly one person.
- Surviving passengers were never interviewed, or they were interviewed but not named in the report
- Swedish secret police swooped on the survivors and put them incommunicado
- A flooded car deck should be easy to deal with
- Fake JAIC report
- The ship had a rescue boat ready, as required by law
- JAIC report was doctored to ensure that survivors of crew members received large insurance payouts
- etc
- etc (can't be bothered to keep going)

Put all these things together and mere mechanical failure seems to be the most unlikely of causes. Doesn't it?

 

[Vixen]

I don't believe this. You took Björkman's self-reported c.v. at face value and insisted on no stronger evidence that he was an expert in his field and that he could be trusted to represent the facts accurately. After hearing about Loftus, whose academic and professional stature can be easily verified from objective sources, you wrote her off as nothing but a paid shill. Your "critical faculties" seem to be to accept whatever source reinforces your belief, regardless of how obviously crackpot, and to reject whatever source disputes your belief, regardless of objective eminence.

You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. As soon as I had handed in my dissertation and sat my final exams, I swore never to pick up a book on psychology ever again. You can bring me to Loftus but you can't make me surrender to her theories. I am sure they are incredibly fascinating, well-researched and splendid all round. However, I cannot see what that has to do with the Estonia. Of course, the survivors memories might be faulty now, with the passing of time but in the days of the aftermath, what they had to report was crucial IMV and they should have been heard by the JAIC, they wanted to be heard and to leave out their individual eyewitness accounts, refuse to respond to them, and to refuse to even consider corrections and amendments to the report is truly shocking IMV. Especially when we now know that stolen Russian gear was transport on this passenger ferry which is OBVIOUSLY a material factor to consider in any investigation.

I fail to see how my reading Loftus would add anything to my understanding of this event, especially when I have a queue of books waiting to be read which are of more interest to me .

 

[Vixen]

It may be his view, but it is inconsistent with the evidence as it presently stands.

Wow, just wow. JayUtah knows better than an Estonian leading prosecutor who actually interviewed the crew. Wow!

 

[JayUtah]

Margus is far better placed than you.

The forensic engineering evidence still doesn't support his claim.

He is an appointed state prosecutor. He is not some bozo mouthing off in a bar.

He still needs to have physical evidence.

A prosecutor gets to see what charges police want to bring and approves or denies them.

Police don't bring charges. Prosecutors bring charges after reviewing the evidence the police provide. Prosecutors bring cases they think they can win, which depends only partially on the objective strength of the evidence.

It is not worth his reputation to suddenly become an anarchistic anti-global extinction rebellion-type. He is establishment.

You have a habit of second-guessing what other people think might be a risk to their reputations.

And he has the authority to exercise power appropriately.

Irrelevant. You're claiming the evidence must be strong because a prosecutor wants to make a criminal case out of it. We're looking at the evidence itself and noting that it's not at all strong.

 

[Vixen]

Which one would this be?
As far as I can find out, Sweden had 6 submarines active in 1994.


Näcken (I won't count this one, as it was in refit and upgrade during that period)
Neptun
Najad
Västergötland
Hälsingland
Södermanland
Östergötland

It must have been one of these.
They're all very small submarines, so a collision with a ship like the Estonia, heavy enough to sink that one so quickly, must have really messed one of them up, or even sunk it.

Which one would it be?

Or could it be that neither of these showed any collision damages during this period?

Perhaps the one that weighs 5,000 tonnes? If you look at Evertsson's documentary Epsiode 5, 'The find that changes everything', and fast forward to Professor Jorgen Amdahl, towards the end of the programme, there flashes up a picture of a possible culprit submarine. You might be able to identify it from there, bearing in mind it is only a tentative suggestion. (Possibly simply a random stock photo to accompany the narrative rather than the one suggested by Amdahl.)

 

[JayUtah]

You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Yes, the classic metaphor for stubbornness applies here, I should think.

However, I cannot see what that has to do with the Estonia.

Because your case for a larger role for eyewitnesses in a "proper" investigation of the loss of the ship is predicated on the premise that such testimony is highly reliable in this type of investigation. You buttress that with claims that courts consider it highly reliable. I've shown that not to be the case, but you still insist that it's "nonsense" for anyone not to take your word for it. Your reluctance to engage the evidence that disputes the premise of your argument is simply more proof of your entrenchment.

I fail to see how my reading Loftus would add anything to my understanding of this event...

It's not clear you want your understanding of the event to be improved.

...especially when I have a queue of books waiting to be read which are of more interest to me .

I'm addressing claims you made voluntarily. If, now that you are compelled to defend those claims, you find you've lost interest in them, then concede the point and go read your books.

 

[JayUtah]

Wow, just wow. JayUtah knows better than an Estonian leading prosecutor who actually interviewed the crew. Wow!

Yes, I am a more competent evaluator of forensic engineering evidence than a prosecuting attorney. I made no claim about the testimony of the crew. I'm looking at photographs of the actual ship and pointing out the reasons why the damage to it is inconsistent with a submarine collision, and how it is consistent with a number of other scenarios. I will be happy to share that with the Estonian prosecutor, should the opportunity arise. But for now, since you're the one endorsing his claims, I'm attempting to have that discussion with you.

 

[Vixen]

It seems much more likely that all the things adding up to the "not a conspiracy theory" happened. I mean:

- collision with a submarine
- secret military vehicles
- disappeared crew members
- on duty crew members dressed properly in the middle of the night
- unusually high survival rate among crew members
- flooding of "watertight" sections of the ship, including "the hull"
- classified Soviet "material"
- Anders Bjorkman
- enhanced memories of persons under extreme duress
- "Professor Amdahl did various calculations"
- Last minute loading of military trucks and gear, witnessed by exactly one person.
- Surviving passengers were never interviewed, or they were interviewed but not named in the report
- Swedish secret police swooped on the survivors and put them incommunicado
- A flooded car deck should be easy to deal with
- Fake JAIC report
- The ship had a rescue boat ready, as required by law
- JAIC report was doctored to ensure that survivors of crew members received large insurance payouts
- etc
- etc (can't be bothered to keep going)

Put all these things together and mere mechanical failure seems to be the most unlikely of causes. Doesn't it?

Corrections: The crew's employers Thule-Nordstrom and the Swedish State (the ferry joint owners) would have paid out the insurance to injured crew and deceased crew relatives - this is pretty standard employer pracitce and probably mandatory, as in the UK.

It wasn't just one person who claimed to have seen army trucks, there are at least two, plus surveillance cameras at Tallinn seaport dock.

 

[erwinl]

Perhaps the one that weighs 5,000 tonnes? If you look at Evertsson's documentary Epsiode 5, 'The find that changes everything', and fast forward to Professor Jorgen Amdahl, towards the end of the programme, there flashes up a picture of a possible culprit submarine. You might be able to identify it from there, bearing in mind it is only a tentative suggestion. (Possibly simply a random stock photo to accompany the narrative rather than the one suggested by Amdahl.)

They’re all 1150 tons, while submerged.
I said they were small subs (the Baltic is not a good environment for larger subs).

Can we thus dismiss these submarines, as none of them are even close to 5000 tons?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I wasn't suggesting Russia would. However, organisations are made up of people. After the fall of the USSR 1991, Estonia was awash with serious organised crime and gangland type murders. The fact the Swedish intelligence ordered the Swedish customs to OK the transportation of Soviet classified material to pass through uninspected [Nota Bene: not a conspiracy theory, do have a look at Appeal Court Judge Hirschfeld [_sp?] own declaration in the Swedish rikstag [citation earlier] and as set in stone in the legal parliamentary diary, which confirms it certainly did do this and is not just 'evil gossip', as one poster, rather hysterically, calls it].

The fact of the aforementioned cover up,

There is no such fact. You made it up.

under Bildt, indicates Swedish liability, because after, all, were it a random criminal, Estonian mobster or rogue Old Stalinist counter-spies, I think there would have been a huge diplomatic row.

Why would their be a diplomatic row if it wasn't actually the action of a national government? Wouldn't that just make it a criminal matter?

Instead, Bildt ordered an anodyne report based on the Herald of Free Enterprise in the belief that would appease everybody all round with admitting any blame.

You mean the inquest that initially found the operators guilty of manslaughter?

 

[Vixen]

Yes, the classic metaphor for stubbornness applies here, I should think.



Because your case for a larger role for eyewitnesses in a "proper" investigation of the loss of the ship is predicated on the premise that such testimony is highly reliable in this type of investigation. You buttress that with claims that courts consider it highly reliable. I've shown that not to be the case, but you still insist that it's "nonsense" for anyone not to take your word for it. Your reluctance to engage the evidence that disputes the premise of your argument is simply more proof of your entrenchment.



It's not clear you want your understanding of the event to be improved.



I'm addressing claims you made voluntarily. If, now that you are compelled to defend those claims, you find you've lost interest in them, then concede the point and go read your books.

Wait! The survivors who wanted to be heard were not witnesses in a court of law expecting to be cross-examined. They are victim impact statements and thus can state whatever the victim wants to state.

If they want to correct a time-line, so what? Everybody knows witnesses vary in what they have observed. Surely the JAIC is not so fragile it cannot include an account that may vary from its own account?

 

[Vixen]

Yes, I am a more competent evaluator of forensic engineering evidence than a prosecuting attorney. I made no claim about the testimony of the crew. I'm looking at photographs of the actual ship and pointing out the reasons why the damage to it is inconsistent with a submarine collision, and how it is consistent with a number of other scenarios. I will be happy to share that with the Estonian prosecutor, should the opportunity arise. But for now, since you're the one endorsing his claims, I'm attempting to have that discussion with you.

I haven't endorsed them. I have quoted him as the mass media has quoted him, presumably because they think his credentials lend gravity to his claims.

 

[Vixen]

They’re all 1150 tons, while submerged.
I said they were small subs (the Baltic is not a good environment for larger subs).

Can we thus dismiss these submarines, as none of them are even close to 5000 tons?

Amdahl did give a range - depending on speed and velocity (and kinetic energy?) - of something weighing 1,000 at 5 knots or 5,000 at 1.9 knots.


Obviously inversely proportional to each other - the heavier the colliding object, the lower the speed needed to cause the same damage as reconstructed by Evertsson - so possibly a 1,000 tonne submarine - if it was a submarine - at circa 5 knots.

 

[Vixen]

There is no such fact. You made it up.



Why would their be a diplomatic row if it wasn't actually the action of a national government? Wouldn't that just make it a criminal matter?



You mean the inquest that initially found the operators guilty of manslaughter?

It was covered up for ten years, when being material, it should have been in the report, even if only to reject it as a cause.

Mayer-Werft deny liabilty and yet they are not allowed to bring up the ship at their own expense or to have the so-called rogue visor bolts independently examined. So the bolts are to blame, yet they lie on the sea bed and all anyone has ever done is measure them and leave them behind.

How would you feel if you were Meyer-Werft unable to defend yourself?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It was covered up for ten years,

If you're referring to the Herald of Free Enterprise, no, that inquest was conducted a few months afterwards. I was pointing out that this was hardly an "anodyne report" that could serve as a model for a proposed Carl Bilt cover-up.

If you're referring to the infamous deformation-or-was-it-a-hole in the Estonia's hull, there's no evidence that anything was ever covered up; that is your supposition. Prove the hole was there at the time and that the initial investigators knew about it. Then and only then can you say there was a coverup.

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't endorsed them. I have quoted him as the mass media has quoted him, presumably because they think his credentials lend gravity to his claims.

But you also think his credentials add gravity to his claims. However, his claims ultimately must comport with other evidence in order to be credible. I have shown reasons why they do not. Why are his credentials still relevant in light of that?

 

[JayUtah]

Wait! The survivors who wanted to be heard were not witnesses in a court of law expecting to be cross-examined. They are victim impact statements and thus can state whatever the victim wants to state.

Victim impact statements have no role in a forensic engineering investigation. In any case, your claim was about the reliability of their testimony, which suggests you meant it in an evidentiary sense. Either the eyewitness testimony is evidence, in which case it must be examined as evidence, or it is a complaint, which is proper in a court after liability has been established, but is irrelevant to establishing that liability.

 

[RolandRat]

That's the view of Estonia's state prosecutor, Margus Kurm.

Former State Prosecutor.

https://translate.google.com/transl...tis.ee/CV/Margus_Kurm/eng&prev=search&pto=aue

 

[Vixen]

If you're referring to the Herald of Free Enterprise, no, that inquest was conducted a few months afterwards. I was pointing out that this was hardly an "anodyne report" that could serve as a model for a proposed Carl Bilt cover-up.

If you're referring to the infamous deformation-or-was-it-a-hole in the Estonia's hull, there's no evidence that anything was ever covered up; that is your supposition. Prove the hole was there at the time and that the initial investigators knew about it. Then and only then can you say there was a coverup.

No, the fact of transportation of ex-Soviet military equipment on the passenger ship the Estonia was covered up for ten years.