The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
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?
Click to expand...

I said he is quoted in the mass media because journalists have decided he is a source worth quoting (as you know, reporters on reputable newspapers have to check their sources).


Margus has conducted interviews with the ship's crew. Why would he advance a theory of a possible collision with a Swedish submarine escorting the vessel unless he was was confident of his belief? I neither believe nor disbelieve him. However, why shouldn't his theory be looked at? Why are people so terrified to even examine a claim?

It if is junk then it is junk. Nothing to fear.
 
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Meyer-Werft seems to be have done just fine in the years since. I doubt that they're losing much sleep over the Estonia these days.
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the ship's crew are reliable witnesses, then so are the surviving passengers. This was a public inquiry not a court claim with a plaintiff and a defendant. 852 relatives and friends of the deceased might actually have a legitimate curiosity to hear what their fellow passenger went through and who lived to tell the tale.

I looked up Dr Loftus and she is mainly concerned about people trying to recall memories they ahve forgotten or urged to 'remember' and then their minds fill in the missing information. For example, a scene was shown on TV as an experiment in which a man appears to attack a woman and grab her purse. The viewers were then given identikits of six men and asked to phone in as to which one they recognised as 'what dunnit'. Of course, this was a trick - so loved of psychology experimenters - as none had seen the face yet people rang in claiming to identify the culprit.

The sinking of the Estonia is nothing to do with trying to recall a long lost memoery, such as childhood abuse or a quick crime scene and they are being asked to identify the suspect. This is COMPLETELY different. It is describing something that is fresh in the mind of a recent event with no pressure from anybody to 'remember this' or 'remember that'.

Are you really making a serious claim that survivor, Paul Barney, is incapable of recalling events correctly of that night?




The sinking of the Estonia isn't about silly academic psychology party tricks.
 
RolandRat said:
Former State Prosecutor.

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

So one presumes he understands how evidence or claims should be presented.

Institutions and positions
22.01.2016 –... University of Tartu, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Law, Acting Head
01.01.2016 –... University of Tartu, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Law, Lecturer of Penal Law (1.00)
01.09.2015–31.12.2015 University of Tartu, Faculty of Law, Institute of Public Law, Lecturer of Penal Law (1.00)
2012-2015 Permanent Representation of Estonia for OECD and UNECO, Counselor (1.00)
2010-2012 Viru District Prosecutors' Office, Republic of Estonia, Chief Prosecutor, Head of the Office (1.00)
2005-2010 Office of the Prosecutor General, Republic of Estonia, Chief Prosecutor, Head of the Department of Prosecution (1.00)
2003-2005 Ministry of Justice, Republic of Estonia, Deputy Secretary General, Head of the Department of Criminal Policy (1.00)
Click to expand...

So not a crazy conspiracy theorist, after all.
 
Vixen said:
I looked up Dr Loftus and she is mainly concerned about people trying to recall memories they ahve forgotten or urged to 'remember' and then their minds fill in the missing information.
Click to expand...

That's her more recent research. Starting in 1979 she pioneered the field of reliability in eyewitness testimony and wrote the standard textbook on the subject which is now in its second edition.

This is COMPLETELY different. It is describing something that is fresh in the mind of a recent event with no pressure from anybody to 'remember this' or 'remember that'.
Click to expand...

Your five minutes' worth of Googling does not accurately represent her career or findings over the decades. In any case, I also gave you the names of three other researchers on the subject.

Are you really making a serious claim that survivor, Paul Barney, is incapable of recalling events correctly of that night?
Click to expand...

I've made no specific claim about any particular witness or their testimony. I am providing you evidence that disputes your claims that eyewitness testimony is highly reliable.

The sinking of the Estonia isn't about silly academic psychology party tricks.
Click to expand...

Your disdain for the field does not prevent it from affecting your claims.
 
Vixen said:
Obviously there will be damage caused by the stress of shifting (four times, at least, according to Arikas). That doesn't cancel out any hole in the hull as of the time it sank.
Click to expand...

What is the evidence for a hole in the hull at the time the ship sank?
Apart from the huge hole where the bows were missing of course and the windows and air intakes and ventilators and stairways.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where did he get the evidence for a Swedish submarine?

Looks to me like he pulled it out of his arse.
 
Vixen said:
I said he is quoted in the mass media because journalists have decided he is a source worth quoting...
Click to expand...

Your argument was that the evidence in favor of submarine collision should be considered strong because a prosecutor had made charges alleging a submarine collision. That has nothing to do with media interest. You're inferring the strength of evidence based on your guess for why someone did something. I'm looking at the physical evidence directly and evaluating it, which I am qualified to do. And your inferential argument is still the one you're making:

Why would he advance a theory of a possible collision with a Swedish submarine escorting the vessel unless he was was confident of his belief?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the motives of an Estonian prosecutor are or might be. But it's your contention that his willingness to advance the theory means there must be strong evidence of it. You're the one trying to second-guess an Estonian prosecutor and determine his motives and thereby create a premise for your claim. A third-party's confidence in his belief doesn't change the physical evidence.

I neither believe nor disbelieve him. However, why shouldn't his theory be looked at? Why are people so terrified to even examine a claim?
Click to expand...

You clearly believe him. You're specifically arguing that his charges must be credible, and therefore that the evidence you think they're based on must be sound.

I have looked at his theory. I am examining it. I've outlined the reasons why his claim is not credible according to physical evidence. You are evading that discussion simply to restate the point being disputed.

It if is junk then it is junk. Nothing to fear.
Click to expand...

You seem to fear a discussion that points out why his claims are junk.
 
Vixen said:
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.)
Click to expand...

The hole is above the waterline. How would a sub impact that high on the side of the ship?
Those Swedish boats are small diesel electric boats. with a casing giving barely two meters of freeboard and the bow is blunt and rounds down.

They have the Gotland Class which are 1,494 tonnes on the surface and 1599 submerged.

Västergötland class are even smaller, barely a thousand tons and similar freeboard and bow.

Then there is the Södermanland class which didn't come in to service until 2003

Where are you getting 5000 tons from?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They have the Gotland Class which are 1,494 tonnes on the surface and 1599 submerged.
Click to expand...

Their maximum surface speed is only 11 knots. That poses somewhat of a problem for the submarine collision theory. If we take Prof. Amdahl's lowest estimate for required kinetic energy (2485 kJ), a 1,494-tonne submarine would need to impact at a speed of 3.5 knots. But that's 3.5 knots in addition to the 14 knots Estonia was already making at the time of the alleged collision, since the collision is alleged to have been from the the direction of the stern quarter. (And that's the only direction consistent with an interpretation of the waterline hole as an impact point.) Swedish submarines can't do 17.5 knots on the surface.

However, it's also crucial to understand the geometry of the alleged collision, since it would need to happen at a certain range of acute angles both to inflict the observed damage and to account for the submarine's slow surface speed. A collision is possible under some circumstances, but it would alter the kinetic energy part of the model and therefore require us to recompute the needed speed. This is why Amdahl needs to show his work.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
852 relatives and friends of the deceased might actually have a legitimate curiosity to hear what their fellow passenger went through and who lived to tell the tale.
Click to expand...

And why is the forensic engineering report the only proper venue for that? I read dozens of forensic accident reports a year. None of them contain passsenger grievances or "impact statements." You keep flip-flopping over whether passenger eyewitness testimony is meant to be evidentiary or plaintive. If they want to tell their stories in a non-evidentiary context, and if people simply want to hear the stories, there is a variety of public media available for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
And he has the authority to exercise power appropriately.
Click to expand...

Actually he doesn't. As someone pointed out, he hasn't been a prosecutor in Estonia for a number of years. Since official action is not on the table, can you think of any other reasons why a former Estonian official would want to raise sensational claims in the media? Is it really credible anymore to believe his actions are based on the alleged strength of the available evidence?
 
JayUtah said:
Actually he doesn't. As someone pointed out, he hasn't been a prosecutor in Estonia for a number of years. Since official action is not on the table, can you think of any other reasons why a former Estonian official would want to raise sensational claims in the media? Is it really credible anymore to believe his actions are based on the alleged strength of the available evidence?
Click to expand...

Vixen was wrong?? That is quite beyond belief!!
 
Vixen said:
Why would he advance a theory of a possible collision with a Swedish submarine escorting the vessel unless he was was confident of his belief? I neither believe nor disbelieve him. However, why shouldn't his theory be looked at? Why are people so terrified to even examine a claim?

It if is junk then it is junk. Nothing to fear.
Click to expand...

He advanced the theory for the same reason people who need to deflect the truth make counter accusations: culpability. The ship sank due to mechanical failure, possible poor crew operations in securing key vehicles, and the judgement of the captain to even sail into the storm.

Had the Swedes wrecked a sub the Russians, the British, and the US would have discovered this fact quickly as all three countries actively spy on the Swedish navy due to their submarine tracking technology and skill (which they don't share).

That, and the high probability that had a sub hit the boat it would still be lying on the bottom near by.
 
Axxman300 said:
Had the Swedes wrecked a sub the Russians, the British, and the US would have discovered this fact quickly as all three countries actively spy on the Swedish navy due to their submarine tracking technology and skill (which they don't share).
.
Click to expand...

Is that the same 'skill' and 'technology' that had them chasing fish around Kanholmsfjärden in the Stockholm archipelago claiming it was a damaged Russian sub a few years ago?

(snigger)
 
JayUtah said:
That's her more recent research. Starting in 1979 she pioneered the field of reliability in eyewitness testimony and wrote the standard textbook on the subject which is now in its second edition.



Your five minutes' worth of Googling does not accurately represent her career or findings over the decades. In any case, I also gave you the names of three other researchers on the subject.



I've made no specific claim about any particular witness or their testimony. I am providing you evidence that disputes your claims that eyewitness testimony is highly reliable.



Your disdain for the field does not prevent it from affecting your claims.
Click to expand...


Don't twist my words. I did not say 'eyewitness testimony is highly reliable'. I said it can be highly valuable. Do keep up!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What is the evidence for a hole in the hull at the time the ship sank?
Apart from the huge hole where the bows were missing of course and the windows and air intakes and ventilators and stairways.
Click to expand...

If the hole was caused by hitting a sharp rock on the sea bed when it sank, then it would have been present when the JAIC filmed it. It is not mentioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom