The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Jack by the hedge]

... A sudden rush of 2,000 tonnes of seawater would ...

It doesn't matter what you reckon a sudden rush of 2,000 tons of seawater would do because that's a thing which exists in your imagination rather than in the report.

 

[malbui]

But the question is whether it's a credible offer. Your argument is that all these offers of salvage and/or recovery were suspiciously rejected, insinuating that there was something to hide. That's based on the premise that the offers were legitimate, credible, and that there were no practical, regulatory, or other legitimate reasons why the offers should be rejected. If you're now conceding that the offers were just compassionate responses and not necessarily legitimate offers of service, then the point you wanted to prove by that argument falls flat.

Indeed. My old friend Pierre is now retired but used to be very senior in the regional Gendarmerie. On the occasions - rare given the area - that there was a murder, their phones used to ring off the hook with generous and sincere offers of help from members of the public who could identify the killer through dowsing or remote viewing or analysing goat entrails or stuff like that.

Credibility and demonstrable utility are everything.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, it is better than anonymous sources, isn't it?

That doesn't really have anything to do with the point theprestige made. He's pointing out that you have implicit faith in some sources simply because of who they appear or claim to be, and reject other sources who are similarly qualified, but your rejection is on entirely different grounds. The criteria by which you evaluate testimony seems more closely connected with whether it agrees with what you want to believe than whether the contributors are appropriately qualified or have made salient points.

There are so many different interested parties in this case, of course, one has to explain their role and viewpoint.

And theprestige's point was that you implicitly accept testimony that agrees with you regardless of its critical value, and you implicitly reject testimony that disagrees with you, on a variety of ad hoc grounds. You simply assume testimony that agrees with you must be objective, well-informed, and accurate. You assume testimony that disagrees with you must be biased and ill-informed.

Pointing this out is to help evaluate opinion from fact.

You have no problem accepting opinion from someone whom you believe to be well-qualified, so long as that opinion coincides with your beliefs. You categorically dismiss equally qualified opinion when it disagrees with you, often with comically acute prejudice. You aren't actually competent to evaluate expert opinion, so you dismiss those who are, and their opinions.

The opinion of someone who was actually there helps indicate what information is valuable from that of someone who knows nothing about the case...

Agreed. Similarly, the opinion of people who actually know the sciences, conventions, skills, and practices of the endeavors in question are more likely to be correct than those who merely state their beliefs as if they were fact, or who simply take on faith what someone else has said without examining the content critically.

...and deciding 'the JAIC must be right because after all they are the establishment'.

Straw man. I don't see any of your critics claiming that the JAIC report must be correct. I certainly don't see any of them claiming further that it's correct because it was produced by the Establishment. As it stands the JAIC simply seems to do a better job of answering all the evidence than any of the competing theories such as disappearing explosives and submarines and wild political conspiracies.

That's not to say a better job cannot be done, which is why I do not oppose a further investigation using new techniques and incorporating additional evidence. But these conspiracy theories just don't fit the evidence, taken as a whole. You seem to say the competing theories must be taken as objective, complete, and truthful. I'm just not seeing how the evidence leads to such a conclusion.

The views of experts on marine collisions and explosions are surely worth more than Fred and Freda Bloggs who get all of their views from the news on tv or the internet.

I am professionally qualified to evaluate the engineering claims made in this thread. So are others. You are not. There are plenty of people in this thread with applicable professional seafaring experience. You are not one of them. You are the one who doesn't belong. You are the one getting their views from the TV or the Internet, and often getting the facts and underlying fundamentals comically wrong. Simply because you mindlessly quote what others have said does not mean that your critics are similarly hobbled and can't make valuable informed contributions to the discussion that are better than yours. It certainly doesn't make your ignorant, biased interpretations of others' work somehow any more worthy of consideration.

People want to hear the experts, not Fred and Freda.

Or Vixens.

 

[JayUtah]

...through dowsing or remote viewing or analysing goat entrails or stuff like that.

I wonder if that would work on shipwrecks.

 

[theprestige]

Well, it is better than anonymous sources, isn't it?

It's not a question of the quality of the source. It's a question of the quality of your faith in the source.

A named source can be cross-examined, and their testimony can be found inadequate. That's what we've been doing here. Your rebuttal has been a superstitious appeal to their credentials, rather than an intellectually honest examination of their claims as such.

---

For what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned an anonymous source is functionally equivalent to the reporter being the source.

 

[Vixen]

What do you think the difference in size is between the galley section of an oil rig and the Estonia?

As already posted a number of times, the Ehime Maru was less than 50m in length and 700 grt, not 150 m and over 15.000 grt.
It was not raised.

And you have been told that size and logistics was nothing to do with the decision.

 

[Vixen]

So he is in charge and gave the orders not to raise the Estonia?

How do you know he advised not to raise the ship?

Why would he be listened to any more than any of the other govt advisors?

Because he opined from the get go that it should not be raised.

 

[Vixen]

That's a claim that they were biased in favor of the bow visor theory and were therefore likely wrong. You didn't address the point, which was the observation that you have come to the question with preconceptions of who must be biased and who else must be honest and forthright. You seem utterly unwilling to think critically about sources that agree with your beliefs.

You really haven't got a clue about this case. It was nothing to do with bias, as it was set in stone from day 1 so there was no bias as it never took an impartial position in the first place.

Cop this: after signing off the JAIC report Kari Lehtola's personal curiosity got the better off him and he applied pressure on the Finnish divers syphoning off the polluting fuel to 'test the radioactivity levels'.

So erm, knowing of the smuggling of Russia military secrets, the waters were never (officially) tested for potentially elevated radiation levels. Bearing in mind there was quite a lot of smuggling of radioactive materials going on from the decommissioned ex-Soviet base at Paldiski in Estonia.

So Lehtola, having spent three years helping to compile the JAIC report only decided to ask questions once he'd signed it off.

 

[Vixen]

Detail is not a substitute for correctness. Further, can you account for details reported by one officer but not by the other? One officer notes that the bartender started removing bottles from the shelves. The other notes that items fell from the shelves. One notes the reaction and behavior of people while the other does not. One officer notes two distinct heeling events and specifies the directions, while the other merely notes one heeling event and does not specify direction.

Most telling, Officer Fägersten makes a conclusory statement, testifying that the ship "ran against something," when from her vantage point neither she nor anyone else could see what -- if anything -- was hit.

These are incongruities that one expects in eyewitness testimony. But no, for the reasons given, I don't consider these more accurate or reliable than testimony by people in other professions.

It was the middle of the night. There are no street lights in the middle of the sea. She and her colleagues craned their necks to look out of the window to see what seemed to have collided with the ship.

I should hope that a cop knows when something has collided with them.

 

[Vixen]

Workplace safety standards are not a substitute for actually being able to hear and understand people.



How do you know that? Why do you keep reporting the 2,000(-tonne) inflow of water as a single event when you know that's not the claim?



I've been to Niagara Falls and I've also been on the deck of a ship during heavy weather. Which one of us is more qualified to compare the two?

I've been to Niagara Falls and I have been on the deck of a ship during stormy weather, so you tell me.

2,000 tonnes is the potentail capaicty of the car deck. Hence, if the ramp has given way then that is how much seawater surged in and it will not have been gentle.

 

[JayUtah]

It was the middle of the night. There are no street lights in the middle of the sea. She and her colleagues craned their necks to look out of the window to see what seemed to have collided with the ship.

You didn't address the point. The witness made a conclusory statement instead of simply reporting the facts.

I should hope that a cop knows when something has collided with them.

In your model of police reporting, a cop should know when to report observations rather than to drawn unwarranted conclusions about what unseen cause produce them.

 

[JayUtah]

2,000 tonnes is the potentail capaicty of the car deck. Hence, if the ramp has given way then that is how much seawater surged in and it will not have been gentle.

How do you know? Were you there?

 

[Vixen]

This statement actually comes closer to the truth than your previous claims. Since you have only a vague memory of whether there's scientific evidence to support your claims, and since you have a demonstrated dislike of scientists who disagree with you, and since I've had to study this for decades as part of my profession, I'll fill you in on the parts you're getting wrong, according to the science.

The myth of the "trained observer" was debunked long ago. No amount of ante hoc training improves observational ability or compensates for memory malleability. There are practical techniques such as recording recalled observations in a fixed medium as soon after the events as possible, but this does not improve the accuracy of reporting for police any more than it does for any other person.

What the science shows conclusively is that people in general, and juries specifically, tend to believe strongly in the proposition that police are better observers and better witnesses than non-police. Police testimony is commonly given greater weight by triers of fact. But of course this is not the same as actually being able to demonstrate greater accuracy. When tested under controlled conditions, police show no better ability to observe and recall events accurately than anyone else.

There is no such thing as a better-trained general observer. What you note about people being drawn to details that pertain to their professions or other areas of experience is confirmed empirically, but only in the context of those professions. And it arises unconsciously, over a long time, as a result of experience and not prior training. A fashion designer noting what you're wearing, where someone else might not, does not translate to being able to observe better what is going on when a ship is sinking. Similarly police officers acquire the ability to note details that relate to criminal behavior, that others might miss. This does not translate to better observational ability than others in all situations. Nor does any of it compensate for memory malleability.

What this means is that in the context of a ship in distress, the ship's crew are far more likely to be reliable witnesses to the behavior of the ship than non-seafarers. There are, of course, academic citations for all this, and I can provide the relevant authors and bodies of work if required. But I fear that they would just suffer the same fate at your vitriolic and vindictive hands as poor Dr. Loftus did when she crossed you.

So no, the science does not confirm your belief that police are generally better observers than anyone else, nor that such a claimed ability is the result of training to that effect. And given the discrepancies in the statements of the two police officers you quoted, which I note above, I think your claim is fairly thoroughly refuted.

Maybe not for PC Plod on the beat but the ones who rise through the ranks as detectives likely do have better cognitive skills. I've worked with former detectives ('investigators) and they all had the knack of sizing someone up at almost at a glance. Otherwise they would not have lasted long with all the crooks pulling wool over their eyes.

 

[JayUtah]

You really haven't got a clue about this case. It was nothing to do with bias, as it was set in stone from day 1 so there was no bias as it never took an impartial position in the first place.

If it wasn't impartial then it was baised. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp? Is English your native language?

 

[JayUtah]

Maybe not for PC Plod on the beat but the ones who rise through the ranks as detectives likely do have better cognitive skills.

Cognitive skills are not the issue. Can you cite the science to back up the new position you've backpedaled to? Or is it just more assumed, made-up crap?

 

[Vixen]

Not a thing that can be done.



So what is your evidence that the two police officers whose contradictory testimony you reproduced up-thread did that in the case of the Estonia sinking?



It's cute that you believe that police reports are objective and free from emotion or judgment.

So what is this all about, then:

Home > Articles > Professional Certifications > Police

Becoming a Skilled Observer: Police Officer Exam Cram
Feb 4, 2005
Contents

␡
Ability to Observe Detailed Information
Maximizing Information Retention
Exam Information
Exam Prep Questions
Exam Prep Answers
⎙ Print + Share This
Page 1 of 5 Next >
The ability to observe and retain information is potentially the most vital skill that a police officer can possess. This chapter will help you prepare for the Police Officer Exam by providing pointers on organizing and retaining information for easier recall. Sample questions are included to help you practice.

https://www.pearsonitcertification.com/articles/article.aspx?p=352855

Don't just take Officer Fagersten's word for it or her police colleague. Read the reports of the other 27 survivors who have the same sequence of events: Two or three bangs, sudden list, urgent need to escape.

 

[Vixen]

But the question is whether it's a credible offer. Your argument is that all these offers of salvage and/or recovery were suspiciously rejected, insinuating that there was something to hide. That's based on the premise that the offers were legitimate, credible, and that there were no practical, regulatory, or other legitimate reasons why the offers should be rejected. If you're now conceding that the offers were just compassionate responses and not necessarily legitimate offers of service, then the point you wanted to prove by that argument falls flat.

Nothing suspicious. It was a straightforward no.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed. My old friend Pierre is now retired but used to be very senior in the regional Gendarmerie. On the occasions - rare given the area - that there was a murder, their phones used to ring off the hook with generous and sincere offers of help from members of the public who could identify the killer through dowsing or remote viewing or analysing goat entrails or stuff like that.

Credibility and demonstrable utility are everything.

A specialist diving company not 'members of the public'.

 

[Vixen]

That doesn't really have anything to do with the point theprestige made. He's pointing out that you have implicit faith in some sources simply because of who they appear or claim to be, and reject other sources who are similarly qualified, but your rejection is on entirely different grounds. The criteria by which you evaluate testimony seems more closely connected with whether it agrees with what you want to believe than whether the contributors are appropriately qualified or have made salient points.



And theprestige's point was that you implicitly accept testimony that agrees with you regardless of its critical value, and you implicitly reject testimony that disagrees with you, on a variety of ad hoc grounds. You simply assume testimony that agrees with you must be objective, well-informed, and accurate. You assume testimony that disagrees with you must be biased and ill-informed.



You have no problem accepting opinion from someone whom you believe to be well-qualified, so long as that opinion coincides with your beliefs. You categorically dismiss equally qualified opinion when it disagrees with you, often with comically acute prejudice. You aren't actually competent to evaluate expert opinion, so you dismiss those who are, and their opinions.



Agreed. Similarly, the opinion of people who actually know the sciences, conventions, skills, and practices of the endeavors in question are more likely to be correct than those who merely state their beliefs as if they were fact, or who simply take on faith what someone else has said without examining the content critically.



Straw man. I don't see any of your critics claiming that the JAIC report must be correct. I certainly don't see any of them claiming further that it's correct because it was produced by the Establishment. As it stands the JAIC simply seems to do a better job of answering all the evidence than any of the competing theories such as disappearing explosives and submarines and wild political conspiracies.

That's not to say a better job cannot be done, which is why I do not oppose a further investigation using new techniques and incorporating additional evidence. But these conspiracy theories just don't fit the evidence, taken as a whole. You seem to say the competing theories must be taken as objective, complete, and truthful. I'm just not seeing how the evidence leads to such a conclusion.



I am professionally qualified to evaluate the engineering claims made in this thread. So are others. You are not. There are plenty of people in this thread with applicable professional seafaring experience. You are not one of them. You are the one who doesn't belong. You are the one getting their views from the TV or the Internet, and often getting the facts and underlying fundamentals comically wrong. Simply because you mindlessly quote what others have said does not mean that your critics are similarly hobbled and can't make valuable informed contributions to the discussion that are better than yours. It certainly doesn't make your ignorant, biased interpretations of others' work somehow any more worthy of consideration.



Or Vixens.

It is a shame then, that you haven't evaluated them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And you have been told that size and logistics was nothing to do with the decision.

What is your evidence for this?

Of course the logistics and size of the ship have something to do with it.