The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

I have nothing to say about Finnish, but your claim about the two sentences is nonsense.

"I heard the doorbell ring" implies that the doorbell rang. "I heard what sounded like the doorbell ring" tells you something about the sound I heard but not what made the sound. If you were certain that the doorbell did indeed ring and that's what you heard, you would not use the second sentence.

I mean, now you're having a go at plain English just to defend your odd notions about grand conspiracies. Bit silly, ain't it?

The difference between these two sentences gets at the heart of what Jay is speaking about when he talks of conclusory sentences. "I heard a sound like an explosion" is not conclusory, because it just reports the sensory observation. "I heard an explosion" is conclusory, because it goes beyond the directly observed (the sound itself) to draw a conclusion about the unseen cause.

Of course, the distinction is a bit muddy. I wouldn't think "I saw an explosion" is conclusory, though one must admit I could have seen a hologram of an explosion rather than a real explosion. But we don't need to deal in Cartesian doubt to notice that claiming a loud noise whose source is out of view was an explosion rather than sounded like an explosion is conclusory.

Nobody but JayUtah claimed it was 'conclusory'. However, the fact that a large number of the survivor passengers heard what sounded to them like a series of explosions and/or a collision, should have been investigated by the JAIC.

 

[Vixen]

A doorbell is within everyone's experience. Ship collisions and demolition explosions are not.

When we have to evaluate recordings such as cockpit voice recorders, we still have to use non-conclusory language. I have to annote the transcripts with sentences like "sound consistent with stabilizer trim wheel operating." Even though the sound is within my experience, I did not actually witness the scene and cannot actually determine whether that equipment produced the sound. Part of the art of interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence from their statements is determining whether any identification or interpretation proffered by the witness has any foundation.

Well obviously. However, re the various IRA explosions in their London and UK bombing campaign. I, like many others, heard what sounded and felt like an explosion (the ground shaking) and my perceptions were later confirmed by news bulletins. Of course I have heard what sounds like an explosion and it was never ratified so I've assumed it was some builders applying dynamite to break up rocks. The fact the sound has not been confirmed as being what one suspects it was does not render the Estonia eye witness survivors' accounts as null and void. However, if multiple people describe the same thing, why did the JAIC not investigate it?

Especially as the Rockwater footage appears to show a device attached to the port bulkhead, together with a deformation where the bolts would be.

 

[JayUtah]

"I heard the doorbell ring" implies that the doorbell rang. "I heard what sounded like the doorbell ring" tells you something about the sound I heard but not what made the sound. If you were certain that the doorbell did indeed ring and that's what you heard, you would not use the second sentence.

I have three doorbells in my house, each with a distinctive ring. If I hear any of them, I can say, "I heard the doorbell." It's still a conclusory statement, but one with a high probability of being accurate. But because I'm a middle-aged human being, I have memories of several different kinds of doorbells ringing. I have the intellectual capacity to collate and characterize them. Therefore I can also say, "I heard a doorbell," even though it may be in an unfamiliar place. The makers of doorbells understand that unless their tone is recognizable without prior experience, their product is less attractive.

However, there are many things that make very loud noises that sound like explosions, but aren't. Large pieces of structural steel fracturing under load make that sound. Few people have heard that in real life. Big things banging against other big things -- especially ship hulls -- can sound like explosions. Very few people have heard that. The fact that people can identify the sources of some common sounds and that such a conclusory statement might be acceptable as evidence in some contexts does not import that evaluation into the realm of all sounds.

I mean, now you're having a go at plain English just to defend your odd notions about grand conspiracies. Bit silly, ain't it?

Seems like no gyration is too extreme.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You do not need to have experienced a ship crash or a ship explosion to recognise it when it happens.

If all you have is a sound then yes you do.
What does a ship collision or an explosion aboard a ship sound like?

How would you tell one from the other?
How would you tell them from the noise and vibration of the ships bows hammering the hull?

You have no experience of any of them and neither did the passengers

 

[JayUtah]

I, like many others, heard what sounded and felt like an explosion (the ground shaking) and my perceptions were later confirmed by news bulletins.

But the evidence of cause was the confirmation, not your testimony. You can testify to the fact that something happened. What identified the source of what you experienced was evidence that did not come from you. You claim to have heard and felt a loud noise. Other evidence determined what caused it. You may have guessed correctly in that case, but you didn't know that until other evidence was presented.

Of course I have heard what sounds like an explosion and it was never ratified so I've assumed it was some builders applying dynamite to break up rocks.

And that's why assumptions are inadmissible as evidence in court, and why they are not useful in forensic engineering examinations.

The fact the sound has not been confirmed as being what one suspects it was does not render the Estonia eye witness survivors' accounts as null and void.

Straw man. No one is claiming the testimony of witnesses is "null and void." The claim is that the source of what they experienced must, in their estimation, have been an explosion is an inadmissible conclusory statement. We take it that they heard and felt something. It doesn't have to have been the thing they likened it to.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And you know that how...? When the JAIC only looked at the bow visor.

There isn't any evidence for a collision or explosion

 

[Andy_Ross]

It sounds like it was a Finnish guy so if the original was in Finnish there would be no 'like' anyway but would be a direct, 'It sounded (like) an explosion'.

'It sounded like an explosion.'
Altti Hakanpää

'Se kuulosti räjähdykseltä'

What is the difference anyway between 'I heard what sounded like the doorbell' or 'I heard the doorbell ring'?


Just a figure of speech.

The first acknowledges you didn't actually see the source of the sound but describes exactly the same sound as the second. = a doorbell ring.

You have experience with doorbell sounds

You have no experience of explosions aboard ships

 

[phiwum]

I have three doorbells in my house, each with a distinctive ring. If I hear any of them, I can say, "I heard the doorbell." It's still a conclusory statement, but one with a high probability of being accurate. But because I'm a middle-aged human being, I have memories of several different kinds of doorbells ringing. I have the intellectual capacity to collate and characterize them. Therefore I can also say, "I heard a doorbell," even though it may be in an unfamiliar place. The makers of doorbells understand that unless their tone is recognizable without prior experience, their product is less attractive.

However, there are many things that make very loud noises that sound like explosions, but aren't. Large pieces of structural steel fracturing under load make that sound. Few people have heard that in real life. Big things banging against other big things -- especially ship hulls -- can sound like explosions. Very few people have heard that. The fact that people can identify the sources of some common sounds and that such a conclusory statement might be acceptable as evidence in some contexts does not import that evaluation into the realm of all sounds.



Seems like no gyration is too extreme.

Regarding doorbells and explosions, you're just pointing out that "conclusory" is a matter of degrees. The more probable the conclusion, the less conclusory the statement, roughly. Doorbell sounds are distinctive and commonplace, explosions on board ships may be distinctive (I don't know) but they aren't part of the common experience for most of us. Thus, the fact that you heard a particular sound is less reliable evidence of its cause in the explosion case.

The same distinction applies in my example of seeing an explosion. The odds that I am mistaken about the cause in that case are so vanishingly small that we ignore the distinction between cause and sensory observation and regard the statement as non-conclusory (though strictly speaking, it is not, I suppose).

But maybe I just teach Descartes's Meditations too damned often.

 

[JayUtah]

Nobody but JayUtah claimed it was 'conclusory'.

It's self-evidently conclusory. Part of witness voir dire is establishing that they were in the proper place at the proper time and in all respects disposed to testify to the facts they are about to allege. If the testimony is to be, "The ship collided with something," then voir dire must establish that the witness was in a position to confirm the cause. If the witness was simply in a place where a jolt was felt or a loud noise was heard, then the witness' statement is a conclusion based on inferring from fact, not a fact to which the witness can actually testify.

 

[phiwum]

Nobody but JayUtah claimed it was 'conclusory'. However, the fact that a large number of the survivor passengers heard what sounded to them like a series of explosions and/or a collision, should have been investigated by the JAIC.

The very fact that some said a series of explosions and others said a collision is pretty interesting, isn't it? I have it on good authority that you know what a shipboard explosion sounds like and also you know what a collision sounds like.

So, in order not to cause PTSD among survivors, we must conclude that there were both explosions and a collision.

Or, I guess, you could say that at least some of these witnesses were mistaken about the cause. But if you went so far as to admit that, you'd be bound to admit perhaps all of them were mistaken about the cause.

As far as JAIC investigating, I don't know what they did, but I reckon as follows: The sound of a 55 ton visor banging against the hull would be quite loud (yes, even in a much larger ship). It would explain the sounds reported, so absent any additional evidence of explosions or collision, I don't see what extra investigation would be warranted. But I know nothing of forensics, so I will hereafter leave such comments to others.

 

[Vixen]

I have three doorbells in my house, each with a distinctive ring. If I hear any of them, I can say, "I heard the doorbell." It's still a conclusory statement, but one with a high probability of being accurate. But because I'm a middle-aged human being, I have memories of several different kinds of doorbells ringing. I have the intellectual capacity to collate and characterize them. Therefore I can also say, "I heard a doorbell," even though it may be in an unfamiliar place. The makers of doorbells understand that unless their tone is recognizable without prior experience, their product is less attractive.

However, there are many things that make very loud noises that sound like explosions, but aren't. Large pieces of structural steel fracturing under load make that sound. Few people have heard that in real life. Big things banging against other big things -- especially ship hulls -- can sound like explosions. Very few people have heard that. The fact that people can identify the sources of some common sounds and that such a conclusory statement might be acceptable as evidence in some contexts does not import that evaluation into the realm of all sounds.



Seems like no gyration is too extreme.

Indeed, that might be so. If you have guests around you might all be gathered around the fireplace, like the chap in the Good Soldier and then you'll begin your tale, and you'll want to add delightful detail that will keep your listeners hooked, such as the three different doorbells you have in your home and the nature, timbre, air and loudness of each in fine detail.

However, when a great tragedy has happened involving almost a thousand ordianry people, including young children die suddenly because a vessel sank within half an hour and there are but 79 passenger survivors, you should be all ears wanting to know what happened and who cares whether what one of them describes as sounding like an explosion turns out to be someone dropping a crate from a great height? That is not the point. Of course, everyone will have their own words based on their own wiring and observational skills. In fact, one would have thought, the ones who survived had excellent observational skills that enabled them to escape efficiently and effectively by putting them into good use. So what if you disbelieve these survivors when they claim a collision or an explosion? Let the accident investigators worry about that. However, sadly, in the case of the Estonia the JAIC simply wasn't interested in the survivor accounts. It hired a psychologist to provide a third-person summary linking the varies experiences to their foregone conclusion surrounding the bow visor. When the JAIC report came out the passengers were very upset that their narratives had been rewritten or completely ignored all together.

You might claim that their reports could be mistaken and they knew not of what they experienced but you are only guessing.

 

[Vixen]

If all you have is a sound then yes you do.
What does a ship collision or an explosion aboard a ship sound like?

How would you tell one from the other?
How would you tell them from the noise and vibration of the ships bows hammering the hull?

You have no experience of any of them and neither did the passengers

So we should just ignore it.

 

[phiwum]

Well obviously. However, re the various IRA explosions in their London and UK bombing campaign. I, like many others, heard what sounded and felt like an explosion (the ground shaking) and my perceptions were later confirmed by news bulletins. Of course I have heard what sounds like an explosion and it was never ratified so I've assumed it was some builders applying dynamite to break up rocks. The fact the sound has not been confirmed as being what one suspects it was does not render the Estonia eye witness survivors' accounts as null and void. However, if multiple people describe the same thing, why did the JAIC not investigate it?

Especially as the Rockwater footage appears to show a device attached to the port bulkhead, together with a deformation where the bolts would be.

Did they? How many said "I heard an explosion"? How many said "I heard a collision"? That's not the same thing.

For this purpose, we can count "sounded like" in the above counts.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

the fact that a large number of the survivor passengers heard what sounded to them like a series of explosions and/or a collision...

If one is a large number then okay yes you quoted a large number of survivors (1) saying they heard what sounded like a large number of explosions (1).

 

[JayUtah]

Regarding doorbells and explosions, you're just pointing out that "conclusory" is a matter of degrees.

Yes, the value of conclusory statements as evidence varies by degree. That's what I spoke of earlier when I said that when a conclusory statement is given as evidence, further examination may be in order to determine the foundation for that conclusion.

Thus, the fact that you heard a particular sound is less reliable evidence of its cause in the explosion case.

Yes. Doorbells are distinctive enough and well enough within everyone's experience to accept a witness's conclusion that a sound was a doorbell. It's still conclusory and still subject to objection. In court it's up to the opposing counsel to know the rules of evidence and raise the objection if material. In my experience, such objections are raised only when the identification of the sound is materially in question, not for pedantic reasons. Here the precise foundation for the witnesses' testimony is not pedantic and is certainly material.

The same distinction applies in my example of seeing an explosion. The odds that I am mistaken about the cause in that case are so vanishingly small that we ignore the distinction between cause and sensory observation and regard the statement as non-conclusory (though strictly speaking, it is not, I suppose).

Indeed, if you have perceived other things that aid your identification, it's less conclusory and more observational. If you hear a loud noise, feel a shock, and see a fireball rising in the distance, "I saw and/or heard an explosion," is more of an observation. In a legal context, "There was an explosion" would still be susceptible to challenge on cross-examination (or even direct examination). "What did you see?" "What did you feel?" "What did you hear?" would be appropriate questions to determine that what the witness is testifying to is what was actually experienced, rather than what was inferred from nebulous observations.

 

[JayUtah]

However, when a great tragedy has happened involving almost a thousand ordianry people, including young children die suddenly...

No, you're doing it again. You're trying to inject emotion into what must be a dispassionate exercise in order to be useful.

So what if you disbelieve these survivors when they claim a collision or an explosion?

I don't disbelieve that they are reporting their observations to the best of their ability and recollection. But I do not have to accept their conclusions for what caused those perceptions.

You might claim that their reports could be mistaken and they knew not of what they experienced but you are only guessing.

No, I'm not. If the foundation for the conclusory statements cannot be established, then I am doing what is proper in handling the testimony.

 

[JayUtah]

When the JAIC report came out the passengers were very upset that their narratives had been rewritten or completely ignored all together.

You gave one example of a passenger claiming much later that his testimony had been rewritten (not just mistranslated or reinterpreted) by the person tasked with collating testimony. But neither he nor you could corroborate his original testimony. Further, the individual in question has sided with the conspiracy theorists (not just those who see flaws in the JAIC report). This gives him a motive to want to change his testimony, so we cannot necessarily take his word for it that his original testimony (which, as he claimed it, was more favorable to the conspiracy theory) was materially different.

No investigative body is required to incorporate all available eyewitness testimony into its findings, nor is it always a good idea to. In general, one looks to see whether a valid consensus emerges. Outlying testimony, for example, may be relegated to a lower order of credibility. It is an unfortunate side effect of responsible investigation that individual contributors may feel their products should be taken more seriously.

 

[Vixen]

Did they? How many said "I heard an explosion"? How many said "I heard a collision"? That's not the same thing.

For this purpose, we can count "sounded like" in the above counts.

It depends where they were in the ship. Those on the lowest deck can hear every shift and clunk of the engine and even the waves. For example, Carl Ovberg - (- at about 22.30 hours (Swedish time) down to the cabin and to bed;
- he woke up suddenly from the strong noise of rushing water which he could hear from both sides, but loudest from starboard side; these noises alarmed him;
- in addition he heard quite strong metallic banging noises which definitely had not been there before; he sat up in bed and put his feet on the floor, since the bed was athwartships he was facing the door looking aft;
- he lit a cigarette and listened intently to the strange and frightening noise scenario;
- after a little while he suddenly heard the starting up noise of an hydraulic pump or pumps followed by the clicking of valves and then the typical noise created by an hydraulic system under load;
- simultaneously he heard the banging of sledge hammers;
- the noises came probably from forward;
- the hydraulic under load noise faded away and came back again whilst the sledge-hammer banging noise more or less continued. Both the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer banging noise continued for ca. 10-15 minutes whilst the other banging noises, then heard already for some 20-25 minutes, also continued;
- the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer noise stopped with a short, sharp metallic crash which gave him the impression that something heavy, metallic had broken;
- after a 'silence' of 30-40 seconds the next really extreme crash followed in connection with an abrupt stopping of the ferry which was so 'sudden' that he was thrown against the front wall of his bed) -
Those on the upper deck, such as Paul Barney - (woke up from a bang/shock and thought there had been a collision;
then he heard cracking and scraping noises and something was gliding along the vessel's hull side) - and Sara Hedrenius (=woke up from two heavy bangs which made the vessel shake (she thought they had hit a rock), vessel moved up and down) - experience it as a collision, with each saying they were woken up by the push, jolt, or noise.


If someone was asleep or falling asleep at the time (12:00/1:00 Swedish/Estonian Time) then their experience will be different from someone already wide awake.

Something like 38 people described either bangs, explosions, heavy noises and or collisions, crashes, a force strong enough to throw their entire body out of bed or off their feet. Thirty-eight people out of seventy-nine is an awfully large amount - 48% - nearly half of all of them.

 

[Vixen]

If one is a large number then okay yes you quoted a large number of survivors (1) saying they heard what sounded like a large number of explosions (1).

As they were in their cabins largely, there is no requirement to have actually seen anything for it to be credible.

 

[JayUtah]

For example, Carl Ovberg...

Why is the account you reproduce given in third person?

Something like 38 people described either bangs, explosions, heavy noises and or collisions, crashes, a force strong enough to throw their entire body out of bed or off their feet. Thirty-eight people out of seventy-nine is an awfully large amount - 48% - nearly half of all of them.

How many of them had prior experience hearing explosions or things that might have been mistaken for explosions but were known to be other things?