The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

Please read carefully.

Don't lecture me. We've already shown that you don't really read my posts and can't remember what I've said in the past.

I stated that an eyewitness if deemed credible by a court of law, is an example of direct evidence.

You're equivocating "credible." A witness that survives voir dire is eligible to present direct evidence, yes. That doesn't mean that everything the witness says is direct evidence; it could be conjecture or interpretation, at which point the court will rule on its admissibility. Whether the witness is credible depends on whether the testimony is believed.

...then that is evidence and it cannot be appealed against except on a point of law...

Legal restrictions on appealability are for res judicata jurisprudential reasons and don't factor into the fundamental concepts of whether a witness is reporting what he perceived with his senses versus what he conjectured might be happening. Res judicata presumes a judgment has occurred, and that the voir dire of the witness is part of that, and that all the issues of admissibility were previously resolved. That doesn't guarantee that the portion of the witness' statement that survived all that was the entirety of what he came into the court with.

 

[Stamuel]

You've answered your own question. Obviously the person who made the request wasn't sufficiently intelligent to realise that this had/has nothing to do with the DfT - it should have been directed to FCDO. It might have something to do with conspiracy theorists not usually being half as bright as they think they are....

There was originally a request to the FCDO, which you can find here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ms_estonia_2

In their response to the FOI request, the FCDO said, "As the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions had responsibility for the policy and implementation of the Agreement, you may wish to apply to one of its successor departments, perhaps most appropriately the Department for Transport, for information about the UK's reasons for accession."

So it's not a matter of submitting requests to the wrong place.

 

[Vixen]

Don't get snippy.



Of course it occurred to me. It also occurred to me that he might not know what he's talking about when it comes to maritime collisions. Show me the evidence that his claim is based on insider knowledge.

Oh, right, you can't because you're not privy to that information. So all that is your conjecture, not evidence.



But the facts that we are aware of preclude his claim. And all you can do in return is speculate that other facts might exist, and that other people might know them. So yes, you're back out on the motte trying to rehabilitate this witness on extremely shaky, speculative grounds. Your inability to let go of anything that challenges the conventional narrative is why this thread is almost a hundred pages long and why you will never accomplish anything toward finding out what really happened.

Well, you'll b pleased to know that Kurm is heading a new expedition to the wreck on 18th September 2021 so at least is going to be putting his money where his mouth is. If he is on extremely shaky, speculative grounds then he will have blown €800,000 and wasted the time of experts in Singapore headed by a naval architect with a Polish name. Jasionowicz iir.

 

[JayUtah]

Stop trying to twist what I said. You know perfectly well I never said 'everything an eyewitness says must be treated as gospel truth'.

Straw man. You didn't say those words, but you balk at every attempt to examine the witness evidence critically. And you deploy the additional straw man to claim your critics are trying to throw out the witness's statements altogether when that's not at all what they're doing. They're saying that some parts of the witnesses' statements would be considered evidence because it's what they perceived directly with their senses. And that other parts of the witnesses' statements would not be considered evidence because it's speculation or conclusion. This bothers you because you're trying to read into the witnesses' statements the conclusion you've drawn regarding what make the ship sink.

As I keep saying the matter of whether to accept an eye witness' account as evidence is for the court to decide. Shee-eesh!

That's not an all-or-nothing proposition, your distractionary foray into appealability notwithstanding. You're treating admissibility of a witness as if every statement in the testimony thereafter cannot be objected to once she is allowed to testify.

A witness in court may pass voir dire by showing or attesting that she was at the time and place pertaining to the evidence she will give. All that she perceived with her senses is admissible and is direct evidence. But if she speculates about what might have happened outside her perception, that portion of her testimony is not evidence in the sense that it is neither legally admissible nor factually supported. It may be "evidence" in the sense that this is what an English court labels her testimony. But it isn't evidence in the sense that it has evidentiary weight.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, you'll b pleased to know that Kurm is heading a new expedition to the wreck on 18th September 2021 so at least is going to be putting his money where his mouth is. If he is on extremely shaky, speculative grounds then he will have blown €800,000 and wasted the time of experts in Singapore headed by a naval architect with a Polish name. Jasionowicz iir.

I don't care what Kurm does. I've given you the reasons why Kurm's claims are not credible, and all you can do is imagine alternate realities where he and you might still be right. How is Kurm's stunt a trial of his claims? What consequences will he suffer if he wastes someone else's money? Can you think of any other reasons he might want to mount such an expedition?

 

[Vixen]

Straw man. You didn't say those words, but you balk at every attempt to examine the witness evidence critically. And you deploy the additional straw man to claim your critics are trying to throw out the witness's statements altogether when that's not at all what they're doing. They're saying that some parts of the witnesses' statements would be considered evidence because it's what they perceived directly with their senses. And that other parts of the witnesses' statements would not be considered evidence because it's speculation or conclusion. This bothers you because you're trying to read into the witnesses' statements the conclusion you've drawn regarding what make the ship sink.



That's not an all-or-nothing proposition, your distractionary foray into appealability notwithstanding. You're treating admissibility of a witness as if every statement in the testimony thereafter cannot be objected to once she is allowed to testify.

A witness in court may pass voir dire by showing or attesting that she was at the time and place pertaining to the evidence she will give. All that she perceived with her senses is admissible and is direct evidence. But if she speculates about what might have happened outside her perception, that portion of her testimony is not evidence in the sense that it is neither legally admissible nor factually supported. It may be "evidence" in the sense that this is what an English court labels her testimony. But it isn't evidence in the sense that it has evidentiary weight.

That goes without saying.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Has it never occurred to you that Kurm in his unique position, actually has insider information that makes him cocksure confident that a collision with a submarine was the cause of sinking. He says Swedish and perhaps he is aware of facts that we are not.

So why doesn't he tell us what this evidence is?

How do you know it exists?

 

[JayUtah]

That goes without saying.

But apparently it needs to be said several times by several people before you accept that your critics are simply applying to the witness testimony the standards that a court would, and that not all that a witness says will have evidentiary weight according to those standards. Can we finally dispense with your delusion that your critics are trying to "invalidate" evidence inappropriately?

 

[JayUtah]

So why doesn't he tell us what this evidence is?

Or even just say that his claim is based on information he's not at liberty to divulge. Courts deal with evidence presented under seal all the time. It's not as if, "Sorry that's classified," is a universal get-out-of-jail-free card.

How do you know it exists?

She already admitted she doesn't know whether there is any. She's speculating that insider information exists and that Kurm based his claims upon it. Of course I considered that he may have insider knowledge. But since he doesn't say he does, and doesn't say that this is why he has decided as he has, I'm left with having to draw a conclusion based on the evidence in hand. The evidence in hand argues very strongly against the damage on the starboard side of MS Estonia having been caused by a collision with a Swedish submarine.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh please. Captian_Swoop seemed to have the idea that eyewitness testimony was 'not evidence' so I was simply making a factual correction. An eye witness can be accepted as hard an evidence as a DNA sample.

There were no eye witnesses to either explosions or submarines.

 

[Vixen]

That's not an image, that's bathymetric interpretation of a sonar image. Read what they said:



4 out of 50? Are these guys serious?

They're matrixing sonar clutter as the hood. That is just sad.

See attached fax from Kari Lehtola dated 9 Oct wherein he confirms there is a sonar image fitting the bow visor under the bulbous bow.

In a telefax 9.10.1994 from Kari Lehtola [Finnish Accident Investigation Board] to Olof Forssberg [Swedish Accident Investigation Board] Kari Lehtola sent the following message [translated from Swedish]:

"Good morning! Due to the weather the search for the visor has been canceled during the complete day, but now Nuorteva has analysed the pictures further more. On the location on the seabed, where ESTONIA on basis of the subjects [on the bottom] have capsized, there is a 10 meters long and 5 - 7 meters wide object on the seabed. It is most likely of metal. The form is well corresponding with the visor. The depth is 70 meters. The seabed is solid.

Karppinen, Aarnio and the ROV-group embarks TURSAS in Nagu at 11.00 finish time and the work begin at around 13.00. They will video film the "large object". Enclosed a SONAR-picture and an enlargement of the picture.

privat bahnhof


The next day he claimed they were 'still looking for it'. LOL. It was 'found' 18 October instead despite no-one having had a quick butchers at the one seen in the sonar to double check it still needed to be searched for.

 

[Vixen]

But apparently it needs to be said several times by several people before you accept that your critics are simply applying to the witness testimony the standards that a court would, and that not all that a witness says will have evidentiary weight according to those standards. Can we finally dispense with your delusion that your critics are trying to "invalidate" evidence inappropriately?

Look. These were witness statements collected by the Swedish Secret Police as of the time of the accident. Of course they would be acceptable testimony if the prosecutor or accident investigator deems it should be so.

 

[Mojo]

Explain: 'it has been established that
the Department for Transport (DfT) does not hold any information regarding the UK’s signing of the Estonia Agreement.'

It’s explained in the letter you are quoting. In fact, in the very next sentence:

Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 (PRA) requires HM Government departments to transfer records selected for permanent preservation to The National Archives (TNA) by the time they are 20 years old unless they are required for business purposes.

 

[JayUtah]

Look. These were witness statements collected by the Swedish Secret Police as of the time of the accident. Of course they would be acceptable testimony if the prosecutor or accident investigator deems it should be so.

And we're right back to your same equivocal, superstitious claim. It's as if the past two pages of discussion never took place.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stop talking nonsense. The bow visor, according tho the JAIC had its bolts at the side snapped off 'by a few strong waves' therefor it was hanging off the atlantic lock which is the lock at the bottom meaning that if it really was banging against the ship it would have had to have done so upwards and aft and would have had virtually nothing to actually 'bang' on. There would then need to be a counter-wave moving of its own accord - which is of course laughable - to then render it forward and down, which simply did not happen as the sea cannot choose which direction it moves.

As the bow buried in a wave the visor would be lifted, as the bow lifted the visor would fall.

It's not difficult.

 

[Vixen]

And we're right back to your same equivocal, superstitious claim. It's as if the past two pages of discussion never took place.

That is because you have an inability to accept that these events have little to do with conspiracy theory but are recorded statements to the highest police (in Sweden and Finland, the intelligence services are linked to the police force). These witnesses were interviewed by these police in their hospital beds and as isolated from other survivors. In addition the Swedish Prosecutor was investigating as a matter of factwhether there were up to 174 illegal Kurdish refugees being people-smuggled in a lorry on the Estonia whose number plate was not registered to any driver (this investigation was dropped eventually). Just because something seems outlandish or outrageous, that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory. I think I see where you are going wrong. You think that because there was a terrible disaster one must not mention the unmentionable but try to 'keep up appearances' and pretend it was just a normal every day accident. As Captain_Swoop soothingly assures us, 'two ships sink every day' <shrug> Move on.

 

[Vixen]

As the bow buried in a wave the visor would be lifted, as the bow lifted the visor would fall.

It's not difficult.

And, as the bow visor slams shut in the face of an oncoming wave, then the car ramp is effectively completely sealed off.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Or even just say that his claim is based on information he's not at liberty to divulge. Courts deal with evidence presented under seal all the time. It's not as if, "Sorry that's classified," is a universal get-out-of-jail-free card.



She already admitted she doesn't know whether there is any. She's speculating that insider information exists and that Kurm based his claims upon it. Of course I considered that he may have insider knowledge. But since he doesn't say he does, and doesn't say that this is why he has decided as he has, I'm left with having to draw a conclusion based on the evidence in hand. The evidence in hand argues very strongly against the damage on the starboard side of MS Estonia having been caused by a collision with a Swedish submarine.

Or any kind of submarine at all.

 

[JayUtah]

That is because you have an inability...

Nonsense. It's because I have an unwillingness to accept your foisted dicta. Your critics have gone to great lengths to explore the nuances of what actually makes a witness statement have evidentiary weight. You acknowledge all that, but then you just stick your fingers in your ears and go back to this simplistic, "La-la-la it's acceptable in court la-la-la." The world is not obliged to obey your cartoonish version of it.

I think I see where you are going wrong. You think that because there was a terrible disaster one must not mention the unmentionable but try to 'keep up appearances' and pretend it was just a normal every day accident.

No, that's not my argument. Address what I actually say, not what you frantically try to shove in my mouth.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Look. These were witness statements collected by the Swedish Secret Police as of the time of the accident. Of course they would be acceptable testimony if the prosecutor or accident investigator deems it should be so.

'Secret Police'?