This thread is worthwhile because I've learned a lot of interesting things about ships, sailing, maritime procedures, radios, radar, NATO, Sweden, SAR, signal buoys, and even a dash or maritime law.
The Estonia sinking is a tragedy. I think the second investigation is worthwhile for a number of reasons. My personal interest stems from the fact that it's always productive when scientific equipment is put to work in the undersea environment because of all the peripheral data recovered which could help marine science in some way down the road (as almost all deep sea research data does). In this case, the data shows a clear correlation the hull breaches, and the rock outcrops. next April they will dive on the wreck, and photograph even more. It's not over, but I doubt the story will change.
I agree with you, up to a certain point.
I wholeheartedly agree that more information and more analysis is (with a minuscule number of exceptions) always better. And I also strongly believe that those involved in any investigation-based report should always welcome - rather than fear - the report being re-evaluated and/or the investigation being reopened. After all, the goal of every honest, competently-run investigation is to get to the truth of the matter: if more investigation will lead to a fuller understanding of the truth, then obviously there should be no objection. And frankly, even if more investigation (perhaps with more sophisticated analytical techniques than were available for the original investigation, or if new information has emerged) results in an amendment - or even overturning - of the original conclusions, the original investigators should similarly have no objections if their overarching goal is a search for the truth (as it should be).
However.....
...the reopening of any investigation has costs. Not just financial costs. But also the emotional (and sometimes reputational) costs related to reopening old wounds, causing fresh grief. If there's the real potential for genuine value in reopening an investigation, in terms of making a substantial move closer to the truth as it relates to the incident, then this should usually take precedent over those costs.
But in those situations where a reopening of an investigation really won't make any material difference to our (society's, government's, industry's, victims', relatives') understanding of what happened and why, then I have to question what its true net value actually is. In this particular instance, I just don't believe that the potential benefit to our core knowledge/understanding of this disaster (including, of course, its cause(s)) that might realistically be gleaned from a broad reopening of the investigation comes anywhere close to the notional sum of all costs associated with a re-investigation. It'd be (IMO) net-value-negative, in other words.
If things are strictly limited to an investigation and evaluation of the now-revealed damage to the starboard hull - together with the now-revealed part of the sea bed upon which that section of the starboard hull had been resting - then I'd say it'd be a fair and proportionate use of costs. But that aside, there's absolutely nothing in existence in 2021 that casts any serious doubt at all on the official explanation of how and why this ship sank. The JAIC already figured that one out satisfactorily, and with a very high degree of confidence, some 25 years ago.
