• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Let's face it. The early Italians who are credited with inventing criminology had a simple formula for pinpointing the culprit:

"Cui bono?"
Click to expand...

There's another important concept in law and criminology with a pretentious Latin name:

corpus delicti.

You don't have one.

Without the corpus delicti, any talk of cui bono is prematuro.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Or very good indeed, depending on what we take 'this' to be?
Click to expand...

In my case, her ability to make basic comparisons with the Estonia, and applicable shipwrecks. Just staying in the Ro-Ro class of ships suggests there was a problem with key elements of the design. But instead, we are given examples of the Titanic, and ships being sunk with torpedoes, ships hitting mines in WWII, and even the Kursk.

To properly debate this issue there has to be a case of a Ro-Ro ferry that lost her bow-visor in heavy seas, but didn't sink.

There isn't one.
 
Vixen said:
The newspapers and Bengt Stenmark, having all told the world Piht was alive, never once put out a news item stating he was dead. The JAIC are schtum.
Click to expand...

Wait, you said he was reported as being alive, “and then he wasn’t” in another post.
So there is a list of survivors, then an updated list in which he isn’t listed.

That’s a report that he is not among the survivors, AKA dead.
 
Mojo said:
Actually, Don’t worry about the reporter, the contemporary Times stories about the battle are either “from our own/special/military/diplomatic correspondent”, or have no byline.

A date and/or headline would be handy though.
Click to expand...

I will not be going through my archives to satisfy your frivolous request.

My area of research area of interest in WWII was the Continuation War, not Stalingrad or the reports from the German frontline re 'Tommy'. Those news items were a fascinating distraction, which I just happened to notice.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Do you have a reference for this?
Click to expand...

In her book, 'Estonia' Jutta Rabe states: “Reuters also issued a notice on 30 September 1994, which [the notice] has not been revoked. In Estonia, meanwhile, information on Piht had also apparently been received, for Andi Meister said in front of the TV cameras, 'Let those who have hidden Piht know that they will be punished'.

Meister was head of the JAIC at one point and minister of transport in Estonia.

Estonia's Interior Minister did not get the memo from Sweden and Finland, who by 30 Sept 1994, were already reporting:

. Interior Minister Arike said 136 people had been rescued from the ship. He didn't want to give out the list of names because he wasn't sure it was right. However, there was a list of 149 rescued names on the wall of the port of Tallinn. According to Finnish authorities, 140 people were rescued from the ship.
Click to expand...
Helsingin Sanomat
 
zooterkin said:
Maybe so, but it doesn't help your argument one jot.

The people on the Estonia were apparently working for the police, but were not serving police officers, rather they were admin staff. It was therefore not 'grounds for suspicion of sabotage' as you seem to believe.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily mean they were 'admin staff'. The police in Sweden are not constructed the same way as in the UK, where the intelligence forces are separate from the police force. In Sweden the KSI intelligence services come under the police force. The defence intelligence service is MUST. The latter is military, the former 'civilian'. KSI is extremely secretive and only once has a chief of KSI been named as a member, when the person concerned committed suicide over some kind of scandal about to come out.

So your assuming they were admin staff is simply an assumption on your part based on their working in the 'Administrative Offices' in Sweden and belonging to a union.

So if they were going to meet 'their colleagues in Tallin' they are hardly likely to be 'admin staff'. Maybe some were but it doesn't follow all 68 were.
 
Stamuel said:
It is now over 27 years since the Estonia sank, and the only part of this story for which there is relatively direct evidence is smuggling from Estonia to Sweden. To support your broader claims, here is what you still need to prove:

  1. The smuggled goods were valuable equipment that would have been useful to Israel.
  2. After getting to Sweden, the smuggled goods eventually were sent or were intended to be sent to Israel.
  3. Bill Clinton was involved.
There has been no evidence presented that any of these are true. None at all. The whole broader context of the smuggling with Clinton and Israel is entirely made up.

And even proving the above three claims would not be enough to support the coverup theory, because Clinton smuggling stolen goods to Israel is not a motive for Clinton to coverup mass murder without also proving:

  • The revelation that the Estonia was attacked/sabotaged would also reveal the smuggling.
  • The revelation of the smuggling on the Estonia would also reveal that the final destination was Israel.
  • The revelation of the rest would reveal that Bill Clinton was involved and was therefore secretly helping Israel.
Without all of these, allowing the public to learn that the Estonia was attacked or sabotaged wouldn't be a problem for Clinton at all. In my personal estimation of the items in this second list, each item individually and all items collectively are so stupid as not to deserve consideration.

And even all of this requires the smuggling to have been so intolerable to Russia that Russia committed mass murder of hundreds of civilians to stop it, which is insane beyond parody.
Click to expand...

There is every indication that the Swedish government at the time knew exactly what happened, how and why. The bow visor falling off is just a half truth to keep the peasants happy.
 
Axxman300 said:
We've been through this before.

Your irrational beliefs about Clinton weigh heavily on your tapestry of intellectual failure.

The President of the United States is not a king, he and his National Security Council can direct the CIA to conduct covert operations... as long as they are legal. That doesn't mean the CIA won't push the definition as to what is and isn't legal right up to the fine-print - they do, and will continue to do so.

However...

Placing the lives of 800 civilians in danger is not line the CIA will cross, and nowhere in its history has it done so.

And the CIA doesn't tell foreign countries what to do. The CIA makes a case to the NSC, and the NSA runs it by the State Department, and the State Department makes the request. On the flip side, at any point the NSA or the State Department can say no, and the CIA goes back to square-one. This will come as a shock to you, but most European countries don't want the CIA running around doing stuff in their borders. They also don't want the FSB, MI6, Mossad, or any other spy agencies doing stuff either - but it happens. As a result, no country wants to be seen as "CIA Friendly", even our allies.

This has been true since 1947.

The other fact you ignore is that the CIA can tell the President of the United States "No". The CIA and the USSOCOM both told Clinton and his NSA they could not carry out requested actions on multiple occasions. That's on record.

Again, on the night of the Estonia disaster, Yelstin WAS IN WASHINGTON D.C. for a peace summit with Clinton.

Knock off the CIA-Clinton nonsense (they really didn't like him anyway).
Click to expand...

Peace summit? Shurely you mean pish shummit?

perhaps the weirdest incident in their professional relationship was when Yeltsin got drunk and wandered into the street in his underwear, trying to get a pizza.

The incident happened during Yeltsin and Clinton’s first meeting in Washington in September 1994.
Click to expand...
History com


I wonder whether Boris was in any state to know what he was doing, never mind his own GRU or Clinton.

In the post-Soviet period, great power status and desire for equal treatment by the U.S. in the Middle East continued to go hand in hand. An April 1996 meeting between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin is illustrative. Yeltsin, according to recently declassified archives, came in angry because he believed the US was trying to marginalize Russia in the region. Clinton used the term “equal partnership,” which appeared to pacify Yeltsin, and said Russia could play an important role through its influence over Syria and Hezbollah.
Click to expand...
Washington Institute


Russia invested huge sums in Iran. It goes to show that Clinton was fond of 'classifying' the slightest thing. The Yeltsin-drunk-in-Washington story didn't come out until 2009.

“Secret Service agents discovered Yeltsin alone on Pennsylvania Avenue, dead drunk, clad in his underwear, yelling for a taxi,” Branch wrote in his book. “Yeltsin slurred his words in a loud argument with the baffled agents. He did not want to go back into Blair House, where he was staying. He wanted a taxi to go out for pizza.”

When Branch asked Clinton how the situation ended, the president shrugged and said, “Well, he got his pizza.” But the next night, Clinton recalled, Yeltsin tried to do it again.
Click to expand...
ibid
 
Axxman300 said:
Was it in rough seas? No.
Was it sailing at flank speed after the bow visor fell off? No.

You are really bad at this.
Click to expand...

The point being made is that it did not 'float on its superstructure' for any length of time, despite being stricken for over 18 hours.

It capsized and sank within nine minutes of reaching its point of negative stability, after which point, the inevitable was imminent.
 
Axxman300 said:
Cool, then they issued a public statement to this fact, and then Sweden has responded to the accusation. Please post links to those.
Click to expand...

Nope. As those Estonians have seemingly 'disappeared' - including the Chief engineer, Chief navigator, Chief Medical doctor and fourth Officer - how do you prove a negative? Let's face it, these guys were in the same luxury cabins - and better still as officers - as the Voronin family and the old sea captain and his wife. The latter escaped, nul problemo, being on the upper decks and nearby all the rescue equipment. It seems obvious that being in a life boat (as opposed to a life raft) they had an excellent chance of survival. It seems very likely they were picked up by Helicopter Y64 and transferred to Huddinge, with Piht being transferred to Turku for questioning, as advised in an early Finnish quality newspaper, and was interviewed, as per a statement by Bengt Stenmark, some kind of transport and shipping minister. From there, he may have been transferred to Uppsala or Helsinki, with the Swedish intelligence services advising Bildt to cover the whole thing up and have the crew dealt with by a CIA court c/o Clinton.

Of course, the JAIC nor the press can report these guys as dead or explain how they were listed as survivors - with an Interpol Arrest Warrant put out for Piht - and seen or heard by witnesses but are now presumed 'drowned'. This is because when the whole thing is declassified after 70 years, it will become apparent that they were survivors and it won't do for the JAIC and the government to be seen to have been lying. (Although, of course, lying by omission is still lying.) So, come 2064 maybe all will be revealed.


For example, how Helicopter Y64, Kenneth Svensson, hero, did indeed rescue all of the people the early newspapers said he rescued, after leaving Berga shortly after 02:00, and not nearer 05:00, as claimed by the JAIC report (which was probably a second trip).

According to Chief Physician Juha Niinikoski, who was responsible for patient care, a large proportion of those rescued in Turku were ship's personnel. They knew how to save themselves because they'd seen the bow gate break off on the ship's monitors.
Click to expand...
HS 29.9.1994
 
Axxman300 said:
From everything I've read on the accident, there was never any mention of watertight compartments being sealed, nor orders from the bridge to do so.

I'm baffled as to why anyone would think the open bow ramp in rough seas was not enough to sink the ship.
Click to expand...

The car deck was 2m above the waterline plus 76mm margin and 5m high (15ft).

Sillaste and Treu told early news reporters they were 'up to their knees in water' in the engine room so the ingression was via Deck 0. And not how these guys within the bowels of the ship managed to escape - survival suits, passports, sorted - yet we are expected to believe the top brass on the luxury decks all popped their clogs. All of them.

So the star witness is an ordinary seaman (seen by a witness sitting in the Admiral Bar at circa 12:45) and the third and fourth engineers plus a newbie, who were in a life raft even whilst Tammes was sending his Mayday, within two shakes of a cat's tail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom