• 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:
You say the lawyer of one of the men became aware of the removal 48-hours later but was he told where the man was and how he could be contacted?
Click to expand...

Yes, he was told that his client had been deported to Egypt, whereupon the deportee would need to be represented by counsel from the Egyptian bar. The crime of enforced disappearance is not committed simply because a state actor does not act affirmatively in helping third parties locate people in places to which it has deported them. Having been told his client was now in the custody of Egyptian authority, it is incumbent upon the lawyer to contact the Egyptians.

As a matter of fact, the Swedish government did attempt to ascertain whether Egypt's prior promise was being upheld that the men would not be tortured, but Egypt did not cooperate. You seem strangely silent on the question of whether the Egyptians are the ones who should be more properly accused of enforced disappearance.

What constitutes 'a prolonged period of time'?
Click to expand...

You seem to think it's 48 hours or less. What's your basis for that under prevailing precedent?

You didn't tell me what happens when a prosecutor in a criminal trial is presented with evidence that the defendant has not satisfied the elements of the crime.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Yes that is right. A signal wasn't sent and the buoys were later found turned off and with a full battery charge. Once the switch was turned on they transmitted a signal as they were designed to do.

There is only one switch, it activates them in an emergency, there is no other switch on the buoy apart from some modern units have a separate battery test button.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. Totally without logic.
 
Vixen said:
SOLAS made the recommendation that such vessels should have installed an automatically activated EPIRB on either side of the vessel and that the edict should be complied with by 1993 iirc.
Click to expand...

You do not recall correctly. The recommendation was made prior to the sinking, but it was not made mandatory until after. In the United States, for example, it is recommended that airplanes be equipped with 406 MHz emergency beacons, but it is still not required in order for an airplane to be considered airworthy.

MRCC Turku Commander Mononen expressed great concern about there being no sign of any signals from the Estonia EPIRB's, which had they been 'manual operation only' would not be rocket science as to why not.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. At the time he had no way of knowing what kind of buoy was fitted on the ship.
 
Vixen said:
That is your opinion. Totally without logic.
Click to expand...

It's not opinion. It's the documented behavior of the buoy. You're the one claiming that there must be a separate transport-safety switch for which there is no evidence. You are the one claiming that the model of buoy you told us was fitted to the ship was immersion-activated, when the material from the manufacturer explicitly precludes this. You're the one inventing non-existent properties for this buoy so that it can play the role you need it to in your armchair fantasy.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
If the JAIC had found evidence of sabotage, say explosive residue on the visor locks or evidence that the ship had been holed in some way other than the bow visor being lost they would have published those findings, and a criminal investigative organisation would have started an investigation into who did it.

But they didn't. They found that a poorly maintained and badly repaired ship was operated in ways that would have combined with the aforementioned to create a situation in which a bloody great hole opened on the ship when the visor came away. The fault lies with those who maintained her and those who sailed her. Your attempt to pin the blame on a phantom "other" group holds no water. It is inconsistent with the findings, and there is no evidence for any of the other fanciful scenarios you've dreamed up. You've got nothing Vixen, you lose.
Click to expand...

It didn't find it was 'a poorly maintained and badly repaired ship', it states very clearly that when it departed Tallin it was seaworthy and had no outstanding issues.
 
Vixen said:
Being arrested is not a removal by the state.

Being arrested follows set legal protocols.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. You have said 48 hours constitutes a "prolonged time" as defined in the various statutes that prohibit enforced disappearance. But ordinary arrests would then fall under that. It's reasonable to conclude that the "prolonged time" element was made part of the enforced disappearance statute to differentiate that activity from other activities on the part of the state that may require people to be detained incommunicado for shorter periods, and which would be considered acceptable under international law.

You are the one who must prove that 48 hours constitutes "prolonged time" under whichever enforced disappearance statute you're arguing applies.
 
Vixen said:
It didn't find it was 'a poorly maintained and badly repaired ship', it states very clearly that when it departed Tallin it was seaworthy and had no outstanding issues.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. A declaration of seaworthiness is not a finding that the ship is without defect.
 
JayUtah said:
You're trying to fault the JAIC for not following up on criminal allegations made by third parties. You accuse of them of remaining silent on matters it's required for them to remain silent upon.



Which it did, and found the cause of the accident to be loss of stability caused by the ingress of water through the opening created by the unexpected loss of the forward visor. The loss of the forward visor is explained entirely by a combination of poor repairs and maintenance, and the operation of the ship in a manner inconsistent with safety. Engineering investigations don't delve into allegations of criminal conspiracy. That's the responsibility of other organizations.
Click to expand...

All ships sink because of loss of stability and ingress of water. Providing a descriptive narrative is not compensation for failing to discover the cause of same.


Of course, it knows perfectly well the cause. Did from Day One.

Like the DC-3, immediately 'classified' as Sweden was caught in espionage naughtiness with Russia.
 
Vixen said:
All ships sink because of loss of stability...
Click to expand...

No.

...and ingress of water.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Providing a descriptive narrative is not compensation for failing to discover the cause of same.
Click to expand...

JAIC did not fail to discover the cause, except in your imagination. You are attempting to fault them because they did not follow up on allegations of criminal activity. That is not their mandate.

Of course, it knows perfectly well the cause. Did from Day One.
Click to expand...

Or so you claim, but in 400 posts have been unable to prove. Nor has anyone else using the same arguments.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What 'immediate cover up of the sinking'?

It was world headlines from the time it sank.
Click to expand...

The immediate claim it was caused by the bow visor falling off due to a strong wave lifting it up (forgetting that the same wave would press the car ramp door firmly shut) and that it was a 'design fault'.


Claiming it was a mark two version of The Herald of Free Enterprise was very clever, for sure.
 
Vixen said:
That is your opinion. Totally without logic.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think an opinion is?

If I have a device and according to the manual you have to press a button to turn it on, is it my opinion if I tell you that you have to press a button to turn it on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom