• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
Which prosecutors do you want to charge which people with which crimes?
Click to expand...

Vixen does not care about the details. As long as someone is charged with something it will, in Vixen's mind, provide some small justification for the many fantasies offered in these threads. It will provide Vixen with an "I told you so!" moment in the sun.
 
Vixen said:
OTOH were I to say this witness said this that or other re the Estonia accident, then of course, I'll provide the reference.

Clear now?
Click to expand...
But you've made factual claims regarding the Estonia disaster such as Erich Moik bring fired for saying he saw Piht on TV. You said 'of course' you'll provide references for claim surrounding factual claims about the Estonia disaster, but you have admitted you have no source for this you've no idea where you came across the idea.

Similarly, you've admitted you've no reference for the claim about the Atlantic lock bring a mere accessory to provide a feeling of safety, you read it somewhere and you don't know where.

You're full of claims about the Estonia that you have no references for and can't provide references for. Who are you kidding?
 
Vixen said:
It should be obvious that that referred to factual issues.
Click to expand...

If you intended that, you should have stated it. Now we're asking you to document assertions of putative fact, and you're stating you cannot, will not, and have no intention of doing so. That means you have very little expectation that thinking persons will take you seriously. You've steeped yourself in a conspiracy lore regarding MS Estonia, and you derive some sort of satisfaction from mindlessly regurgitating vaguely-recalled bits of it here. You're not a historian, you're just another conspiracy theorist.
 
JesseCuster said:
But you've made factual claims regarding the Estonia disaster such as Erich Moik bring fired for saying he saw Piht on TV. You said 'of course' you'll provide references for claim surrounding factual claims about the Estonia disaster, but you have admitted you have no source for this you've no idea where you came across the idea.

Similarly, you've admitted you've no reference for the claim about the Atlantic lock bring a mere accessory to provide a feeling of safety, you read it somewhere and you don't know where.

You're full of claims about the Estonia that you have no references for and can't provide references for. Who are you kidding?
Click to expand...

It is my belief Moik was subject to workplace problems. I will let you know when I find the source.

Likewise the Atlantic lock. (Is there really nobody able to find out the etymology of this?)
 
Vixen said:
An official accident investigation committee...
Click to expand...

You keep trying to tell us how accident investigations work. I keep reminding you that you have absolutely no experience participating in one. Why do you think your ignorant suppositions are the basis of a cogent line of reasoning that others are bound to accept?
 
JayUtah said:
You keep trying to tell us how accident investigations work. I keep reminding you that you have absolutely no experience participating in one. Why do you think your ignorant suppositions are the basis of a cogent line of reasoning that others are bound to accept?
Click to expand...

In the UK accident inquiry committees and certain public inquiries do have the weight of legal power behind them and I am pretty confident the JAIC had the full power to declare the Estonia unseaworthy had that been the case despite the vessel's certifications.

The big problem with the JAIC make up is that the Estonian component had very close links to the Estonian shipping industry and thus could be argued to have a certain conflict of interest. Certainly, they were very resistant to the JAIC uttering a single word of criticism against the Estonian crew or the maintenance and upkeep of the ship.
 
Vixen said:
It is my belief Moik was subject to workplace problems.
Click to expand...

That belief is an allegation of fact. According to you, your factual claims should have been properly sourced when you first presented them.

I will let you know when I find the source.
Click to expand...

We've seen this before. You allege a fact, then you scramble for sources that dance around that allegation, and you spin them mightily to make them seem as if they support your allegation when in fact they do not.

You tell us you are skilled at historical research. In your mind does the study of history involve arriving first at a belief and then searching for sources to support that belief?
 
Vixen said:
What do you claim I knowingly made up? (As opposed to a simple error.)
Click to expand...

Now, this is a very interesting question you pose.
Very interesting indeed.

How can we, the viewers of your posts (in this case limiting it to posts that have something of a verifiable fact in it), diffentiate between a post of yours, which is made up, or one that contains an error?

Now. Anybody can make an error of fact of course.
But sometimes the errors are so legion in number or so basic (classifying the Wilhelm Gustloff sinking as a peace time accident, for instance), that it is hard to not go thinking they are deliberate.

So, how to differentiate?
 
Vixen said:
In the UK accident inquiry committees and certain public inquiries do have the weight of legal power behind them and I am pretty confident the JAIC had the full power to declare the Estonia unseaworthy had that been the case despite the vessel's certifications.

The big problem with the JAIC make up is that the Estonian component had very close links to the Estonian shipping industry and thus could be argued to have a certain conflict of interest. Certainly, they were very resistant to the JAIC uttering a single word of criticism against the Estonian crew or the maintenance and upkeep of the ship.
Click to expand...

They had no knowledge of the sea worthiness other than the certificates that were in place. If you read the report it shows that after investigation the ship was not in compliance with it's certificates and the governments of Sweden and Finland exempted it from compliance.
 
Vixen said:
In the UK accident inquiry committees and certain public inquiries do have the weight of legal power behind them.
Click to expand...

They have the legal power to compel testimony and obtain evidence.
They do not have the power to prosecute.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They have the legal power to compel testimony and obtain evidence.
They do not have the power to prosecute.
Click to expand...

I did not say they had the power to prosecute. However, they certainly have the authority to make proper powerful criticism.


The JAIC was not obliged to state the Estonia was seaworthy. It did so because it wanted to stick to the conclusion it was only the bow visor design involved.
 
Vixen said:
You are approaching it from the wrong angle. History shows us that where there is a major accident involving members of the public, there is invariably charges brought to answer for. For example some of my work colleagues were involved in the Leeds train accident, where some carriages overturned. Thankfully, they were fine, if somewhat shaken up, but as I recall the train company had a prosecution slapped on it. The prosecutors in the case of the Estonia accident seem strangely apathetic.
Click to expand...


The only angle that can lead to prosecution is specific crimes charged against specific individuals in specific jurisdictions. If you choose some other angle, you have no coherent complaint of inaction on the part of prosecutors.
 
Vixen said:
I did not say they had the power to prosecute. However, they certainly have the authority to make proper powerful criticism.


The JAIC was not obliged to state the Estonia was seaworthy. It did so because it wanted to stick to the conclusion it was only the bow visor design involved.
Click to expand...

It was stating that at the time it sailed it had the required certification that showed it to be seaworthy
It goes on to show that it was in fact not in compliance with the certification and shows in detail why it wasn't.

Regulations were changed after the report in to the sinking.
 
Vixen said:
I did not say they had the power to prosecute. However, they certainly have the authority to make proper powerful criticism.
Click to expand...

Anyone has the "authority" to criticize. You're doing it right now, despite having no formal authority or qualification to do so. While I'm familiar with the legal inquests undertaken in the U.K., that is not common international practice. Forensic engineering examinations have no legal authority to apportion liability.

The JAIC was not obliged to state the Estonia was seaworthy. It did so because it wanted to stick to the conclusion it was only the bow visor design involved.
Click to expand...

So you say from your vast experience in forensic engineering examinations. An accident investigator is very much obliged to discover and state the authority by which any necessary and applicable certifications were granted, whether they were up to date, and whether any waivers had been granted. It sets the expectation for how the equipment in question should have operated.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It was stating that at the time it sailed it had the required certification that showed it to be seaworthy
It goes on to show that it was in fact not in compliance with the certification and shows in detail why it wasn't.

Regulations were changed after the report in to the sinking.
Click to expand...

No. It does not qualify its statement. It states:

5.2 Status of the vessel on departure

On departure from Tallinn on 27 September the ESTONIA was seaworthy and properly manned. There were no outstanding items either from the authorities or from the classification society's surveys. The maintenance standard of the vessel was good as witnessed by various instances.
Click to expand...

See it for what it plainly says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom