• 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 VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
No, that was expressly not what was asked. The hypothetical asks what we should conclude about the collapse of the building in light of a conflict between witness statements and circumstantial evidence.

The fact that you invented a new question that smacks of character judgment illustrates why you are the wrong sort of person to be second-guessing the work of professional investigators. Concluding that a witness may have been mistaken on some point is subtly different than commenting upon a witness' reliability.
Click to expand...

Look. All an eye-witness can report or should report is his or her own observations. It is not an eye-witness' job to determine what caused an accident. If an eye witness says he or she heard a bang, then you can't know that they were mistaken because they might have done. This is why what-if scenarios are such a waste of time because you are now going to come back and say: 'See! Told you so! There were no explosives int he what-if scenario, so those eye-witnesses were real duds when it came to eyewitnessing!'

:rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
So your assumption that all was done correctly is wrong. It is now 2023 and all this time, you didn't even know you were wrong.
Click to expand...

Wait, so the exercise is to prove Jay wrong, not to discover the truth? You're kind of saying the quiet part loud.

I didn't say "it was all done correctly." I said best practices were followed. That includes how to deal with witness interviews conducted by other people.
 
Vixen said:
All an eye-witness can report or should report is his or her own observations.
Click to expand...

But none do, which is why interviewing a witness for a forensic investigation is an art. Witnesses report combinations of observations and inferences, and it's the interviewer's job to conduct the interview in a way that identifies the distinction.

This is why what-if scenarios are such a waste of time because you are now going to come back and say: 'See! Told you so!
Click to expand...

Clearly the hypothetical is not a waste of time because it has uncovered the flaws in your way of thinking about witness testimony. That's a more likely reason for why you don't want to address it.
 
Vixen said:
Look. All an eye-witness can report or should report is his or her own observations. It is not an eye-witness' job to determine what caused an accident. If an eye witness says he or she heard a bang, then you can't know that they were mistaken because they might have done. This is why what-if scenarios are such a waste of time because you are now going to come back and say: 'See! Told you so! There were no explosives int he what-if scenario, so those eye-witnesses were real duds when it came to eyewitnessing!'

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't understand what I was asking.

In my scenario there is no physical evidence for explosives and the earwitnesses state that they heard explosions.

The only question I'm asking is in this scenario, would you believe that the earwitnesses were mistaken in their analysis of the sound they heard or would you take their assumption of hearing an explosion as correct?

That's it. That you are refusing to answer is very interesting.
 
Vixen said:
You say the accident was a result of navigating a decrepit old ship. In which case, why has nobody at all been charged with gross negligence or corporate manslaughter? Ideally, you should provide reasoning for your assertions.
Click to expand...


My assertion that the ship was decrepit comes from reporting of facts such as that the latch securing the bow visor had to be hammered into place. Meaning moving parts no longer aligned properly.

I have a shed like that: the frame has sagged a bit, and the door hinges are fatigued, so the hasp doesn't line up with the staple like it should. It's about half an inch too high. To close the latch I have to pull strongly downward on the door while tapping hard the hasp (usually with the padlock I'm about to use to lock the door). I don't particularly care, but this is proof that my shed is not in good structural condition. If the coming tropical storm winds blow my shed over I'm going to blame (a) the wind and (b) the shed's decrepit condition. I'm not going to try to convince anyone that maybe Russian commandos came up the river in a submarine and then deployed a short-range cruise missile to knock my shed over. And I'm not going to store anything in that shed that's irreplaceably essential to the immediate survival of 850 people, because that would be irresponsible in the extreme.

Why has no one been charged with negligence or manslaughter? Because (1) modern legal systems don't charge or try dead people, and (2) prosecutors can't subpoena testimony from dead people.
 
Vixen said:
Probably the translation should read 'capsized' not collapsed. Unless you are standing right in front of the source of an unknown noise you would have to say 'sounds like'.
Click to expand...

So what is the source of the quote? If it was badly translated it cannot be trusted - who did that translation?
 
Vixen said:
That is not to say there was an explosion but it has never been looked into because the whole aim of the JAIC was to prove it was a few strong waves that knocked the bow visor off.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
That is back to the question of method used. If you recall they used the same method as in TW800, in that some explosive traces dissolve in the water after a few days. It doesn't mean it was never there.
Click to expand...

Changing your story I see. First you claimed that the JAIC never looked into if there were explosions. That turned out to be a lie.

Now your claim is that the Finnish police is incompetent in investigating explosions.
 
Vixen said:
We were talking about the early newspaper editions spelling out Ken being a hero and saving nine survivors at 2:00am, together with delivering them to a hospital in Stockholm. This is despite JAIC claiming he didn't arrive until about four and the OSC commanding that all survivors be taken to Uto, the nearest land mass and not far from the prestigious TYKS university hospital in Turku and the Hanko hospital 90km away that specialised in fractures and complex injuries.


A poster wanted to know how come he can't find the newspaper report on the internet. The Oprah was my example of how easy it is to stop a story from appearing anywhere, and of course there is the UK government's D-notice (as was used in the recent 'Chinese-Spy' story, with no-one knowing anything about the arrest in March at all, apart from those who had to know.).
Click to expand...

Jack by the hedge said:
You could help by directing them to your source for the text of these early and later editions of the article.
Click to expand...

How about it, Vixen? Are you going to reveal your source?
 
Vixen said:
Where does it say the Estonia survivors are contradicted? Their testimony is pretty consistent with each other, although obviously, they will describe it according to their own use of vocabulary. For example, some might call it a bang another a shudder. Some people are auditory and describe things in terms of noise, others are more visual and describe things in terms of what they saw. Yet others have a visceral response and have to find metaphors or similes to help in recounting it. Some people are very eloquent others maybe just a few words.
Click to expand...


Where did I say they are contradicted? None of them actually reported an explosion.

What is contradicted by the evidence is the inference you are drawing from their accounts.
 
Vixen said:
Can I direct your attention to the eight downed Swedish aircraft men. THey were downed by the Soviet Union in 1952. Kept secret over forty years. Nor even their own families knew until then. When dealing with Russia all kinds of diplomacy and softly-softly stuff comes into play. Imagine if those airmen were still missing today you would claim it was a laughable conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Imagine instead they had made a Mayday call which had been heard by nearby ships who arrived at the scene and picked up survivors with the help of helicopters from Finland and Sweden and that the wreck had been located and dived on to examine it. Like the Estonia. What room for secret cold war shenanigans then?
 
Vixen said:
phiwum said:
Mind you, the list of summaries of witness testimonies provided by Vixen did not include any reports of explosions at all.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am sure they do.

Quote:
- I was at a karaoke bar with a friend when I heard an unusual sound. I thought it sounded like an explosion. I left immediately. It was a matter of seconds or minutes to get out. That ship collapsed so quickly and no one came to help.
Altti Hakanpää and his friend tried to shout at people. The sight still troubles him.
Quote:
. Ulla Marianne Tenman - cabin 1098 - 30 years old
Click to expand...
ibid

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" ~ Paul Simon The Boxer
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
The source of the statement is the police immediately following the disaster.

You can read the original in Swedish here:

https://web.archive.org/web/2004032...al report/enclosures HTM/enc 2/21.3.1.288.htm
Click to expand...

I have now read the original that you claim is the source of your quote.

Apart from the name, it bears no relationship whatsoever. She was not in a karaoke bar, she was in her cabin. She did not hear something that sounded like an explosion, she hear "dunkar" (my translation: clonks) and later a "kraftig smäll" (my translation - a loud bang"). She did not say anything about the time it took to collapse, nor capsize.

So the quote you provided is incorrect. Did you translate it, or did you pick it up somewhere?
 
Here_to_learn said:
I have now read the original that you claim is the source of your quote.

Apart from the name, it bears no relationship whatsoever. She was not in a karaoke bar, she was in her cabin. She did not hear something that sounded like an explosion, she hear "dunkar" (my translation: clonks) and later a "kraftig smäll" (my translation - a loud bang"). She did not say anything about the time it took to collapse, nor capsize.

So the quote you provided is incorrect. Did you translate it, or did you pick it up somewhere?
Click to expand...
Vixen lying about what an eyewitness said? Say it aint so!
 
Myriad said:
My assertion that the ship was decrepit comes from reporting of facts such as that the latch securing the bow visor had to be hammered into place. Meaning moving parts no longer aligned properly.

I have a shed like that: the frame has sagged a bit, and the door hinges are fatigued, so the hasp doesn't line up with the staple like it should. It's about half an inch too high. To close the latch I have to pull strongly downward on the door while tapping hard the hasp (usually with the padlock I'm about to use to lock the door). I don't particularly care, but this is proof that my shed is not in good structural condition. If the coming tropical storm winds blow my shed over I'm going to blame (a) the wind and (b) the shed's decrepit condition. I'm not going to try to convince anyone that maybe Russian commandos came up the river in a submarine and then deployed a short-range cruise missile to knock my shed over. And I'm not going to store anything in that shed that's irreplaceably essential to the immediate survival of 850 people, because that would be irresponsible in the extreme.

Why has no one been charged with negligence or manslaughter? Because (1) modern legal systems don't charge or try dead people, and (2) prosecutors can't subpoena testimony from dead people.
Click to expand...

Myriad, be sensible. If your shed is decrepit and wonky and it gets destroyed in a tropical storm, then what on earth has it to do with 'Russian commandos', unless you often have Russian commandos hiding in the bushes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom