The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

It's a simple question. Are you renewing your claim that the captain was murdered?

Please make an effort to distinguish information from opinion. As the Captain is a key person in any marine accident, I offered the information that a Swedish naval diver claimed to have seen the Captain with what looked like a bullet wound to the head. This claim has been repeated by several others. A key crew member, a watchman testified to the police that he had followed Captain Andresson up the stairs to the bridge on his rounds and that this was circa 12:58 when he and his team were due to take over from the previous team, with second captain Arvo Piht coming off duty. IOW as the reported 'bangs' were heard (however they were caused) at circa 01:00am then we can be reasonably confident that Captain Andresson was on the bridge and remained on the bridge, (unless of course, he managed to escape!!!*).

Yet we have not been told. Whole teams of divers went down to the bridge to retrieve electronic information and assess the scene yet there is no mention in the Accident Report of the location of the Captain or an estimation of what might have become of him or his body. Or what his presumed movements and strategies were.

This is a fact, not 'my claim'. I don't know what happened to the Captain but I should jolly well like to know.

*This is unlikely as by all accounts, Andresson was old school and very strict and proper.

 

[Vixen]

As you said yourself "I am not sure what this has to do with the Swedish prosecutor".

Well, exactly. I never thought it was a case for the police. I always saw it as a case for Sapo and the military intelligence services. They are highly secretive and hardly likely to report anything to the public. So case closed. Classified.

 

[JayUtah]

Please make an effort to distinguish information from opinion.

Please answer my question. Are you renewing your claim that the captain of MS Estonia was murdered?

This is a fact, not 'my claim'.

You keep repeating the same insinuations and suggesting we should address them. That's a claim.

I don't know what happened to the Captain but I should jolly well like to know.

Do you still believe and/or argue that there is credible evidence he was murdered? I'm asking a very simple question.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, exactly. I never thought it was a case for the police. I always saw it as a case for Sapo and the military intelligence services. They are highly secretive and hardly likely to report anything to the public. So case closed. Classified.

Please make an effort to distinguish information from opinion.

 

[Vixen]

Please answer my question. Are you renewing your claim that the captain of MS Estonia was murdered?



You keep repeating the same insinuations and suggesting we should address them. That's a claim.



Do you still believe and/or argue that there is credible evidence he was murdered? I'm asking a very simple question.

I have never claimed the Captain was murdered as I have no idea what happened to him.

Yes, I think it is quite pertinent to ask, what happened to the Captain?

My opinion isn't relevant but if you insist: IMV it seems highly unlikely the captain was murdered. The perceived wound to the head, if the diver is reporting in good faith, could be from a flying object or his making contact on falling against a sharp edge. It would be less surprising to me if he topped himself, although I have no idea whether this is the case. But that is what some of these old military guys do in face of death.

Witnesses have reported that Capt Andresson was seen in a confrontation with a group of men and a couple of surviving staff say he was in a strange mood. But that could just be how it looks in retrospect. One has to look at information from the people who were there or people in the know - that is what journalists do - I am not sure why you think the opinions and/or observations of other people are my opinion.

Don't be like the Ancient Greeks who shot the messengers of bad news.

 

[whoanellie]

I have never claimed the Captain was murdered as I have no idea what happened to him.

Yes, I think it is quite pertinent to ask, what happened to the Captain?

My opinion isn't relevant but if you insist: IMV it seems highly unlikely the captain was murdered. The perceived wound to the head, if the diver is reporting in good faith, could be from a flying object or his making contact on falling against a sharp edge. It would be less surprising to me if he topped himself, although I have no idea whether this is the case. But that is what some of these old military guys do in face of death.

Witnesses have reported that Capt Andresson was seen in a confrontation with a group of men and a couple of surviving staff say he was in a strange mood. But that could just be how it looks in retrospect. One has to look at information from the people who were there or people in the know - that is what journalists do - I am not sure why you think the opinions and/or observations of other people are my opinion.

Don't be like the Ancient Greeks who shot the messengers of bad news.

What did the ancient Greeks shoot messengers with?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, I think it is quite pertinent to ask, what happened to the Captain?

How many times is it pertinent to ask?

My opinion isn't relevant but if you insist: IMV it seems highly unlikely the captain was murdered.

So that's the end of it then. Thank you for finally answering the question.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How many times is it pertinent to ask?



So that's the end of it then. Thank you for finally answering the question.

yes, we won't be seeing any more suggestions he was shot by mysterious persons unknown.
Some actual progress in the thread.

 

[Mojo]

What did the ancient Greeks shoot messengers with?

A Rolleiflex, probably.

 

[JesseCuster]

The police wouldn't be in a position to investigate 'murder' (or suicide) without a body as they would need an autopsy as starting point number one. But Capt Andresson's body was never retrieved. So the starting point is, why not?

Why would not having Captain Andersson's body prevent the Swedish prosecutor from not finding any criminal activity related to the investigation into the sinking of the Estonia that would warrant a crime being investigatedy?

Do you think that not recovering a body from your fantasy of the captain being shot means they can't investigate any crimes related to the sinking of the Estonia? Are you so far deep into you spy thriller fabrication that you think an investigation into the sinking of the Estonia should properly result in the Captain's body being recovered so an autopsy can check to see if he'd been shot or stabbed or poisoned or whatever the fantasy du jour is.

Vixen, can you even remember what stunning evidence would lead to the death of the Captain (and him specifically) being investigated to the point of recovering his body and going through the red tape and hoopla to organise an autopsy to determine whether or not he had indeed died a death due to being shot or just drowned like so many other victims of the tragedy that night? Did the people involved in the investigation have any legal right to recover bodies or was it perhaps even illegal for them to recover bodies? Inquiring minds want to know.

tl;dr
The question isn't why wasn't the Captain's body recovered, the question is what would lead a properly conducted investigation to recover it and go to the legalities, expense, etc. of organising an autopsy to rule in or out whether he had been shot?

 

[JesseCuster]

Why shoot the Captain if the crew was going to be squirreled away on secretive rescue flights that would take them to somewhere where a flight registered as a cargo plane that was actually a CIA rendition flight would take them to a US black site where they would be given an extralegal secret trial for the crimes of <fx>sound.play.cricketnoises</fx>

Would there even be legal grounds for performing an autopsy on a body recovered so long after the relevant events? Wouldn't you need some pretty solid evidential basis to go through the red tape of sanctioning it?

What is that evidence Vixen?

 

[Mojo]

Why shoot the Captain if the crew was going to be squirreled away on secretive rescue flights that would take them to somewhere where a flight registered as a cargo plane that was actually a CIA rendition flight would take them to a US black site where they would be given an extralegal secret trial for the crimes of <fx>sound.play.cricketnoises</fx>

Would there even be legal grounds for performing an autopsy on a body recovered so long after the relevant events? Wouldn't you need some pretty solid evidential basis to go through the red tape of sanctioning it?

What is that evidence Vixen?

You need to distinguish between claims and "facts" or information. If Vixen is making a claim that needs to be supported with evidence it will be referenced, if she's just giving us the "facts" or providing information it doesn't need evidence.

 

[JesseCuster]

What did the ancient Greeks shoot messengers with?

Silly Vixen. They didn't shoot them, they kicked them into a giant bottomless pit.

 

[Axxman300]

Just so everyone's on the same page...

The investigation is over. All the new information reinforces the original report. The rogue "documentary" team have been shown to be frauds who cropped and edited their footage to advance their conspiracy theory that explosives had been used to sink the ship. What the survey shows is the infamous crack in the hull is a stress-fracture caused by the ship settling on the seafloor. The raised the bow ramp to find zero evidence of explosive charges used.

All the conspiracy theories have been proven to be false.

Yet the conspiracy fetishists persist.

 

[Steve]

Just so everyone's on the same page...

The investigation is over. All the new information reinforces the original report. The rogue "documentary" team have been shown to be frauds who cropped and edited their footage to advance their conspiracy theory that explosives had been used to sink the ship. What the survey shows is the infamous crack in the hull is a stress-fracture caused by the ship settling on the seafloor. The raised the bow ramp to find zero evidence of explosive charges used.

All the conspiracy theories have been proven to be false.

Yet the conspiracy fetishists persist.

Using, of course the feeble and transparent excuse of JAQing. E.g. :

Yes, I think it is quite pertinent to ask, what happened to the Captain?

 

[Vixen]

Why would not having Captain Andersson's body prevent the Swedish prosecutor from not finding any criminal activity related to the investigation into the sinking of the Estonia that would warrant a crime being investigatedy?

Do you think that not recovering a body from your fantasy of the captain being shot means they can't investigate any crimes related to the sinking of the Estonia? Are you so far deep into you spy thriller fabrication that you think an investigation into the sinking of the Estonia should properly result in the Captain's body being recovered so an autopsy can check to see if he'd been shot or stabbed or poisoned or whatever the fantasy du jour is.

Vixen, can you even remember what stunning evidence would lead to the death of the Captain (and him specifically) being investigated to the point of recovering his body and going through the red tape and hoopla to organise an autopsy to determine whether or not he had indeed died a death due to being shot or just drowned like so many other victims of the tragedy that night? Did the people involved in the investigation have any legal right to recover bodies or was it perhaps even illegal for them to recover bodies? Inquiring minds want to know.

tl;dr
The question isn't why wasn't the Captain's body recovered, the question is what would lead a properly conducted investigation to recover it and go to the legalities, expense, etc. of organising an autopsy to rule in or out whether he had been shot?

A German journalist (Jutta Rabe) did a lot of footwork investigating the sinking and it was her who said a diver had made the claim Captain Andresson appeared to have a bullet wound in his forehead. IMV the case was investigated but at a higher level (KSI - Must) - similar to M16 as the accident happened in international waters in a jointly owned Estonian-Swedish ship. Harri Routsalainen, part of the current Estonian working party for the government believes the whole thing is classified for 75 years (the standard term) cf. the 1952 Swedish airmen shot down in the Baltic.

So I am not sure why the present day Swedish Prosecutor has popped up, other than to argue about the merits of Henrik Evertsson's filming.

Note Germany is the only Baltic country not to have signed the Estonia Treaty.

 

[Vixen]

Just so everyone's on the same page...

The investigation is over. All the new information reinforces the original report. The rogue "documentary" team have been shown to be frauds who cropped and edited their footage to advance their conspiracy theory that explosives had been used to sink the ship. What the survey shows is the infamous crack in the hull is a stress-fracture caused by the ship settling on the seafloor. The raised the bow ramp to find zero evidence of explosive charges used.

All the conspiracy theories have been proven to be false.

Yet the conspiracy fetishists persist.

The Arikas final report was due to be out 'early 2024'. I have not seen it. Please can you point to where we can read this report.

 

[Mojo]

A German journalist (Jutta Rabe) did a lot of footwork investigating the sinking and it was her who said a diver had made the claim Captain Andresson appeared to have a bullet wound in his forehead.

Was the diver named?

Note Germany is the only Baltic country not to have signed the Estonia Treaty.

And?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A German journalist (Jutta Rabe) did a lot of footwork investigating the sinking and it was her who said a diver had made the claim Captain Andresson appeared to have a bullet wound in his forehead.

So Rabe is the sole source of that rumour. I wonder why nobody else ever talks about it.

IMV the case was investigated but at a higher level (KSI - Must) - similar to M16

MI6 rather than M16, I guess you mean. So you have a conspiracy theory in your imagination that the *real* investigation was a secret one conducted by spies. How thrilling.

So I am not sure why the present day Swedish Prosecutor has popped up, other than to argue about the merits of Henrik Evertsson's filming.

That was not the reason the Swedish prosecutor "popped up", as we all saw. Their reason was to say the investigation was not revealing anything new for them to act upon so as far as they were concerned the case is closed. You know this because you posted about it, so why are you now not sure what they said?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

MI6 rather than M16, I guess you mean. So you have a conspiracy theory in your imagination that the *real* investigation was a secret one conducted by spies. How thrilling.

Maybe it's the M16 assault rifle & the US military is involved? Makes as much sense as blaming James Bond.