• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

JayUtah said:
Except apparently when talking about steel or explosives.


And what is that difference for you as it applies to this situation?
Click to expand...
So you persecute an error. I am guessing you never made any errors and if you did you expected people to just forget about it and move on.

ETA: the difference between strange and suspicious. Given the captain is in charge of the ship and its operations, in shipping disasters, such as Concordia and Free Herald (not to mention the more recent underwater sabotage by Eagles S) prosecutors generally want to interview the captain. It is that simple. I thought it strange they didn't recover the body of Andresson from the bridge, given the mystery over various issues (speed, changeover, the listing). That is not the same as suspicious. Suspicious is when you consider the possibility of ill-intent, concealment or a crime.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So you persecute an error. I am guessing you never made any errors and if you did you expected people to just forget about it and move on.

ETA: the difference between strange and suspicious. Given the captain is in charge of the ship and its operations, in shipping disasters, such as Concordia and Free Herald (not to mention the more recent underwater sabotage by Eagles S) prosecutors generally want to interview the captain. It is that simple.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure interviewing a dead body is not going to be productive, but I don't have your scientific background, so what would I know...
 
Vixen said:
So you persecute an error. I am guessing you never made any errors and if you did you expected people to just forget about it and move on.

ETA: the difference between strange and suspicious. Given the captain is in charge of the ship and its operations, in shipping disasters, such as Concordia and Free Herald (not to mention the more recent underwater sabotage by Eagles S) prosecutors generally want to interview the captain. It is that simple. I thought it strange they didn't recover the body of Andresson from the bridge, given the mystery over various issues (speed, changeover, the listing). That is not the same as suspicious. Suspicious is when you consider the possibility of ill-intent, concealment or a crime.
Click to expand...
How would they go about interviewing the captain, supposing they had recovered his body? Ouija board?
 
Vixen said:
So you persecute an error. I am guessing you never made any errors and if you did you expected people to just forget about it and move on.

ETA: the difference between strange and suspicious. Given the captain is in charge of the ship and its operations, in shipping disasters, such as Concordia and Free Herald (not to mention the more recent underwater sabotage by Eagles S) prosecutors generally want to interview the captain. It is that simple. I thought it strange they didn't recover the body of Andresson from the bridge, given the mystery over various issues (speed, changeover, the listing). That is not the same as suspicious. Suspicious is when you consider the possibility of ill-intent, concealment or a crime.
Click to expand...
You've been considering the possibility of at least one of those since the first of these threads.
 
Vixen said:
A post-mortem talks. It can tell you a lot.
Click to expand...
How is the captain's dead body going to tell you anything about the things you think are mysterious - i.e. the listing, speed and changeover? How do you propose extracting information about the speed of the Estonia or how it was listing from the captain's dead body?
 
Vixen said:
Given the captain is in charge of the ship and its operations, in shipping disasters, such as Concordia and Free Herald (not to mention the more recent underwater sabotage by Eagles S) prosecutors generally want to interview the captain.
Click to expand...
I'm not particularly interested in how you imagine investigations should proceed.

Vixen said:
I thought it strange they didn't recover the body of Andresson from the bridge, given the mystery over various issues (speed, changeover, the listing). That is not the same as suspicious. Suspicious is when you consider the possibility of ill-intent, concealment or a crime.
Click to expand...
You tell us a proper investigation has a motive to recover the captain's body so that the cadaver can somehow be interrogated for explanations about the ship's physical behavior. And you define "suspicion" as suggestive of ill intent, etc. But somehow the failure to recover the captain's body does not invoke any specter of ill intent or concealment—thereby violating what you tell us is proper investigative technique—yet somehow this does not rise to the level of suspicion. To me this sounds like a lot of equivocal wheel-spinning.

But you can have it your way. If there was no suggestion of ill intent, concealment, or criminal activity in failing to recover the captain's body, then it can't cast any meaningful doubt on the findings. Therefore there's no point in talking about it further. It's a non-issue in your formulation.
 
JesseCuster said:
How is the captain's dead body going to tell you anything about the things you think are mysterious - i.e. the listing, speed and changeover? How do you propose extracting information about the speed of the Estonia or how it was listing from the captain's dead body?
Click to expand...
As I said, the bridge stores a record of important information. Also the position of each of the three-or-four person crew on the bridge is another clue. A diver said there was an unidentified man in a red jacket lying beneath a toppled cabinet.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm not particularly interested in how you imagine investigations should proceed.


You tell us a proper investigation has a motive to recover the captain's body so that the cadaver can somehow be interrogated for explanations about the ship's physical behavior. And you define "suspicion" as suggestive of ill intent, etc. But somehow the failure to recover the captain's body does not invoke any specter of ill intent or concealment—thereby violating what you tell us is proper investigative technique—yet somehow this does not rise to the level of suspicion. To me this sounds like a lot of equivocal wheel-spinning.

But you can have it your way. If there was no suggestion of ill intent, concealment, or criminal activity in failing to recover the captain's body, then it can't cast any meaningful doubt on the findings. Therefore there's no point in talking about it further. It's a non-issue in your formulation.
Click to expand...
Not really. There will have been a good reason not to recover the bodies on the bridge.
 
Vixen said:
As I said, the bridge stores a record of important information.
Click to expand...
The bridge does not store that information in the bodies of officers.

Vixen said:
Also the position of each of the three-or-four person crew on the bridge is another clue. A diver said there was an unidentified man in a red jacket lying beneath a toppled cabinet.
Click to expand...
The position of victims in a ship that has rolled over and sunk tells us very little except possibly what room they were in when flooding occurred there.
 
Vixen said:
Not really. There will have been a good reason not to recover the bodies on the bridge.
Click to expand...
That good reason can very well be the expense and danger of attempting to do so compared with the likely value to the investigation of that recovery. Either the failure to recover the body is strange or suspicious (pick you words) for reasons that you can articulate beyond "Because I say so," or the failure to recover the body is inconsequential—not "suspicious," as you use the term—and can be ignored moving forward.
 
Vixen said:
As I said, the bridge stores a record of important information. Also the position of each of the three-or-four person crew on the bridge is another clue. A diver said there was an unidentified man in a red jacket lying beneath a toppled cabinet.
Click to expand...
What clue would their position in a partially capsized wreck on the seabed give you?

Apart from things not fixed down move about in a flooded compartment when the angle of heel changes, it's one of the reasons furniture on a warship isfixed down and all lockers and drawers have positive closing.

Not just for sinking or flooding but for rough weather in general.

 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The instruments on the bridge would provide that information. Given all of the bodies recovered had post-mortems it is perfectly routine to do so.
Click to expand...
You said that you "thought it strange they didn't recover the body of Andresson from the bridge, given the mystery over various issues (speed, changeover, the listing)." If this was information that would be provided by the instruments on the bridge, why would a "mystery" about this information make it strange that the body wasn't recovered?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom