Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Jack by the hedge]

This is a continuation from here. As usual the split point is arbitrary and posters are free to refer to matters raised in previous threads in this series, as long as those matters are sufficiently on-topic.

Posted By: Agatha

... The point is that Sweden was not averse to doing it.

You wish to use "Sweden was not averse to doing it" as support for your fantastical version of what Sweden did. Unfortunately the example you chose of Sweden "doing it" was actually of Sweden doing something different. So your claim is diluted to the rather weaker "Sweden is not averse to doing some things".

As a substitute for actual evidence, it's not entirely compelling.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

No. The point is that Sweden was not averse to doing it. It was a note at the back, so intrigued, I looked it up for myself.

Then where did you get the idea that it was a case of enforced disappearance?

Where did you "look it up"?

You clearly didn't arrive at that conclusion based on the merits, as you cannot articulate a cogent case for how one might have come to that conclusion. I retain my suspicion that you cribbed it from Bollyn.

 

[zooterkin]

I certainly have not denigrated any recipient award for bravery.

Really?

OK OK I guess for a Swede falling from a winch and having to treadwater until someone rescued him, would command the highest medal for bravery.






[NB that was a joke before anybody gets upset.]

How is it a problem?

Are you seriously claiming Svensson got the equivalent of the Victoria Cross for falling into the water?

 

[JayUtah]

No.

Then, contrary to your insinuation, he's not your authority for the claim that the expulsion of the two Egyptians constitutes enforced disappearance. Therefore it remains a defensible conclusion that you got that idea from Bollyn.

The point is that Sweden was not averse to doing it.

To doing what? Under pressure from an angry and embattled United States government, and pursuant to false representations from the Egyptian government, Sweden short-circuits its asylum process and deports two Egyptians, one of whom later wins a judgment against Sweden for -- not enforced disappearance -- but exposing him to torture as the result of failed due process. While unacceptable, that's not as nefarious a tale as you seem to want everyone to believe.

You're still trying to argue from an assumption that one action is equivalent to another more serious action. You're still trying to argue that it's a pattern of behavior that somehow makes your claim more palatable that Sweden "disappeared" the MS Estonia officers.

It was a note at the back, so intrigued, I looked it up for myself.

I doubt your story. Where exactly did you "look it up?" We're looking for the source of your legal theory that the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery constituted enforced disappearance as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute, and that -- according to your claim -- a human-rights court upheld that theory. You've conceded that Drew Wilson is not the source of that theory. So far it's just you and Bollyn, and he was there first. Therefore the most parsimonious conclusion is that you got it from him, and -- as is your established pattern -- you're trying to deny the identity and reputation of your sources.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Really?

Please, I've only got so many ribs, Noel Coward.

 

[JesseCuster]

I certainly have not denigrated any recipient award for bravery. As I say, I am sure Svensson did something exceptional for his award.

Liar.

You've repeatedly denigrated Svensson for his medal.

1. You've repeatedly insisted that he only rescued 1 person and refused to acknowledge that he actually rescued 7 people.

2. You've repeatedly made snide and belittling comments about him getting a medal for falling into the water, or treading water, or because his winch broke, and have refused to acknowledge that the medal was for far more than that.

3. You've accused him of accepting his medal on false premises, that he actually got it to keep his mouth shut about disappearing the Estonia's officers, not for any bravery or commendable actions.

It's shameful and you think you can get away with repeatedly denigrating him by just saying "I'm not denigrating him!".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It might (or might not, let's see) be worth pencilling in a timeline of what Vixen's version of events during the rescue are.

As I understand it, her story varies from the version in the report as it includes an earlier flight by a Swedish helicopter, not necessarily Y64, which is erased from the public record. On that flight, 9(?) senior officers of the ship were rescued.

At some point during the rescue missions, Aftonbladet got a story of Y64 having flown earlier than officially recorded and of Svensson having rescued 8 people.

Also at some point, information about the identities of these 9 first rescued got to someone in Sweden who realised they wanted those people to be disappeared (for uncertain motives but let's gloss over that for now). This was someone who had the authority to order it done. Vixen said that it likely happened after the 9 had been moved to Huddinge Hospital.

Now significantly, the initial rescue plan was that to save precious time the helicopters were to take survivors to the nearest ferry. Two Finnish helicopters began carrying out this plan and landed 4 each, but the heavy seas made it too dangerous and impractical to continue and later rescues were flown directly to land, which took more time. As time went on the condition of those being rescued generally deteriorated and so taking them straight to a hospital began to make greater sense.

But Vixen's early secret flight was before this initial plan was revised, and before the Swedish helicopter crew had any idea the people they'd saved were to be abducted. So which ship did the mystery helicopter land the 9 on, and when and where were they transferred next, and how was their existence hushed up with so many people having seen them?

I appreciate there aren't going to be any worthwhile answers to this as it's not what really happened, but I thought it might be worth looking at its practicability.

 

[Steve]

It might (or might not, let's see) be worth pencilling in a timeline of what Vixen's version of events during the rescue are.

As I understand it, her story varies from the version in the report as it includes an earlier flight by a Swedish helicopter, not necessarily Y64, which is erased from the public record. On that flight, 9(?) senior officers of the ship were rescued.

At some point during the rescue missions, Aftonbladet got a story of Y64 having flown earlier than officially recorded and of Svensson having rescued 8 people.

Also at some point, information about the identities of these 9 first rescued got to someone in Sweden who realised they wanted those people to be disappeared (for uncertain motives but let's gloss over that for now). This was someone who had the authority to order it done. Vixen said that it likely happened after the 9 had been moved to Huddinge Hospital.

Now significantly, the initial rescue plan was that to save precious time the helicopters were to take survivors to the nearest ferry. Two Finnish helicopters began carrying out this plan and landed 4 each, but the heavy seas made it too dangerous and impractical to continue and later rescues were flown directly to land, which took more time. As time went on the condition of those being rescued generally deteriorated and so taking them straight to a hospital began to make greater sense.

But Vixen's early secret flight was before this initial plan was revised, and before the Swedish helicopter crew had any idea the people they'd saved were to be abducted. So which ship did the mystery helicopter land the 9 on, and when and where were they transferred next, and how was their existence hushed up with so many people having seen them?

I appreciate there aren't going to be any worthwhile answers to this as it's not what really happened, but I thought it might be worth looking at its practicability.

Vixen has claimed several times in response to my requests for a coherent narrative that she is only reporting facts and has no thoughts of her own on the totality of how events around the sinking actually unfolded.

"You may take it with however many grains of salt you wish" - Chip Monck at Woodstock, 1969.

 

[Vixen]

Really?

I also said:

"I certainly have not denigrated any recipient award for bravery. As I say, I am sure Svensson did something exceptional for his award. I am sceptical it was to do with what JAIC describe and the Wikipedia footnote entered by a contributor describes the same in a newspaper article but it doesn't follow that this was the reason for the award."


As my arguments take the form of pro-, con- and conclusion, in future, please quote me in full context and not just cherry pick the cons and the jokes, in order to misrepresent my views.

 

[Vixen]

Then where did you get the idea that it was a case of enforced disappearance?

Where did you "look it up"?

You clearly didn't arrive at that conclusion based on the merits, as you cannot articulate a cogent case for how one might have come to that conclusion. I retain my suspicion that you cribbed it from Bollyn.

Did you not understand my response? I said I have been following this case since 1994 as I knew this vessel as Viking Sally and had travel on her. So we have some guy who calls himself 'Christopher Bollyn', a likely pseudonym, and probably a Russian Pro-Iran disinformation agent, who pops up in 2012 pulling bits out of the Estonia scandal into an article, not saying anything not already in the public domain and you have the audacity to claim he must be my guru.

In addition, I do not have any control over your thoughts so you can retain whatever you like.


Derek:
I think he retains his dignity, huh.
Clive:
Well, he retains everything.

~ Squatter and the Ant, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore

 

[Vixen]

Then, contrary to your insinuation, he's not your authority for the claim that the expulsion of the two Egyptians constitutes enforced disappearance. Therefore it remains a defensible conclusion that you got that idea from Bollyn.



To doing what? Under pressure from an angry and embattled United States government, and pursuant to false representations from the Egyptian government, Sweden short-circuits its asylum process and deports two Egyptians, one of whom later wins a judgment against Sweden for -- not enforced disappearance -- but exposing him to torture as the result of failed due process. While unacceptable, that's not as nefarious a tale as you seem to want everyone to believe.

You're still trying to argue from an assumption that one action is equivalent to another more serious action. You're still trying to argue that it's a pattern of behavior that somehow makes your claim more palatable that Sweden "disappeared" the MS Estonia officers.



I doubt your story. Where exactly did you "look it up?" We're looking for the source of your legal theory that the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery constituted enforced disappearance as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute, and that -- according to your claim -- a human-rights court upheld that theory. You've conceded that Drew Wilson is not the source of that theory. So far it's just you and Bollyn, and he was there first. Therefore the most parsimonious conclusion is that you got it from him, and -- as is your established pattern -- you're trying to deny the identity and reputation of your sources.

Since I had never read 'Bollyn' it must have been from elsewhere.

Where does one gets information about the world from?

 

[Vixen]

Liar.

You've repeatedly denigrated Svensson for his medal.

1. You've repeatedly insisted that he only rescued 1 person and refused to acknowledge that he actually rescued 7 people.

2. You've repeatedly made snide and belittling comments about him getting a medal for falling into the water, or treading water, or because his winch broke, and have refused to acknowledge that the medal was for far more than that.

3. You've accused him of accepting his medal on false premises, that he actually got it to keep his mouth shut about disappearing the Estonia's officers, not for any bravery or commendable actions.

It's shameful and you think you can get away with repeatedly denigrating him by just saying "I'm not denigrating him!".

You are the liar. Faking indignation.

 

[Vixen]

It might (or might not, let's see) be worth pencilling in a timeline of what Vixen's version of events during the rescue are.

As I understand it, her story varies from the version in the report as it includes an earlier flight by a Swedish helicopter, not necessarily Y64, which is erased from the public record. On that flight, 9(?) senior officers of the ship were rescued.

At some point during the rescue missions, Aftonbladet got a story of Y64 having flown earlier than officially recorded and of Svensson having rescued 8 people.

Also at some point, information about the identities of these 9 first rescued got to someone in Sweden who realised they wanted those people to be disappeared (for uncertain motives but let's gloss over that for now). This was someone who had the authority to order it done. Vixen said that it likely happened after the 9 had been moved to Huddinge Hospital.

Now significantly, the initial rescue plan was that to save precious time the helicopters were to take survivors to the nearest ferry. Two Finnish helicopters began carrying out this plan and landed 4 each, but the heavy seas made it too dangerous and impractical to continue and later rescues were flown directly to land, which took more time. As time went on the condition of those being rescued generally deteriorated and so taking them straight to a hospital began to make greater sense.

But Vixen's early secret flight was before this initial plan was revised, and before the Swedish helicopter crew had any idea the people they'd saved were to be abducted. So which ship did the mystery helicopter land the 9 on, and when and where were they transferred next, and how was their existence hushed up with so many people having seen them?

I appreciate there aren't going to be any worthwhile answers to this as it's not what really happened, but I thought it might be worth looking at its practicability.

The On Scene Commander (OSC) was the Captain of Silja Europa. He issued the command that the dead and the rescued should be brought to the deck of the ships and/or directly carried to the mainland, at Utö, 28 miles away. From there, they could be transferred to the nearest hospital in Turku (circa 25 km away from Utö) or to Hanko, circa 100km to the east, to a hospital that specialised in fractures.

Later patients were flown to Mariehamn, capital of the Ålands to help spread out overspill.

The OSC stipulated Utö because some special refuelling unit had been brought there, specifically to allow the helicopters to refuel without having to return all the way to Sweden, some 200km away and a 40 minute flight to Stockholm Berga.

I hope you now understand why it seems odd why Svensson said he flew eight and a deceased person straight to Huddinge Hospital, and also why Viking Mariella also made her way to Stockholm (where she was due on her journey, to be fair).

Obviously Svensson would not be able to divine a later decision to remove his early eight people from the survivors list, or he would not have openly briefed the reporters milling around Berga at the time.

Here is a map so you can see the geography and the logistics.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I hope you now understand why it seems odd why Svensson said he flew eight and a deceased person straight to Huddinge Hospital, and also why Viking Mariella also made her way to Stockholm (where she was due on her journey, to be fair).

Because they had three rescue men injured. It's clearly spelled out in the JAIC report, as well as in contemporary newspaper reports. For example in Svenska Dagbladet (paywall).

They had to go back to Berga to repair the winch and change the crew, and could then just as well deliver the rescued persons to Huddinge Sjukhus instead of spending extra time flying to Utö and then having to refuel to get back to base.

This is the JAIC text:

In connection with the rescue of the last of the three, a strong wave threw the rescue man against the lifeboat, injuring him. Since Y 74 now had three injured rescue men, it had to interrupt its rescue operations. In addition, fuel was running low. The six survivors, the injured rescue men and the body were taken to Huddinge Hospital, where the helicopter arrived at 0930 hrs. Y 74 returned to Berga at 0940 hrs to change crew.

 

[Mojo]

Did you not understand my response? I said I have been following this case since 1994 as I knew this vessel as Viking Sally and had travel on her. So we have some guy who calls himself 'Christopher Bollyn', a likely pseudonym, and probably a Russian Pro-Iran disinformation agent, who pops up in 2012 pulling bits out of the Estonia scandal into an article, not saying anything not already in the public domain and you have the audacity to claim he must be my guru.

Where was the erroneous idea that Sweden disappeared the Egyptians “already in the public domain”?

 

[Vixen]

Because they had three rescue men injured. It's clearly spelled out in the JAIC report, as well as in contemporary newspaper reports. For example in Svenska Dagbladet (paywall).

They had to go back to Berga to repair the winch and change the crew, and could then just as well deliver the rescued persons to Huddinge Sjukhus instead of spending extra time flying to Utö and then having to refuel to get back to base.

This is the JAIC text:

If 'fuel was running low', it made sense to go to Utö. Unless of course, if it was an earlier flight before the refuelling units were installed in place.

 

[Vixen]

Where was the erroneous idea that Sweden disappeared the Egyptians “already in the public domain”?

Drew Wilson's book came out in 2006, for a start, and I dare say the newspapers covered the story at the time.

 

[Here_to_learn]

If 'fuel was running low', it made sense to go to Utö. Unless of course it was an earlier flight before the refuelling units were installed in place.

Don't you read what you reply to? I specifically spelled it out.

They had to go to Berga for repairs and changing crew. They had enough fuel to go direct, and Huddinge hospital is basically next-door.

 

[Mojo]

Drew Wilson's book came out in 2006, for a start, and I dare say the newspapers covered the story at the time.

Yesterday you said that Wilson did not claim that it was an enforced disappearance. Do you have the page number for Wilson’s book including the idea that it was a forced disappearance? Or references for newspapers saying this?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The On Scene Commander (OSC) was the Captain of Silja Europa. He issued the command that the dead and the rescued should be brought to the deck of the ships and/or directly carried to the mainland, at Utö, 28 miles away. From there, they could be transferred to the nearest hospital in Turku (circa 25 km away from Utö) or to Hanko, circa 100km to the east, to a hospital that specialised in fractures.

Later patients were flown to Mariehamn, capital of the Ålands to help spread out overspill.

The OSC stipulated Utö because some special refuelling unit had been brought there, specifically to allow the helicopters to refuel without having to return all the way to Sweden, some 200km away and a 40 minute flight to Stockholm Berga.

I hope you now understand why it seems odd why Svensson said he flew eight and a deceased person straight to Huddinge Hospital, and also why Viking Mariella also made her way to Stockholm (where she was due on her journey, to be fair).

Obviously Svensson would not be able to divine a later decision to remove his early eight people from the survivors list, or he would not have openly briefed the reporters milling around Berga at the time.

Here is a map so you can see the geography and the logistics.

What do the logistics have to do with it?

When would Svensson have had opportunity to brief reporters 'openly milling around'? Do you think the reporters were wandering around the helicopter landing and fuelling sites?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because they had three rescue men injured. It's clearly spelled out in the JAIC report, as well as in contemporary newspaper reports. For example in Svenska Dagbladet (paywall).

They had to go back to Berga to repair the winch and change the crew, and could then just as well deliver the rescued persons to Huddinge Sjukhus instead of spending extra time flying to Utö and then having to refuel to get back to base.

This is the JAIC text:

Also Helicopter Y 65. It also was returning to Berga for repair and took one survivor to hospital in Stockholm which is just 10 miles from the base.
A nurse was taken on board to assist in the rescue work. After this, Y 65 proceeded to Berga to change the winch and wire before changing crew and returning to the search.

 

[Vixen]

Don't you read what you reply to? I specifically spelled it out.

They had to go to Berga for repairs and changing crew. They had enough fuel to go direct, and Huddinge hospital is basically next-door.

The On Scene Commander ordered that any helicopters with defective winches should return to base. He also ordered that survivors and the dead be brought to the ships (if they could land a helicopter - and only the Finnish ones could as they had trained for this) or transferred to the special base set up at Utö for them, staffed with a team of doctors and nurses.

A helicopter with a broken winch is not in any immediate danger. It could still drop off the survivors at Utö, as ordered, refuel and then return to base, as ordered.

Instead, whilst obeying the order to return the helicopter with a defective winch to base Y74 seems to have directly disobeyed the order by flying the survivors direct to Huddinge. Claiming low fuel and a defective winch is a pathetic excuse and a likely story by the JAIC.

Three survivors were hanging on to the keel of an upside-down lifeboat. Y 64's rescue man was lowered, and all three survivors were winched up. In connection with the rescue of the last of the three, a strong wave threw the rescue man against the lifeboat, injuring him. Since Y 74 now had three injured rescue men, it had to interrupt its rescue operations. In addition, fuel was running low. The six survivors, the injured rescue men and the body were taken to Huddinge Hospital, where the helicopter arrived at 0930 hrs. Y 74 returned to Berga at 0940 hrs to change crew.

JAIC 7.5.5

Why would any member of the Defence Forces get the highest medal in the land after having wilfully disobeyed a command from the person in official command of them, the On Scene Commander of all people?

 

[Vixen]

What do the logistics have to do with it?

When would Svensson have had opportunity to brief reporters 'openly milling around'? Do you think the reporters were wandering around the helicopter landing and fuelling sites?

An Estonian radio station claims to have interviewed Svensson, who seemed only too eager to let the world know, and that he said in the interview that he had rescued Avo Piht. He even said Piht came from Hiumaa, an island off Estonia, which surely, only Piht himself could have told him that.

 

[Vixen]

Also Helicopter Y 65. It also was returning to Berga for repair and took one survivor to hospital in Stockholm which is just 10 miles from the base.
A nurse was taken on board to assist in the rescue work. After this, Y 65 proceeded to Berga to change the winch and wire before changing crew and returning to the search.

That must have been the other now missing Estonian.

 

[Marras]

Why would any member of the Defence Forces get the highest medal in the land after having wilfully disobeyed a command from the person in official command of them, the On Scene Commander of all people?

Could you please elaborate a little here:

Who was the person who got the medal after disobeying a command from the person in official command of them?

And what was the command?

 

[Mojo]

An Estonian radio station claims to have interviewed Svensson, who seemed only too eager to let the world know, and that he said in the interview that he had rescued Avo Piht. He even said Piht came from Hiumaa, an island off Estonia, which surely, only Piht himself could have told him that.

This really needs a citation or link, but it might be a bit more credible if it was a named Estonian radio station, rather than just one that goes to a different school.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Instead, whilst obeying the order to return the helicopter with a defective winch to base Y74 seems to have directly disobeyed the order by flying the survivors direct to Huddinge. Claiming low fuel and a defective winch is a pathetic excuse and a likely story by the JAIC.

Show the source where the helicopter commander is criticised for disobedience. That should be documented in the report from the OSC.

Otherwise this is just your fantasy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The On Scene Commander ordered that any helicopters with defective winches should return to base. He also ordered that survivors and the dead be brought to the ships (if they could land a helicopter - and only the Finnish ones could as they had trained for this) or transferred to the special base set up at Utö for them, staffed with a team of doctors and nurses.

A helicopter with a broken winch is not in any immediate danger. It could still drop off the survivors at Utö, as ordered, refuel and then return to base, as ordered.

Instead, whilst obeying the order to return the helicopter with a defective winch to base Y74 seems to have directly disobeyed the order by flying the survivors direct to Huddinge. Claiming low fuel and a defective winch is a pathetic excuse and a likely story by the JAIC.

JAIC 7.5.5

Why would any member of the Defence Forces get the highest medal in the land after having wilfully disobeyed a command from the person in official command of them, the On Scene Commander of all people?

Where to start?

Why do you think the on scene commander has any jurisdiction over military assets?

Why do you think it would be a good idea to make the helicopter fly in the opposite direction to it's base, drop off survivors then attempt to refuel to then return to it's own base rather than save a lot of time getting it fixed and back in to the rescue?

Why do you think the rescue man has any say in where the helicopter goes?

Why do you think a someone who was no longer on the helicopter would have any say in where it went?

Helicopter Y 65 also flew direct to it's base and dropped off a survivor as it passed Stockholm.

 

[Marras]

An Estonian radio station claims to have interviewed Svensson, who seemed only too eager to let the world know, and that he said in the interview that he had rescued Avo Piht. He even said Piht came from Hiumaa, an island off Estonia, which surely, only Piht himself could have told him that.

Do you really think that we will believe you when you invent sources out of thin air?

 

[Andy_Ross]

That must have been the other now missing Estonian.

Which other 'now missing Estonian'?

There are many hundreds of missing people.

 

[Andy_Ross]

An Estonian radio station claims to have interviewed Svensson, who seemed only too eager to let the world know, and that he said in the interview that he had rescued Avo Piht. He even said Piht came from Hiumaa, an island off Estonia, which surely, only Piht himself could have told him that.

Which radio station?

have you heard the interview?

They must have a recording of the interview to support the claim.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why would the on scene commander object to a damaged helicopter dropping off survivors at a hospital on it's direct route for repair and refuel?

There were problems with fuel availability throughout the day, any way to avoid using the restricted supplies at Utö, Nauvo, Turku and Hanko would have been welcomed.

Wouldn't he want it repaired, re-crewed, fueled and back in to the rescue as soon as possible?

What does she think the duties and responsibilities of the on scene commander were?

What authority over Swedish military helicopter does she think the captain of a Finnish ferry would actually have?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Show the source where the helicopter commander is criticised for disobedience. That should be documented in the report from the OSC.

Otherwise this is just your fantasy.

Obviously the on scene commander is in on the conspiracy too.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Obviously the on scene commander is in on the conspiracy too.

But he's a Finn so that does not work. I think that it was Bildt that ensured the report was censored.

 

[Mojo]

Do you really think that we will believe you when you invent sources out of thin air?

It isn’t necessarily invented out of thin air. It might just be that Vixen’s source doesn’t name the radio station.

 

[Steve]

It isn’t necessarily invented out of thin air. It might just be that Vixen’s source doesn’t name the radio station.

Do you mean Vixen's properly linked, referenced and verified source?

 

[LondonJohn]

Drew Wilson's book came out in 2006, for a start, and I dare say the newspapers covered the story at the time.

I dare say they didn't. On account of it being a crackpot conspiracy theory with no merit and no supporting evidence. Just sayin'

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Did you not understand my response?

I did. Which is why I know you did not answer my question. The question was: where did you get the idea that the case with the Egyptians was an incident of enforced disappearance?

I said I have been following this case since 1994

blah blah blah

You said lots of things. Where you got your notions that the case involving the two Egyptians involved enforce disappearance was not one of them.

You've not given your audience any reason to believe you arrived at that conclusion on your own by a cogent independent thought process, so the obvious surmise is that you simply borrowed the conclusion from a source. I want to know what that source was, if not Bollyn.

 

[LondonJohn]

The On Scene Commander ordered that any helicopters with defective winches should return to base.

Do you think that helicopters whose winches had broken would have been of any use wrt rescuing survivors from the sea? You make this sound like it was some sort of discretionary decision on the part of the OSC, whereas of course it was axiomatically obvious to the crews of those helicopters with broken winches that they could now play no further productive part in the rescue operation, and that therefore the only viable course of action for them was to return to base.

(I mean, do you even yet know how air-sea rescues actually work? I'm far from confident that you do....)

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Drew Wilson's book came out in 2006, for a start, and I dare say the newspapers covered the story at the time.

You've already conceded Wilson's book was not the source for the idea in question. Why are you bringing it up again?