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

[Jack by the hedge]

Many a true word said in jest.

And they also laughed at Bozo the clown. There was no sooper seekrit second controller whispering in the diver's other ear. That's just bad movie nonsense.

If the old boy born 1917 and grossly obese Voronin and his family had no problems getting to a life raft...

How do you know they had no problems? Your argument seems to be since they survived then a particular person who had a cabin on the same deck must also have survived. Well, how many people with cabins on that deck did and didn't survive? How is it possible any of them died if a fat old man didn't die? That's your argument, right?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Amazing people think this is quite unreasonable.

What's amazing is how you squirm rather than answer the obvious question of who you wish had been charged, what offence they should have been charged with and on what evidence.

Why is that so hard to answer, when you claim the lack of criminal charges is your elephant in the room?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That is dated 1 October 1994, some three days after the accident. Let's wind back to the article of 29 Sept 1994, a Thursday, when Lehtola had only just been appointed the day before and his comments thus, relates to the Wednesday afternoon, the same day as the accident, albeit about sixteen hours later (but still day one!!!)

HS




Why are you so keen to cover this up? Was the newspaper somehow psychic and could foresee the bow visor theory or do you think Lehtola, who at that stage had interviewed nobody and had got all of his information from the three PM's dominated by Bildt?

What is your theory about the bow visor being blamed ON DAY ONE even though Superintendent Åke Sjöblom and marine engineer Gunnar Zahlée saw the deficiency as just a small detail - it could not have been the cause of (affected) the resulting accident?


Why are you so keen to have the bow visor as the cause of the accident when you must know there is no way anyone could come to a conclusion ON DAY ONE?

ETA: your article doesn't actually confirm Piht was dead nor does it provide any explanation for his being named as a survivor.

Why do you use a quotation which specifically shows Lehtola was informed by Sillaste as if it was evidence he was informed by Bildt instead? That's ludicrous.

Also, as I can't read the article, I'm confused about whether it even relates to the above or is in fact a correction of their initial report that Piht was a survivor. Can someone sane tell me please?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh please. Newspaper headline: Queen arrives in Melbourne.


If she did not, the next day, which would you expect to see:

1. "The Queen does not exist, our story came from nowhere.'
2. Correction: the Queen was not in Melbourne as reported. Sorry about that.

In a British newspaper I would expect to see:

Far down in newspaper article: "A person whose name you have already forgotten is to face questioning about his part in this tragedy"

Next day: <not worth mentioning>

 

[Marras]

Also, as I can't read the article, I'm confused about whether it even relates to the above or is in fact a correction of their initial report that Piht was a survivor. Can someone sane tell me please?

The short summary is: We don't know what happened to Piht because people tell different things about him.

It explicitly mentions that the people who supposedly interviewed Piht deny that it ever happened. They don't specifically say that they were wrong when one of their first articles contained one sentence about future interrogations of Piht, but if you read the article you definitely can't come to the conclusion that the author believes that Piht is certainly alive.

That was the last article that HS published in the immediate aftermath of Estonia that mentions Piht at all.

 

[Steve]

Oh please. Newspaper headline: Queen arrives in Melbourne.


If she did not, the next day, which would you expect to see:

1. "The Queen does not exist, our story came from nowhere.'
2. Correction: the Queen was not in Melbourne as reported. Sorry about that.

Everybody be very careful now. This could easily devolve into a several page discussion re the Queen of England's involvement in the sinking, wherin you will all be asked to prove that she was not involved.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The short summary is: We don't know what happened to Piht because people tell different things about him.

It explicitly mentions that the people who supposedly interviewed Piht deny that it ever happened. They don't specifically say that they were wrong when one of their first articles contained one sentence about future interrogations of Piht, but if you read the article you definitely can't come to the conclusion that the author believes that Piht is certainly alive.

That was the last article that HS published in the immediate aftermath of Estonia that mentions Piht at all.

Many thanks.

I had presumed that was the topic due to the context but Vixen's response confused me as it seemed unrelated. Now I realise how foolish I was to be confused: Vixens replies are no guide at all to whatever she's replying to.

 

[JayUtah]

It only fell short of the strict limitations of the Rome Treaty in that it was only two days instead of the seven-day stipulation.

No, that's not the only way in which Sweden's actions failed to satisfy the elements of the crime of enforced disappearance as defined in the Rome Statute. Words have meanings, and laws have definitions. No court found Sweden guilty of enforced disappearance, as you wrongly claimed. Sweden did not admit to the crime of enforced disappearance. That's because their actions simply did not fit the crime, no matter how fervently you wish that were the case.

 

[JayUtah]

What? Braidwood was given two samples of metal cut out from the Estonia. He had them tested by three independent laboratories. He had no conflict of interest, being British and with no motive to bend the results, and neither did Michael Fellows.

These people were hired by a company to shift blame in the wake of a horrible accident. You really are naive when it comes to how high-stakes engineering works and how transportation accidents affect that.

Sure they were commissioned but I doubt they were paid much.

Or so you speculate.

Plus for people in their positions (MBE's and what have you) their reputation is all, they will not risk losing it if they did not believe in their stance.

You really are so sweetly naive. I explained at length, months ago, how one can retain one's reputation simply by not explaining everything one knows. And I addressed -- again at length -- the technical problems with the conspiratorial interpretation of the metallurgy. But I can see it hasn't made a dent in your thinking.

 

[JayUtah]

It's not me that's afraid. It is those people who are terrified of saying that they are not 100% satisfied with the conclusions of the JAIC report, as if odium and opprobium will be heaped on their heads and they will become socials pariahs.

Straw man. You're disagreeing with the official investigation for reasons that are ill-informed, illogical, and patently hysterical. That is why you are being criticized.

 

[LondonJohn]

These people were hired by a company to shift blame in the wake of a horrible accident. You really are naive when it comes to how high-stakes engineering works and how transportation accidents affect that.



Or so you speculate.



You really are so sweetly naive. I explained at length, months ago, how one can retain one's reputation simply by not explaining everything one knows. And I addressed -- again at length -- the technical problems with the conspiratorial interpretation of the metallurgy. But I can see it hasn't made a dent in your thinking.

Indeed.

And that's not to mention that the "German Group of Experts" (LOL) all hedged their bets in any case.

None of them made definitive declarations (e.g. "this is evidence of explosive detonation"); rather, their "assistance" to the shipyard invariably took the form of "...consistent with a detonation" or "it's possible that...." etc.

And of course that's because a) none of the evidence actually is/was clearly indicative of a cause different from that found by the JAIC; and b) none of the experts - quite correctly and ethically - was prepared to provide anything more than the weakest support for the shipyard's nakedly-obvious thesis (i.e. that the disaster was caused by something - anything - other than the failure of the bow visor and bow ramp)

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, having been diverted by matters considerably more lucrative (in every sense, including emotional and spiritual) over the past few weeks, imagine my surprise at dropping back into the thread to find the same old fringe-reset bollocks taking place.

Though in passing, I did hear that Piht had been trying to sue various Nordic publishers to print a retraction about his "sighting" and pay punitive damages. But because he brought action in Puerto Rico - where he was locked up in a CIA rendition dungeon deep in the rainforest, enjoying daily waterboarding, grasshoppers, and sodium pentothal jabs - he was deemed not to be a competent plaintiff and the case got thrown out. At least, that's what I reckon.

 

[Axxman300]

It is pretty standard for someone to be made accountable, even if it is only the shipowners left to answer for it. The Captain and the owners of The Herald of Free Enterprise were dragged before the courts to answer manslaughter and negligence charges. Despite the most appalling working practices and shocking lack of any safety whatsoever, the soft-hearted judge decided they had suffered enough and acquitted them.

However, they were brought to justice! It is not unusual or rare. Concordia and Oceanos were considered a disgrace for deserting the ship ahead of the passengers and punished accordingly.

Amazing people think this is quite unreasonable.

Here's what's unreasonable; demanding people be held accountable and brought to justice while at the same time spreading lies advanced by the very same people who would be found guilty in such a trial.

The MS Estonia was never designed to sail in the open ocean, and certainly not structurally sound enough to sail into that storm. The guilty parties are the company who owned the ship, and the entity who signed off on Estonia's expanded sailing route across open sea.

But no, you're looking at smugglers.

 

[Steve]

By the way, having been diverted by matters considerably more lucrative (in every sense, including emotional and spiritual) over the past few weeks, imagine my surprise at dropping back into the thread to find the same old fringe-reset bollocks taking place.

Though in passing, I did hear that Piht had been trying to sue various Nordic publishers to print a retraction about his "sighting" and pay punitive damages. But because he brought action in Puerto Rico - where he was locked up in a CIA rendition dungeon deep in the rainforest, enjoying daily waterboarding, grasshoppers, and sodium pentothal jabs - he was deemed not to be a competent plaintiff and the case got thrown out. At least, that's what I reckon.

Your surprise was misplaced. It was easily predictable.

 

[JesseCuster]

The information about the Atlantic lock was something I read on an interesting website. Unfortunately, I can't remember where, and can no longer find it.

So you have no evidence that the Atlantic lock was merely added as an accessory to give the illusion of safety, just excuses for why you have no evidence.

You could have just said that when you were first asked.

 

[JesseCuster]

The information about the Atlantic lock was something I read on an interesting website. Unfortunately, I can't remember where, and can no longer find it.

Earlier in this thread you made a snide comment about how your posts are referenced, sourced and properly cited unlike others posts.

Yet when asked for evidence, you offer up stupid analogies with pieces of paper pinned to walls, and only when repeatedly asked for actual evidence, do you admit that you've got nothing, just excuses about something you read which you don't know where and which you can't find again.

What happened to your awesome research skills? You suck at it.

You did exactly the same thing when asked for evidence that Moik was fired because he said during a TV interview that he saw Piht on TV. You were asked, over and over for evidence, and only when it became obvious that you were avoiding the question did you say that you read something somewhere about him being subject to some sort of work related issue, but you have no evidence at all that you can post. At one point when asked for evidence that he was fired because of the interview, you simply posted a transcript of the interview, as if that was evidence, and then you got stroppy because you weren't thanked for providing something that wasn't asked for.

But tell us again about how good a researcher you are, how you go to newspaper archives and national archives and dig out information, how your posts are properly cited and sourced and referenced, how you've got all sorts of eclectic sources, etc.

 

[Mojo]

So you have no evidence that the Atlantic lock was merely added as an accessory to give the illusion of safety.

You could have just said that when you were first asked.

A Google search for “Estonia”, “Atlantic Lock” and “accessory” doesn’t find anything other than this thread and its predecessors.

 

[Agatha]

Re the senior officers. The protocol was that each of the two captains (one the second captain) had a third and fourth officer on duty each time, which I believe was five hours. In effect, there were six all together, or more. Thus when Andresson went on duty Piht and his two officers came off. As the accident happened at about 0100 and that was the change of watch, they would have still been up and about. Piht and Voronin were in private luxury cabins, as Piht, although taking over at six, or shadowing, was not officially on duty as he had charting exams later in Stockholm. Nearby Piht and the Voronin family, there was an old sea captain (b 1917) who all survived.

Given the lower ranks in Deck 0 had no problems surviving and getting onto a raft early, I believe it is entirely probable that it was not just Voronin and the old sea captain and his wife, together with Voronin's family, who all managed to escape.

Remember: the headline in the London Evening Standard (Colin Anderson [_sp?]) was 'the guilty will be brought to jail' and confirmed Piht had survived and was awaiting interview, likewise, the reputable Helsingin Sanomat.

In addition, you may recall the Rockwater divers went to Piht/Voronin's cabin and retrieved an attaché case int he name of Voronin, as can be evidenced by the publicly available tapes.

At the time, it was not known Voronin was trading in arms. When that information was revealed, Voronin had a stroke two weeks later and died.

The point here, is that prosecutors and police showed a LOT of interest in these two. The other Estonian crew/staff listed as survivors initially, included the IVth Officer navigator, the Chief Engineer, the Chief Doctor plus the bar manager and a couple of cruise entertainers.

Almost all of these would be persons of very great interest. Especially as some will have been on duty as of the time leading up to the 'accident'.

Thus, the removal from the survivors list and Piht mysteriously no longer around, together with NOBODY being brought to justice publicly, indicates to me there is every chance they were handed over to the CIA, especially if it was the CIA who were expecting the delivered Russian smuggled state secrets.

We know how ruthlessly Russians guard these things. Another fact is, the Estonian head of defense was a Russian spy (although this did not come to light until 1996, when he was jailed for High Treason), Herman Simm, so if anyone tipped off the Russians, it is a good bet it was Simm, who also had the power and muscle to arrange a counter-espionage operation.

Your English is usually much better than this. This is stilted and uses unusual sentence constructions. The rest of your post is in your usual flowing English. Is it taken from somewhere else and run through google translate?

 

[zooterkin]

Earlier in this thread you made a snide comment about how your posts are referenced, sourced and properly cited unlike others posts.

Yet when asked for evidence, you offer up stupid analogies with pieces of paper pinned to walls, and only when repeatedly asked for actual evidence, do you admit that you've got nothing, just excuses about something you read which you don't know where and which you can't find again.

What happened to your awesome research skills? You suck at it.

You did exactly the same thing when asked for evidence that Moik was fired because he said during a TV interview that he saw Piht on TV. You were asked, over and over for evidence, and only when it became obvious that you were avoiding the question did you say that you read something somewhere about him being subject to some sort of work related issue, but you have no evidence at all that you can post. At one point when asked for evidence that he was fired because of the interview, you simply posted a transcript of the interview, as if that was evidence, and then you got stroppy because you weren't thanked for providing something that wasn't asked for.

But tell us again about how good a researcher you are, how you go to newspaper archives and national archives and dig out information, how your posts are properly cited and sourced and referenced, how you've got all sorts of eclectic sources, etc.

Don't forget the 'snail dynamite' embarrassment.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Many a true word said in jest. Bearing in mind they were able to confirm Andresson dead. If the old boy born 1917 and grossly obese Voronin and his family had no problems getting to a life raft, there is a strong chance the still fit senior officers also did, and indeed were listed as survivors. As you know, 138 were found alive (this final figure excluding the above). 252 were dead in their rafts or in the sea and were recovered. Among these was Third Officer Tammes - who made the famed Mayday call on a hand held device - who obviously had managed to escape the bridge even at about circa 0125.

So if the senior officers including Piht didn't survive after all and for some mysterious reason were registered as survivors, where are the bodies? Where are the dead bodies of these officers who presumably died of hypothermia instead, or at least one or two of them? None, did you say? Okaaaaaay.

Bearing in mind the divers checked the upper deck cabins and could easily have verified things.

There were visible bodies in the part of the bridge they were able to examine, they could not get down as far as the starboard wing, all the loose items had fallen and it was not safe. they only managed to examine some of the cabins, some could not be opened and some were blocked with debris, some were unsafe.
The bodies could have been on the bridge, in the cabins, elsewhere in the ship or floated away.