Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[JayUtah]

I like it.

How about this one.

'The suppression of evidence ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence' ~ Judge Andrew Hamilton, 1735.

That presumes evidence of the suppression. Note carefully that Judge Hamilton does not say the absence of evidence is to be taken for evidence. You speculate that something happened. You further speculate that the reason no evidence is forthcoming is that it is being suppressed. But your evidence of suppression, circularly enough, is simply the absence of evidence.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I like it.

How about this one.

'The suppression of evidence ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence' ~ Judge Andrew Hamilton, 1735.

What evidence do you have for the suppression of evidence?

This looks like a claim that the lack of evidence is the evidence.

 

[Vixen]

Yes you are. That's precisely what you're doing.

You have repeatedly said that he only rescued one person, despite the fact that you know that after he ended up on helicopter Y74 he rescued several more people. How can you say you're not questions his bravery when you have flat-out accused him of doing far less than he actually did.

You have said he shouldn't have gotten a medal because it was given to him because his winch broke, when you know that's not what the citation was for. You've belittled what he did and belittled the award he got for it.

You have also denigrated his character and integrity by making accusations that he accepted a medal and citation that was publicly given for his brave actions, but that he really accepted it under false premises as a bribe to keep him quiet.

You've dumped all over the man's bravery and his character, without good reason, in order to desperately try and shore up an incoherent hodge podge of conspiracy ideas about the Estonia. Who's the crass one here, Vixen?

He was part of a team. First, team Y64, and then (so JAIC claims) team Y74.

But we know from the command of the On Scene Commander that all helicopters with a faulty winch had to return to base. We are not told how long Y64 waited for Y74 to turn up, which you would think if it was for a long time it would be really milked.


Just to take our minds off the departure just after 0202, (Stockholm MRCC operations log; Aftonbladet) expected circa 0240 (MRCC Turku to Silja Europa) and 'arrived at 0300' (Ollie Moberg/ Olsson[?]).

What happened during that earlier flight? Enquiring minds need to know.


Where are the extra names on the early lists?


Why was Svensson's rescued list reduced from eight to one, with a pretense he was a one-man band for Y74 instead on a later rescue?

 

[Vixen]

You note the paradox that "life" does not seem here to have meant life. In the same way that you paradoxically insist that men who did not disappear were "disappeared".

Why do you find one puzzling but not the other?

I was referring to the chronology. A poster posed, 'How can he have disappeared if he turned up 90 years later?'

 

[Vixen]

Do you need me to explain the general concept of errors caused by hearsay, rumour or assumption being passed on as facts, or are you demanding that I determine how that happened in each individual case for each person misreported on each list?

I note your use of the word "officially" as if that implied each list had been checked and certified in some manner before receiving it's stamp of approval. I imagine you're not going to back that up and the word was mere decoration.

Yes, I do need you to explain, as old Buggins who went round with his pen and paper listing the survivors has no idea how come he has twelve names too many.

 

[Andy_Ross]

He was part of a team. First, team Y64, and then (so JAIC claims) team Y74.

But we know from the command of the On Scene Commander that all helicopters with a faulty winch had to return to base. We are not told how long Y64 waited for Y74 to turn up, which you would think if it was for a long time it would be really milked.


Just to take our minds off the departure just after 0202, (Stockholm MRCC operations log; Aftonbladet) expected circa 0240 (MRCC Turku to Silja Europa) and 'arrived at 0300' (Ollie Moberg/ Olsson[?]).

What happened during that earlier flight? Enquiring minds need to know.


Where are the extra names on the early lists?


Why was Svensson's rescued list reduced from eight to one, with a pretense he was a one-man band for Y74 instead on a later rescue?

There was no earlier flight for Y64.

 

[Mojo]

I like it.

How about this one.

'The suppression of evidence ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence' ~ Judge Andrew Hamilton, 1735.

That is entirely irrelevant to your assertion that if there is no legal cause of action in what a party has actually done, a court can decide against them under the nearest existing law.

Perhaps you can find something to support your assertion in the dicta of Mr Justice Cocklecarrot.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I was referring to the chronology. A poster posed, 'How can he have disappeared if he turned up 90 years later?'

He didn't turn up '90 years later'

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, I do need you to explain, as old Buggins who went round with his pen and paper listing the survivors has no idea how come he has twelve names too many.

Who is 'old buggins'?

 

[Vixen]

Are you hoping to present yourself as our reliable translator of Finnish to English, after you flatly denied that "viritys" could have been used to describe any kind of activation and must instead have meant tuning a transmitter in the same way as its English meaning?

I wouldn't use the verb virittää in the way Marras does, to 'set a trap'. Last summer I discovered our barn had signs of mice so I bought some [humane] mouse traps as they could cause a lot of damage with their chewing. That is a 'hiiri loukku' (mouse trap) and to set the mouse trap would be 'asettaaksesi hiiren loukun' not 'virittää', although you can buy ones that apply a shock these days.

 

[Vixen]

If the police arrest you, people may not know where you are but you have not been disappeared. If the authorities then deny having you in detention then you have been disappeared.

If the police arrest you, you are not disappeared by the state until such time you are removed from the country without a hearing and as ordered by the state.

 

[Vixen]

If he's walking around he isn't jailed anymore.

Being jailed for life isn't being disappeared.

If Sirhan Sirhan is now walking around the neighbourhood it does not mean he was never jailed.

 

[Vixen]

Being denied the right to a fair trial is not being disappeared.

Would you like to continue listing potential rights violations which are not being disappeared or can we move on?

Your only interest in the Egyptians is as an example of Sweden's habit of "disappearing" people. But they weren't disappeared. Your claim fails. The end.

The right to a fair trial covers not having a trial at all, so would qualify for damages and would help establish a case for illegal disappearance by a state.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If Sirhan Sirhan is now walking around the neighbourhood it does not mean he was never jailed.

It obviously wasn't for life.

 

[Vixen]

No.

I'm sure you're familiar with the legal concept of the elements of a crime. Each crime under the law requires the performance of specific acts. The elements of enforced disappearance under both the ECHR and the Rome Statute are:

1. the enforced deprivation of freedom,
2. by a State actor;
3. refusal to acknowledge the deprivation,
4. refusal to disclose whereabouts or fate of the subject,
5. with the intent of depriving the subject of access to the law
6. for a prolonged period of time.

What happens in court when there is ample evidence that four of the six elements were not performed?

You say the lawyer of one of the men became aware of the removal 48-hours later but was he told where the man was and how he could be contacted?

What constitutes 'a prolonged period of time'?

 

[Vixen]

So why give a medal to any serviceman?
They all rely on a team behind them, either a crew of a ship, a regiment, aircrew or whatever.

Now you are beginning to think critically.

 

[JayUtah]

If the police arrest you, you are not disappeared by the state until such time you are removed from the country without a hearing and as ordered by the state.

No, you are not "disappeared" until the state's actions satisfy the elements of the crime, as outlined in the statute. Removal from the state may constitute one of the many elements, but it is not required. A state may be guilty of enforced disappearance without the victim ever having to leave the state. In any case, all the other elements must also be satisfied.

Deportation (or other legally adverse judgment) made without due process is a crime by itself. Deportation to a place where the subject is reasonably in danger of being tortured is a crime by itself. None of these is the crime of enforced disappearance.

 

[Vixen]

By your standard anyone who is ever arrested is 'disappeared' as they are all out of contact for a while.

Being arrested is not a removal by the state.

Being arrested follows set legal protocols.

 

[Vixen]

That is not part of the setup. That is how they are activated when the ship sinks.
They were manual buoys, to make them work the cover had to be opened and the buoys turned on, then they would transmit.

There is no other process or switch to 'set them up' other than putting them in a bracket ort enclosure.

They were attached to HRU's and encased. So whilst all EPIRB's can be activated manually, not all EPIRB's are so-called 'float free' ones, as the Estonia ones were.

 

[Vixen]

No, they were not automatic buoys.

There is no process for tuning and activating when they come back from a service as the only switch on them is the one that starts the distress transmission.

They floated free because the enclosures were float free enclosures.

The correct method for their activation is for a crew member to turn them on and put them in the water.

Because of the failure by the crew to activate the buoys when the Estonia sank the IMO through SOLAS changed the regulations for commercial vessels to make the carrying of automatic buoys mandatory to avoid the same thing happening again.

That is incorrect.

SOLAS made the recommendation that such vessels should have installed an automatically activated EPIRB on either side of the vessel and that the edict should be complied with by 1993 iirc.

MRCC Turku Commander Mononen expressed great concern about there being no sign of any signals from the Estonia EPIRB's, which had they been 'manual operation only' would not be rocket science as to why not.


He even went so far as to order the Norwegian base that received the COSPAS-SARSAT signal from that region to search their records for a possible missed signal because he could not figure out how it could not have sent a signal if it had floated free.