• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marras said:
Possibly.

I would expect someone to use expression "kuului räjähdyksiä" to describe hearing a series of eplosions. Possibly 'kuului pamahduksia' if the person wasn't certain what they were hearing.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the original police witness statements are either in English or Swedish or translated from one language into same, via an interpretor, and by police officers who did not necessarily appreciate the need for exact interpretation (no special training in disaster witness statement taking). In addition, these statements are classified.

Thus, all we have are the JAIC psychologist (Bengt Shager's) rewritten summary of anonymised statements that support the JAIC theory of a strong wave, etc., and those statements that deviated from this line were disregarded as being not relevant to the findings.

For example, Carl Reintaam, who was on Deck 1 and immediately raced up to the upper decks, says he told the police he saw something 'white or bright' moving away from the vessel under its own velocity, and this was rewritten by Shager as his seeing some stairwell railings floating int he water. This might be the fact Reintaam spoke Estonian and the there was something lsot in translation. He asked to see his original witness statement as he was so annoyed by this and was told it was classified.
 
Vixen said:
The conjecture is all well and good but wasn't the JAIC remit to get to the bottom of it, not just speculate, 'oh the bangs they heard must have been the bow visor falling off!'

Well, Braidwood and Fellows were given the 'bum's rush', so they will know of the cover up.
Click to expand...

Braidwood and Fellows were paid by the ship builders to deflect blame from their shoddy design.
 
Vixen said:
Unfortunately, the original police witness statements are either in English or Swedish or translated from one language into same, via an interpretor, and by police officers who did not necessarily appreciate the need for exact interpretation (no special training in disaster witness statement taking). In addition, these statements are classified.
Click to expand...

It was you who used 'paukuttaa' as an evidence that the witness heard explosions.

I also think that you are very wrong when you don't think that people have heard explosions. Fireworks fired every new year's eve are explosions. I have heard 10 explosions from the neighboring building site over the last two weeks (once a workday) and one explosion from a building site next to my parents' home.
 
Vixen said:
For example, Carl Reintaam, who was on Deck 1 and immediately raced up to the upper decks, says he told the police he saw something 'white or bright' moving away from the vessel under its own velocity, and this was rewritten by Shager as his seeing some stairwell railings floating int he water. This might be the fact Reintaam spoke Estonian and the there was something lsot in translation. He asked to see his original witness statement as he was so annoyed by this and was told it was classified.
Click to expand...

Why didn't they just bundle him on to a helicopter and send him off with the rest of the officers?
 
Marras said:
It was you who used 'paukuttaa' as an evidence that the witness heard explosions.

I also think that you are very wrong when you don't think that people have heard explosions. Fireworks fired every new year's eve are explosions. I have heard 10 explosions from the neighboring building site over the last two weeks (once a workday) and one explosion from a building site next to my parents' home.
Click to expand...

I have heard explosions and being in the countryside I hear distant sounds all the time that usually are just dynamite, shooting practice or hunting. As you know there is high gun ownership here.

However, were I to be asked for a witness statement I would try to describe the sound rather than attribute a cause to it, if I had not directly seen it or witnessed the cause.

Altti Hakanpää actually does use the much stronger term, 'explosion':

– Olin karaokebaarissa kaverini kanssa, kun kuulin epätavallista ääntä. Minusta se kuulosti räjähdykseltä. Lähdin heti. Se oli sekuntien tai minuuttien kysymys, että pääsi ulos. Sehän kaatui niin nopeasti se laiva eikä siellä kukaan auttamaan tullut.
Click to expand...
IS, 2019

'I was in the karaoke bar with my friend, when I heard an unusual sound. To me, it sounded like an explosion. I immediately lft. It was seconds or minutes in question that I got out. Then there was a rapid list (fall) of the ship and no-one there came to help'.


Why do you believe the guess of the JAIC is more reliable and credible than a survivor who was actually there?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Braidwood and Fellows were paid by the ship builders to deflect blame from their shoddy design.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may. If you or your firm were accused of being the cause of the deaths of a thousand people and you strongly disputed this, do you not believe that you should have the right to hire your own independent experts as witnesses?


And that you would expect the accident committee to at least consider the findings?
 
Vixen said:
Why do you believe the guess of the JAIC is more reliable and credible than a survivor who was actually there?
Click to expand...

According a random IltaSanomat article about Estonia (https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000006651485.html), another survivor who was actually there heard a sound that was like the ship hitting on ice, a noise that he was very familiar with because he had often traveled the route during winter.

Do you think that is what happened?

The survivor, btw, was Carl Eric Reintamm who is probably the same person you keep calling "Reintaam".
 
Vixen said:
I have heard explosions and being in the countryside I hear distant sounds all the time that usually are just dynamite, shooting practice or hunting. As you know there is high gun ownership here.

However, were I to be asked for a witness statement I would try to describe the sound rather than attribute a cause to it, if I had not directly seen it or witnessed the cause.

Altti Hakanpää actually does use the much stronger term, 'explosion':

IS, 2019

'I was in the karaoke bar with my friend, when I heard an unusual sound. To me, it sounded like an explosion. I immediately lft. It was seconds or minutes in question that I got out. Then there was a rapid list (fall) of the ship and no-one there came to help'.


Why do you believe the guess of the JAIC is more reliable and credible than a survivor who was actually there?
Click to expand...

Because the JAIC examined all the available evidence before reaching a conclusion and had the help of specialists and experts.

The passenger heard a noise and made a guess.

What experience did the person have with explosions?

Same for you, hearing bangs in the distance is not the same as an explosion on a ship. they feel and sound completely different.
 
Marras said:
According a random IltaSanomat article about Estonia (https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000006651485.html), another survivor who was actually there heard a sound that was like the ship hitting on ice, a noise that he was very familiar with because he had often traveled the route during winter.

Do you think that is what happened?

The survivor, btw, was Carl Eric Reintamm who is probably the same person you keep calling "Reintaam".
Click to expand...

I think Carl Eric Reintamm is a sincere and credible witness. If he claims he thought the ship felt as though it had hit ice, then why would we doubt he experienced what he says he experienced. Paul Barney also thought they had hit something. He says he then realised that they had not yet reached the archipelago sea where there would be rocks in shallow water.
 
Vixen said:
You are familiar with shipping accidents and incidents. You know perfectly well it would be the captain and his crew that the authorities pursue.
Click to expand...

But if this chap was going to blow the whole conspiracy with his evidence, why didn't they just silence him? make him disappear or have a nasty accident?
 
Vixen said:
Be that as it may. If you or your firm were accused of being the cause of the deaths of a thousand people and you strongly disputed this, do you not believe that you should have the right to hire your own independent experts as witnesses?


And that you would expect the accident committee to at least consider the findings?
Click to expand...

Their findings are crap. There is no evidence for explosives. No explosives or residues or remains of charges or firing cables etc etc were seen or recovered at any time.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Nope, because my comment was accurate, and I said it was forced repatriation.

You seem to think that because I do not share your incorrect view that this was a disappearance, that I somehow agree with the actions of Sweden. I do not. I am strongly against the forced repatriation of suspects without due process.

Do you know what my avatar is?
Click to expand...

To me 'repatriation' is 'sending someone back to their own country'. However, the Egyptian guys were not immigrants, they were registered asylum seekers fleeing torture. In addition, the state that had demanded their removal was not the state in which they were claiming asylum, it was a foreing power intelligence agency, the CIA (of the USA for POTUS Bush) in Cairo. This is a remarkably similar procedure to that of 'extraordinary rendition' (cf Guantanamo Bay).

To call it deportation or repatriation, or even extradition is to downplay the real situation, and as described in the Rome Treaty.

If you think that makes me a liar and a moron, than have at it.
 
Vixen said:
He asked me to state whether I was a liar or a moron.

I will not give such a post the dignity of a response.
Click to expand...

Because those are literally the only two options. You've had it explained, at length, why you are wrong when you claim that Sweden disappeared the two Egyptians so the only possible reason for you to still claim that they did so are that you are either deliberately lying or that you are too dense to understand what has been explained to you.

If you can come up with a third option I'd be glad to hear it, but "I'm right" isn't one, because you've been shown the direct words of the treaty you are claiming that Sweden broke that shows that they did not do what you are claiming.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Their findings are crap. There is no evidence for explosives. No explosives or residues or remains of charges or firing cables etc etc were seen or recovered at any time.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that is BIUTC*? If you were on the JAIC don't you think it would be your duty to look into it?


*Brushing it under the carpet.
 
Vixen said:
To me 'repatriation' is 'sending someone back to their own country'. However, the Egyptian guys were not immigrants, they were registered asylum seekers fleeing torture. In addition, the state that had demanded their removal was not the state in which they were claiming asylum, it was a foreing power intelligence agency, the CIA (of the USA for POTUS Bush) in Cairo. This is a remarkably similar procedure to that of 'extraordinary rendition' (cf Guantanamo Bay).

To call it deportation or repatriation, or even extradition is to downplay the real situation, and as described in the Rome Treaty.

If you think that makes me a liar and a moron, than have at it.
Click to expand...

Just...no. You've been shown that what Sweden did did not break the treaty you keep parroting as if it were a magic spell. You've had it explained to you why this does not come under the definition of enforced disappearance and instead is a totally different crime, that of enforced deportation. This has been explained ad nauseum and yet you're still insisting that you are right.

Again, do you know what my avatar is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom