• 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.
Vixen said:
IMV the culprits should have been charged with whatever they could have thrown at them by the book.


Jurisdiction fell to Sweden and their prosecutor opened various cases but never proceeded to any prosecution.

Given there were about 500 Swedish victims you can begin to understand why the relatives felt aggrieved.
Click to expand...

Who should have been charged and what with?
 
Vixen said:
It forked out $500,000. Apology is expressed in compensation.

The whole point is that if the Estonian senior crew were 'extradited' so to speak by the CIA on request to Sweden, then not only was that a 'disappearance' (under whatever law you would like to quote) but also a breach of the fact they were Estonian citizens and thus Estonia had a right to know, as well as represent them. The Estonian Embassy say their officials where physically barred from visiting Estonian nationals in hospital or allowed a phone call. Why? What innocent reason is there for this?
Click to expand...

Why would the CIA want the crew?
You still haven't told us why they would go to all that trouble?
 
Vixen said:
That is how professional/scientific expert witnesses speak. It is for the Accident Investigators or a Judge in a court to decide whether their findings are definitive or not.

No professional person will say, 'M'Lud, it was mass murder. I done found traces of a bomb.' even an auditor on spotting a fraud will only 'qualify' his or her audit. He won't say, 'This client is an embezzling crook'. It is against professional standards to do so.

FWIW I consider the German Group of Experts to be serious, reasonable and thorough in their approach.
Click to expand...

But they don't say they found 'traces of a bomb' at all.
Where does any of them say there was a bomb?
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC state clearly that on the day of departure the Estonia was seaworthy.

You agree with the JAIC.
Click to expand...

They report on the status of the certification. JAIC couldn't say the ship was seaworthy, they never examined it before it sailed. All they could do was report on what the various inspecting and certifying authorities had said.
After investigation it was determined that the ship was not in compliance with certification and that the Swedish and Finnish authorities exempted the ship from compliance with SOLAS requirements and had been doing the same for a number of decades.
 
Vixen said:
Look. Whilst I have a good memory, I can't be expected to always remember where I read something.

I am sorry I mentioned it now. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Click to expand...

If you can't remember why not try to look it up again?
Don't you say that all your claims are sourced?
 
Vixen said:
IMV the culprits should have been charged with whatever they could have thrown at them by the book.
Click to expand...

OMG. Your elephant in the room is that criminal charges haven't been brought but the nearest you can get to naming someone you want charged is "culprits".

Well thank you Captain Obvious. Yes indeed, why don't the authorities just charge some culprits?

Is anyone else reminded of Peter Cook as a Scotland Yard spokesman solemnly announcing they believe the great train robbery to have been the work of thieves?
 
Vixen said:
IMV the culprits should have been charged with whatever they could have thrown at them by the book.


Jurisdiction fell to Sweden and their prosecutor opened various cases but never proceeded to any prosecution.

Given there were about 500 Swedish victims you can begin to understand why the relatives felt aggrieved.
Click to expand...


There is no court in the modern Western world where unknown "culprits" can be charged with "whatever." You need names and charges, actual persons in custody (or in rare cases, in absentia but the charges still have to be against specific named individuals). Then, of course, you need strong evidence of those persons' culpability to convict them.

No names, no charges, no prosecution.

You're starting to remind me of the 9/11 Truthers whose demand was an investigation independent of any government but with subpoena and prosecution powers. When it was pointed out that that is an impossibly self-contradictory scenario, they had no answer. You want unknown (and apparently deceased) people prosecuted for unstated crimes. That is just as impossible a scenario, and you also have no answer to justify it.
 
Vixen said:
That is how professional/scientific expert witnesses speak. It is for the Accident Investigators or a Judge in a court to decide whether their findings are definitive or not.

No professional person will say, 'M'Lud, it was mass murder. I done found traces of a bomb.' even an auditor on spotting a fraud will only 'qualify' his or her audit. He won't say, 'This client is an embezzling crook'. It is against professional standards to do so.

FWIW I consider the German Group of Experts to be serious, reasonable and thorough in their approach.
Click to expand...


If any of those people had found evidence that was either wholly or substantially indicative of explosives having been used, they absolutely would have said so. And in those terms.

As so very often in this thread, you're appealing solely to your own ignorance/incredulity, with large dollops of confirmation bias & wish fulfilment thrown in for good measure.

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC state clearly that on the day of departure the Estonia was seaworthy.

You agree with the JAIC.
Click to expand...


No, the JAIC merely pointed out that (in effect) on the day of departure, the Estonia was in possession of a current seaworthiness certification.

(Or do you actually think the JAIC either a) inspected the ship personally just prior to its departure from Tallinn, or b) had some magical method of determining retrospectively* that the Estonia had been seaworthy that day?)


* Meaning: by assessing the ship as it lay on the sea bed......
 
Vixen said:
Like English, there are words in Finnish that have several different meanings.

Such as kuusi and palaa.

Anyway, I am glad my error made your day.
Click to expand...


Oh, I don't think your error made anyone's day, Vixen.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

(But it's yet another useful datum point when it comes to conducting an objective assessment of your research "abilities", your attention to detail, your careful vetting of sources and data, and your overall intellectual curiosity. You fail on each of those fronts.)
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC state clearly that on the day of departure the Estonia was seaworthy.



You agree with the JAIC.
Click to expand...
The Ministry of Transport will show you a valid, genuine certificate declaring my car roadworthy.

I agree with the MOT. It's a valid certificate.

They haven't seen the state of corrosion on the sills since its inspection last year though.
 
JayUtah said:
No one can. But you've told us that you aspire to, and achieve, a higher standard of scholarship, and you've assured us that your posts are carefully researched and documented from primary sources. When we discover, as is frequently the case, that you're just parroting vaguely-recalled conspiracy claims, we are naturally amused.
Click to expand...

Claim you.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They report on the status of the certification. JAIC couldn't say the ship was seaworthy, they never examined it before it sailed. All they could do was report on what the various inspecting and certifying authorities had said.
After investigation it was determined that the ship was not in compliance with certification and that the Swedish and Finnish authorities exempted the ship from compliance with SOLAS requirements and had been doing the same for a number of decades.
Click to expand...

You know perfectly well it is completely within the powers of an independent accident inquiry to to declare a vessel as being unseaworthy, even it it had the seaworthy certificate.
 
Myriad said:
There is no court in the modern Western world where unknown "culprits" can be charged with "whatever." You need names and charges, actual persons in custody (or in rare cases, in absentia but the charges still have to be against specific named individuals). Then, of course, you need strong evidence of those persons' culpability to convict them.

No names, no charges, no prosecution.

You're starting to remind me of the 9/11 Truthers whose demand was an investigation independent of any government but with subpoena and prosecution powers. When it was pointed out that that is an impossibly self-contradictory scenario, they had no answer. You want unknown (and apparently deceased) people prosecuted for unstated crimes. That is just as impossible a scenario, and you also have no answer to justify it.
Click to expand...

You are approaching it from the wrong angle. History shows us that where there is a major accident involving members of the public, there is invariably charges brought to answer for. For example some of my work colleagues were involved in the Leeds train accident, where some carriages overturned. Thankfully, they were fine, if somewhat shaken up, but as I recall the train company had a prosecution slapped on it. The prosecutors in the case of the Estonia accident seem strangely apathetic.
 
LondonJohn said:
If any of those people had found evidence that was either wholly or substantially indicative of explosives having been used, they absolutely would have said so. And in those terms.

As so very often in this thread, you're appealing solely to your own ignorance/incredulity, with large dollops of confirmation bias & wish fulfilment thrown in for good measure.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Read Braidwood's and Fellows' report and you will see they have no doubt what the laboratory results show. What they cannot do is apportion blame. That is not within their remit.
 
LondonJohn said:
No, the JAIC merely pointed out that (in effect) on the day of departure, the Estonia was in possession of a current seaworthiness certification.

(Or do you actually think the JAIC either a) inspected the ship personally just prior to its departure from Tallinn, or b) had some magical method of determining retrospectively* that the Estonia had been seaworthy that day?)


* Meaning: by assessing the ship as it lay on the sea bed......
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It states very plainly that the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure.

It doesn't qualify it as you claim.
 
Vixen said:
That was an example to illustrate that a professional consultant would not use those words, as a poster was demanding.
Click to expand...

Your claim is they said there was a bomb when none of them say they saw a bomb.
 
Vixen said:
You know perfectly well it is completely within the powers of an independent accident inquiry to to declare a vessel as being unseaworthy, even it it had the seaworthy certificate.
Click to expand...

They never inspected the ship before it sailed, all they can do is report on it's certification.
If you read the report here are entire chapters detailing the defects with the ship and why neither it or any other of the ferries at the time complied with SOLAS requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom