In comparing the two Reports the following conclusions seem appropriate:
1. The Report of the 'German
Group of Experts'
Apparently this investigating body was overwhelmed by the magnitude of facts
they have collected in the course of their investigation. Although all these
facts pertain to the casualty, reading and memorizing them is a nearly impossible
task. The reader is therefore sometimes thankful for repetition. The Report
assures the reader however that no fact was "left out" whether important for
the conclusions or not.
The conclusion drawn on the status of the vessel when she left Tallinn on
her last voyage is convincing. A Passengerferry, which carries a false PSSC,
is open to the Sea at her bow allowing the sea to gain access to the car deck
uncontrolled and finally sets to sea with an unexplained list of 10 degrees
- imperfectly corrected by counter ballasting of the port heeling tank - which
was however due to a holes in the underwater hull, is unseaworthy to an extent
which renders this verdict undebatable.
Whether the casualty scenario complies precisely with the last chaotic minutes
of the vessel might be debatable. There are indications of further facts not
yet known or still unconfirmed which - if found correct - might necessitate
some change in the described scenario.
In methodology the Report complies with good practice. and is insofar based
on the Court Report of Justice Sheen on the Capsizing of the HERALD OF FREE
ENTERPRISE.
2. The Report of The Joint
Accident Investigation Commission of Estonia, Finland and Sweden
The layout and presentation of the Report are impressive. Also here the amount
of facts collected is stunning but - to compare - it should be noted that
this Report deals with quite a few subjects, the German authors have not concerned
themselves with.
The casualty scenario is not convincing. It is indisputable that the ramp
is still fixed to the wreck. Had the ship indeed steamed against the sea with
her ramp resting on the forepeak deck, the ramp would no doubt have been torn
off by one of the first waves hitting it in that status.
The Report furthermore reveals an astonishing lack of basic knowledge of seafaring.
A vessel of 14,5 years of age which has been subjected to substantial strain,
as ferries are, does nowhere in its structure show the same criteria it had
as a newbuilding. Fatigue and corrosion are every vessels worst enemies. And
furthermore: No shipping expert puts much weight on the statements of crew
members after a collision or other accident for which the faulty party is
being sought.
There are however other problems with the JAIC Report which actually render
it worthless:
The first such problem is the composition of the JAIC. Member of same was
Mr Neidre. Mr Neidre was the head of the Navigation Department of ESCO still
at the time of his participation in the investigation. The investigation of
the activities of precisely this department in conjunction with ESTONIA was
one of the tasks of JAIC. Neidre therefore did indeed investigate his own
doings. And he kept doing so even after his dismissal, tolerated by the other
members of the JAIC. One of the few principles that are generally accepted
in democratic states is that no judge or civil servant is allowed to make
a decision in the exercise of the public powers vested into him/her which
concerns himself. Any violation of this principle renders such decision invalid
and subject to removal by the judiciary.
The second problem are the methods chosen by the JAIC for the treatment of
evidence. The destruction, manipulation and suppression of vital evidence
by public servants in the execution of their duties constitutes a behaviour
totally unacceptable in democratic societies and usually subjects the offender
to criminal prosecution. The evidence presented by the German 'Group of Experts'
for such treatment of evidence vital to the investigation into the causes
for the ESTONIA catastrophe is - unfortunately - overwhelming.
The two flaws in the Report of the JAIC described above disclose a third,
namely sloppiness. Whether the JAIC had instructions to perform an investigation
with predefined outcome - as is indicated by remarks of Mr. Meister and Mr.
Stenström - or whether they did not adhere to such instructions or - finally
- whether they were never given to them is irrelevant because by application
of due diligence owed by public servants to society the Report would have
been flawless in any case. As matters stand now the Report of the JAIC can
best be described by repetition of one phrase used by Justice Sheen in his
Court Report: From top to bottom the Joint Accident Investigation Commission
of Estonia, Finland and Sweden was infested with the disease of sloppiness.
It is however appropriate to add here the words "and dishonesty", because
the members of the JAIC knew or must have known that their sloppiness would
result in harm to all those affected by the catastrophe who had put such great
hopes on the due fulfilment of their duties by the members of the JAIC.
Despite the lack of excuse for sloppiness and dishonesty of the magnitude
found here, two persons bear special responsibility for the failure of the
investigation of the JAIC : Mr. Olof Forssberg and Mr. Kari Lethola. Both
are trained legal minds and have been the appointed chairmen of the official
accident investigation bodies in their respective countries. It seems inconceivable
that they could permit the work of the JAIC to be stained with the flaws described.
Whatever their duties were, they have both completely failed in their execution.
