AgnEf was initially supported by The Independent Fact Group (IFG) officially consisting of Björn Stenberg and Johan Ridderstolpe. While the motivation of Björn Stenberg was the loss of his brother in the casualty, the motivation of Johan Ridderstolpe for his the heavy engagement is unknown. They both describe their motivations and objectives as follows:
“The Independent Fact Group was formed in early 1999 to clear up the many question marks about the M/V Estonia disaster, in a structured and methodical manner. There has been considerable speculation concerning the efforts of the Joint Accident Investigation Commission (JAIC) and the political, legal and media treatment of the accident and its tragic consequences.
The aim is to give those in authority an opportunity, based on the facts of the case, to decide to review this matter, with a view to further action. Our efforts also enable the media and the general public to decide on the basis of the objective information which is available concerning the accident, and the conclusions to be drawn from a technical and civic perspective.
The overall objective is the setting up of a new investigation of the accident which can describe the course of the accident in detail, and its causes, with subsequent assessment of the moral and legal responsibilities, where this is feasible. We are motivated by the belief that a properly conducted investigation will contribute to maritime safety and by our concern for Sweden’s reputation as a nation which upholds safety at sea and the rule of law.”
|
Little is known about the professional background of the two founders of the IFG. Björn Stenberg earns his money reportedly as management consultant and Johan Ridderstolpe is said to have some engineering background though not related to shipping or shipbuilding. They did, however, describe and comment a number of important items, which the JAIC and certain Swedish and Finnish authorities, e.g. Sjöfartsverket, failed to reveal. (See for example Chapter 34.1, pages 1163 ff. of our Report – “Forgery of documents to hide the initial unseaworthiness of the Estonia”.)
Johan Ridderstolpe gave – in summary – the following introduction to his Investigation Report presented to the AgnEf Seminar:
“The JAIC has failed to properly evaluate and interpret the thousands of documents and hundreds of hours of video footage
|
 |
|
Note: Not to speak of the numerous statements made by the survivors. |
|
Various descriptions of scenarios and also whom to blame has been spread mostly as rumours during the years after the accident. If the accident had been properly investigated and followed by a trustworthy report, rumours had been eliminated to those few that easily with the answers in hand could have been described as plain fiction. Now, however, the situation is such that the JAIC report itself is more of a fiction.
In order to prove the above conclusions the damages investigated have been divided into the following categories:
|
|
(a) Categories
(1.) Damages found by the JAIC, correct or incorrect conclusions made.
(2.) Damages documented by the JAIC, unidentified and not evaluated.
(b) Important damages in category (1.), incorrect conclusions made
a) The mating boxes of the bow ramp
b) The preventer wires of the bow ramp
c) The bottom plating of the visor
(c) Important damages in category (2.) – unidentified and not evaluated damages
a) The missing bow ramp railings (cut off and found on the seabed)
b) The severe damage to the bulbous bow, port underside
c) A hole in the hull
The damages in category (1.) have all been used as substantial evidence to prove the JAIC scenario. The correct conclusions drawn from these damages would have proved the JAIC scenario to be impossible as will be demonstrated by the following investigations.”
The damages (b) a.) - c.) and (c) a.) – c.) shall now be explained and discussed below.
|
