|
| |
A. New Evidence |
| 1. The AgnEf Seminar on 29/30.05.2000 in Stockholm |
| |
|
| |
“Estonia must have had at least one major damage under the waterline, or very close to it. Several witnesses tell that there was water under the car deck before the ship started to list. Witnesses have also seen a hole when the ship sank, a hole that could not have been the opening behind the ramp as the ship in this situation was capsized upside down. If the ramp had been open, it would have in that situation already closed itself by gravity. Johan Fransson, head of the Swedish National Maritime Administration (Sjöfartsverket), has confirmed on more than one occasion, that Estonia had a hole in the hull on the starboard side. In a news article of 18th October 1994 (Dagens Nyheter) Sten Andersson, The Swedish Maritime Administration, and also an observer in the JAIC, states that there is a hole in the hull. ‘There are video recordings of these damages, recently taken by the ROVs’, he said.
During our research for picture evidence of such a hole, we found that during one of underwater video recordings they enter the car deck through some other opening in the hull than through the ramp opening. As there should be no other opening large enough to admit an underwater vehicle to enter the car deck, the entry must have taken place through a large hole on the starboard side, close to the bow.
The commission has however denied every entry into the car deck. In the final report chapter 87 they state that ‘The car deck was not surveyed due to the hazards related to divers working in the area.’ (11)
We have found that statement incorrect and the opposite proved by the following fact:
1. The video material confirms investigation on the car deck (12).
2. The investigation is documented in the written video logs (13).
3. The Sjöfartsverket did confirm the investigation in the report ‘Analyze of consequences 1994.12.12. (14).
4. In the report from the SMIT TAK BV having made the video investiga-tion on the car deck and other areas, they describe the investigation on the car deck. (15).
|
 |
| Overview, ROV investigation route on car deck, a hole in the hull. |
|
<<< This is to show an overview of the extent of the ROV investigation on the car deck (deck 2) was open from side to side without central casing. The casing that divided the car deck in one starboard and one port side can be seen further back.” |
 |
|
Note: There are indeed several strong indications that there has to be a hole in the starboard side in way of the car deck. The first one being the remark in the Smit Tak B.V., Rotterdam, Report 94/7.060 dated 08.12.94, which is attached as Enclosure 27.410 to our Report, where it is stated in Chapter 3a. among other things “A ROV survey was conducted in the car deck covering until a distance of 20 meters inside the wreck …….” This is in direct contradiction to the JAIC Report stating in chapter 8.8 on page 129: “The car deck was not surveyed due to the hazards related to divers working in the area …”
The divers tried in vain to push the ROV through the gap between the partly open bow ramp and the coaming of the car deck opening. They failed because the gap was obviously too small. As on the other hand the ROV evidently had been inside the car deck, it must have entered through another opening. Based on the recordings in the video log, the voice communication between the divers and the ROV operators and also the Anders Hellberg report in Dagens Nyheter of 18.10.94 – see Chapter 36.3 – pages 1229 ff. of our Report – it has to be assumed that there is a hole on the starboard side of the car deck between the aft of the side house and the pilot door, i.e. the area which is not separated by the centre casing. The existence of such a hole is also indicated on the ROV video made during the Rabe-Bemis diving expedition in August 2000 which will be explained in Chapter 2.3.6 and, further, in Chapter 2.5 hereof. |
|
|
|
