“In summary of the above six chapters the following has to be concluded:

(1) Upon the last departure from Tallinn the bow ramp and/or its mating boxes for the securing bolts or pins were in such a bad condition that none of the bolts could enter the boxes and/or was in a position to provide any holding power to the bow ramp.

(2) The starboard preventer wire of the bow ramp had been manually unshackled from the lug at the bow ramp which is for the first time visible on the ROV video of 09.10.94, i.e. it must have been done between the sinking and the 09.10.94 by divers.

(3) Evidently the aft part of the visor bottom sustained severe damage due to several attempts to hook the yoke to the transverse beam during the recovery operation. Although the JAIC was present at the operation with one member and one expert the additional damage was never mentioned anywhere but to the contrary was used to better explain the JAIC’s damage scenario, e.g. the visor pounding on the forepeak deck which is anyway impossible.

(4) Also the missing bow ramp rails, parts of which were found by the first ROV on 02.10.94 on the seabed and the other parts which had evidently been cut off, are not mentioned at all by the JAIC. It has to be assumed that the rails were cut off by the same divers who had unshackled the starboard preventer wire in order to have easier access into the car deck through the anyway narrow gap between the slightly open bow ramp and the coaming of the entrance to the car deck.

(5) There is evidently damage to the very strong plating of the bulbous bow caused by a similarly strong object apparently painted white, which obviously had been in contact respectively collision with the ESTONIA. Since this was obviously more a touch-and-go contact rather than an actual collision it is doubtful whether this could explain the 2-3 extreme shocks which knocked people on the 1st deck off their feet. It is, however, possible that this object caused the longitudinal white scoring marks visible on the sides and on the bottom of the ferry and which could also have created the noise which Carl Erik Reintam explains as ‘if proceeding through ice’ and Paul Barney explains as ‘a scraping noise as if something was scraping along the vessel’s hull’. No firm evidence is available as to this ‘object’ which consequently has to remain in the dark.

(6) A hole in the shell plating big enough for a ROV to pass through without the steel edges being visible to the video camera most probably exists in way of the forward starboard side of the car deck, i.e. above the waterline as long as the ferry was in relatively upright condition. According to the observation of survivors from 1st deck it has, however, to be assumed that there is another hole in way of 0-deck which shall be discussed in more detail in Chapters 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 4 and 5.5.

(7) In general, however, it has to be concluded that the JAIC did an extremely sloppy investigation job and/or deliberately disregarded important evidence and/or manipulated evidence for the purpose of proving by all means that the casualty was caused by a construction fault of the visor.”

There is little to add to these conclusions, they fully concur with the findings of this Group of Experts.