Lars Ångström has been a Member of the Swedish Parliament for the Green Party and in this capacity also a Member of the Standing Committee on Defence.  Apparently the latter position gave him access to secret documents and even enabled  him to talk to Navy and Intelligence personnel having been involved in the activities related to the “Estonia” sinking in the widest sense.

It is remarkable that this man gave priority to the right of information of the public, and in particular the relatives and survivors, to be informed about relevant circumstances related to the sinking and put less emphasis upon the secrecy laws and the threat of being prosecuted contrary to Judge Hirschfeldt.

Lars Ångström, instead, sued the Swedish Government in an attempt to force the publication of classified documents and the release of relevant persons from their professional discretion, all in relation to the sinking of the “Estonia“.  The Swedish Government instructed the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekansler - JK) Göran Lambertz to investigate the activities of the Armed Forces and Intelligence Agencies, however, only between the 02.10.-01.12.1994, which is insufficient because obviously there have been diving activities before 2 October 1994.  This is proven by the 1st (official) ROV investigation carried out on 02.10.94, when the handrails of the bow ramp were found to have been cut off and scattered on the seabed  – see Chapter 1.2.4 of this Update and Chapter 2.5.1 of our Report.   In this context Lars Ångström under the date of 12 September 2006 wrote a letter to the Chancellor of Justice – see Enclosure 35 – which is commented  as follows:
On page 1 Lars Ångström writes under “Background”:

quote
In the film material from the official investigating commission there are images from a robot camera filming the Estonia wreck on the 2nd of October, just four days after the sinking.  In these images the handrails from the inside of the closed bow loading ramp are seen cut off and thrown onto the bottom of the sea outside the ship.
unquote

Note: The images showing the handrails of the bow ramp on the seabed, partly close to the wreck, partly more than 200 m away from the wreck, have been examined extensively by this Group of Experts – see our Report Chapter 25.1, pages 713 ff and by the Independent Fact Group – see Chapter 1.2.4. of this Update.  There can be no doubt that the rails were cut off – not broken off, i.e. there had been divers at work before the 02.10.06 and when they did cut off the handrails, the bow ramp must have been at least partly open. During this pulling or heaving of the bow ramp by means of one or more of the Tecolen lines found to be raised up on the early videos to open the ramp and the subsequent pulling out of whatever  from the cardeck over the bow ramp held open, the severe damages at the underside of the bow ramp – clearly having the contours of the forepeak deck – were created (these damages were explained by the JAIC to have been caused when the bow ramp had been smashing on the forepeak deck after having been pulled open by the forward tumbling visor*, which is evidently wrong – see Chapter 17 of this Update. There is, however, more evidence on the 02.10.94 videos, viz. the preventer wires of the bow ramp which have obviously been unshackled manually, as wire and shackle are intact although detached from the bow ramp. This is possible only if the bolt had been taken out of the shackle thereby detaching the shackle and the preventer wire from the lug of the bow ramp and then put back into the shackle. Very orderly divers indeed. Why were the handrails cut off the bow ramp and why were the preventer wires detached? The answer is that space was needed on the bow ramp to pull something rather bulky out of the cardeck onto the seabed.  Then  the divers could take out what they were looking for and have it either lifted to the surface or into an underwater vehicle. Hopefully the Chancellor of Justice has also investigated what the Swedish – or other countries’ – Navy divers and/or private divers did inside and outside the “Estonia” before 02.10.94. *This was a most relevant part of the JAIC casualty scenario.

Ångström continues to write:

quote
Theoretically it could have been any divers who secretly and with unknown motives have operated on the Estonia cargo deck.  In practice however not!  It takes considerable underwater resources and support for such an operation and the only parties who knew the exact position of the wreck were the Swedish Armed Forces, the Finnish Armed Forces and the Finnish member of the investigating commission, Kari Lehtola.  The site for the wreck had been kept secret for nine weeks from the sinking on the 28th September and until the beginning of December.  Only then did the investigating commission carry out their first diving operations.  The Swedish Armed Forces were furthermore responsible for guarding the wrecksite.
unquote

Note: With regard to the second part of this statement Lars Ångström is  not quite correct, because the true wreck position was known to many more people, e.g. those on the bridges of the Finnish Coast Guard vessels “Tursas” and “Halli”, the Finnish vessel “Suunta” which allegedly “found” the wreck on 30.09.94 and, last but not least, the Estonian Armed Forces now operating the ex Russian radar stations on Hiumaa Island. Furthermore, there are numerous sonar buoys and listening devices placed on the seabed of the Gulf of Finland which enabled its controllers to locate and identify any object within its range. This means that in addition to those mentioned by Lars Ångström also the Russians, Estonians and other countries’ Armed Forces knew the true location of the “Estonia”.

Lars Ångström writes further:

quote
Further to material from October and December 1994 the Estonia wreck has been filmed later, i.e. in connection with the work for emptying the ship of oil and also during the investigations for covering the damages with sand and stone.  Comparing pictures of the ramp taken in December 1994 with pictures taken at a later date it can be seen that the ramp has been subjected to great forces which were bending and breaking several strong beams and that attachment loops have been welded on.
unquote

Note: When Ångström writes, the wreck has been filmed later, he means in April/May 1996 when the fuel was taken out by the Finnish Environment Agencies with the “Halli” and the assistance of a rather sophisticated ROV with steel cutting abilities.  At this time the ramp, however, was not affected more than is visible on the October 1994 videos, however, when the Rabe/Bemis divers made their videos in August 2000 – see pages 62-67 of this Update – the change of the bow ramp condition was dramatic because the strongest girders were broken, indicating that the ramp had been exposed to great forces, which broke her. In addition a steel flap at the lower side (vessel in upright condition) of the burst open starboard front bulkhead had been cut off – see pages 80-83 of this Update.  Furthermore the heavy steel plate which the Rockwater divers had cut out of the hull plating in way of Deck 1 in December 1994 and subsequently put back into the opening was found to have been removed from the opening and was now lying some metres away from the opening.  Since such a plate weighs several hundred kilos mechanical lifting devices must have been used to move this plate. All this occurred under the eyes of the Swedish guard vessel if the operations were carried out by surface vessels, if not, only Navies have respectively trained divers and the equipment for such underwater work.

Lars Ångström writes further:

quote
Information from several, from each other independent, employees of the Armed Forces claim that “Urd”, a ship fitted for special duties, was used as a base for clandestine diving operations on the wreck.  On board this ship  Lars Mikael Gustavsson is said to have been leading the diving operations.
unquote

		Note: The vessel “Urd” never appeared in our investigation, only the name Lars Mikael Gustavsson was mentioned by Hakan Bergmark – see Enclosure 34 – to be his superior on the diving operation whereby he participated.  The following photo  shows the “Urd”.  It is evidently a converted trawler or purposely built to look like a trawler.

Lars Ångström writes further:

quote
This is why we still do not know whether there was military cargo on board Estonia on the night of the sinking though this may seem most likely.  On the other hand we know that, following the sinking, someone with considerable resources for underwater activities has secretly entered the cargo deck.
unquote

Note: In fact there are a number of statements from the Estonian side seriously indicating that one or two trucks loaded with secret military cargo had been escorted onboard of the ferry – see in this context the comments on page 321 – The Estonian Officers.

Lars Ångström finally states a number of relevant names to whom the Jusziskanzler should talk, none of whom did appear in the investigation of this Group of Experts.  Anybody who thinks that the Swedish authorities, being so deeply involved in the art of camouflage the truth from their citizens, would give in easily, is mistaken. 
The first response by the Armed Forces to the Chancellor of Justice seems to confirm this.  It is explained by AgnEf as follows:

quote
Supporting their report to the Chancellor of Justice with log books from Krigsarkivet (War Archives) the Defence answered that they had not carried out any diving operations on Estonia.
This was the only answer they gave JK who was not satisfied with it. His comment to the press was that they had not received any answer to the second of his two questions to the Defence – what did they know of any diving operations.

So JK has now rephrased this second question and sent it back to Defence. 
The Chief Legal Counsel for the Defence said that the questions from JK had not been very well defined and that they had interpreted it as a question regarding what they in their capacity of an Authority had done.  Now we will have to start an extensive investigation, asking a number of our units if they have any knowledge of diving operations organized by private citizens or other countries.
So – with that extensive investigation they will try to refuse the matter by dragging it out for no one knows how many months!
unquote