38.5 Further
Investigations and Meetings

At the beginning of September 6 Finnish statements of the key witnesses of the crew and the statement taken in Hangö from the nautical student Rain Oolmets were received from the Finnish JAIC. Almost one year after the casualty had passed before the first statements could be studied and evaluated by this 'Group of Experts'!
In the meantime Stenström continued to give interviews in support of the JAIC scenario and cause consideration and, in particular, drew the attention of the media to the poor condition of part of the visor hinges and the locking devices for which, in his view, the building yard was to be blamed with the naïve argument that the JAIC was unable to find anybody who would admit to have done repairs as sloppy as described during the lifetime of the vessel, or that they could not find any recording on them.
Nevertheless the communication between Stenström and this 'Group of Experts' was continued.
At a further meeting in Stockholm on 2 October Stenström reported that the next JAIC meeting would be on 17/18 October in Tallinn. At the subsequent meeting in Stockholm on 5 December, the technical part written by him - see the Part-Report - would be finally agreed upon. The JAIC's scenario and cause considerations would not be changed. Nevertheless, he agreed to have a look at the facts considered by this 'Group of Experts' not to be in dispute and, further, to another meeting to be held in Stockholm during the first week in November. Stenström also reported that the tank tests with a model of the ESTONIA had shown that at a speed of 10 kn the same loads on the visor occurred as at a speed of 14.5 kn, however not as often.
Stenström furthermore admitted that up to 30 ts. water could have been in the visor.
Note: This was not surprising because this is the quantity indicated by the highest water mark visible inside the visor.
This means that the lower part of the bow ramp including the hinges had been under water. Stenström further stated that the heavy damage to the port outer ramp hinge - as visible on the videos - had existed already since some time before the casualty. As a result - in his opinion - the bow ramp could not be closed properly at the port lower edge, thus was open to the visor up to about 20 mm. This - so he said - was also the reason why the port lower securing bolt of the ramp was unable to engage its mating pocket at the ramp side. He then stated that the Estonian crew had put this severe damage repeatedly on the repair list since some time already, however without N&T doing anything. He said that he had copies of these repair lists. Stenström argued further that because the bow ramp had been partly open for some time already, there must have always been water on the car deck if the theory of the German 'Group of Experts' would be correct. However, as there had obviously not always been water on the car deck the visor could not have been filled to the outside water level. Unfortunately the observations of previous passengers and, in particular, the statement of Pilot Bo Söderman - see Enclosure 12.4.4.161 and Subchapter 12.4.4 - were at that time not yet known to this 'Group of Experts'. They prove beyond reasonable doubt that there had indeed been water on the car deck already in 1993 and the worse the weather got the more water had been on the car deck.
In any event, Stenström had stated that the bow ramp could no more be properly closed for some time before the casualty, that the crew had demanded repairs which were rejected by N&T. It follows already from this fact that the ferry had been initially unseaworthy with the knowledge of the technical managers and owners since some time before the casualty already. No mention of this serious deficiency is made in the Final Report with the exception of the following remark on page 42 - Subchapter 3.3.6 - "It was known that the play in the ramp hinges was approaching the point where corrective action would be needed".
By letter of 27 October the "the undisputed facts" were submitted by this 'Group of Experts' to the JAIC and a copy of the letter is attached as Enclosure 38.5.
Note: The letter was registered on 2 November 1995 under B125 in the logbook of the Swedish JAIC and was declared classified until 9 March 1998.
This 'Group of Experts' expressed once again its regret that it was not possible for the JAIC to travel to Hamburg and/or Papenburg:
"Once again we have to express our regret that is has not been possible for you to visit us here in Hamburg and/or in Papenburg. Many things would have been much easier to transfer to you respectively prove to you, if you would have spoken to the individuals personally and asked your own questions, be that now the von Tell representative Todsen, the BV surveyor Lohmann or the welders, locksmiths, foreman, etc. of Meyer Werft having been engaged respectively responsible, e.g. for the welding of bushings into the lugs of the Atlantic lugs or the lugs to A-deck or the steel bushings into the bores of the visor arms etc., all of whom have been identified. Anyway this can still be arranged if you should wish so.""
As there was no response, it was decided to take one of the welders to Stockholm to the next meeting. This was welder Koenen who had welded, among other things, the locking devices in the foreship area of ESTONIA during its construction.
The next meeting with the JAIC took place in Stockholm on 9/10 November and before the meeting this 'Group of Experts', together with the Meyer Werft welder Koenen, had about two hours time to look - undisturbed and in detail - at the recovered objects stored in the basement of the KTH. The comments of welder Koenen after this close inspection of the Atlantic lock lugs can be summarised as follows:

"(a) Starboard lug with bracket (Nr. 3)
- the welding seams at the outer side were made from the upper side to the lower side, when the lug was in erected condition, i.e. welded to A-Deck, be means of a very thin electrode;
- although if the lug was erected the welding seam should have commenced at the lower side and then gone upwards, which it did not;
- when the initial welding seam between the lug and the bushing was laid in the workshop the lug was lying flat which creates a totally different welding structure from the one visible at the lug remains; - the bracket is not original for many reasons,

• i.e. it is longer than the bushing was because both welding seams end already ca. 15 mm before the end of the bracket:
• the end is cut very roughly - as would never have been done by the yard
• the welding seams were not made by the yard for the above-mentioned reasons. They are laid very unprofes-sionally and the ends of both welds are not connected at the top of the bracket, i.e. seawater could and obviously had penetrated the welds and seeped underneath the bushing with corrosion following therefrom."

This means that the Atlantic lock found was not the original and this was presented in detail to the JAIC at the meeting commencing at 11.00 hours with welder Koenen also in attendance.

The JAIC was represented by the following persons:

Börje Stenström : for Sweden
Mikael Huss :
Tuomo Karppinen : for Finland
Klaus Rahka :
Prof. Jaan Metsaveer : for Estonia

To begin with the findings and conclusion of the inspection of the Atlantic lock lugs were submitted in detail and in summary. It was concluded that the lugs of the Atlantic lock welded to the forepeak deck were no more original. Due to the red paint below the blue it had to be assumed, however, that the lugs had been exchanged already when the vessel was still "VIKING SALLY" which was noted by the JAIC in silence and without further comments.
Subsequently the participants of the JAIC were invited to ask questions to welder Koenen about the yard practice, welding standards or whatever else, but in particular about their view expressed as in the Part-Report conclusions, namely:
"- The visor locking devices were constructed with less strength than required according to calculations. It is believed that this discrepancy developed due to lack of sufficiently detailed manufacturing and installation instructions for certain parts of the devices." Not a single question was, however, put to welder Koenen who left with the impression that none of the experts of the JAIC was the least interested in his testimony. His impression was correct, because the JAIC reiterated in their Final Report what they had assumed to be the facts already in November 1994.
"The attachments were constructed with less strength than the simplistic calculations required. It is believed that this discrepancy was due to lack of sufficiently detailed manufacturing and installation instructions for certain parts of the devices."

The meeting went on and as this was the last meeting in Sweden and also the last one with Börje Stenström attending, the subjects of discussions shall be outlined in some detail:

JAIC: The vessel was assigned the highest B.V. class symbol, it could consequently operate in worldwide trade.
German 'Group of Experts': This is true, however, the trading area of a passenger vessel is defined in the PSSC, which is issued only after the class certificate has been submitted to F.B.N. The PSSC restricted the trade of the vessel to "kustfaart mellan Finland och Sverige", i.e. coastal trade between Finland and Sweden.
JAIC: This restriction referred to the radio operator only. In case AB Sally would have put a radio operator onboard the ferry could have traded "Short international voyages", i.e. 600 nm between 2 ports and no more than 200 nm from the next port, i.e. the ferry could have sailed between Helsinki and Gothenburg.
German 'Group of Experts': It had been agreed in the building contract that the vessel had to be built for an "intended trade", i.e. for the Viking Line service Turku-Mariehamn-Stockholm.
JAIC: This referred only to the "partial collision door" while the contract is otherwise open.
German 'Group of Experts': The well known fact that the "partial collision door" was not installed is indeed proof that the vessel was built for a particular trade, for which according to the opinion of the responsible maritime administration - F.B.N. - such a "partial collision door" at the location required by SOLAS was not necessary.
JAIC: It was also in 1979/80 a well known fact that the Finnish and Swedish owners sold their ferries after 8-10 years in service to owners operating in entirely different areas of the world. Thus it would only be logical to build the ferries for worldwide trade.
German 'Group of Experts': This is the shipowners' concern. The yard builds the vessel according to the contractual agreements, class rules and requirements of the maritime administration.
Subsequently the development of the ferries built for AB Slite and AB Sally from 1969 to 1980 beginning with "APOLLO" and "DIANA" and ending with "VIKING SALLY" was explained, the discussion between Sjöfartsverket/Wahnes on basis of his logbook concerning "bow ramp = collision bulkhead" for "DIANA II" the attitude of the F.B.N. as to "VIKING SALLY", etc. were outlined. Further the "Copenhagen Convention" was handed over as well as this 'Group of Experts' report about "The description of the process of conversion from design to production of the locking devices" which can be found as part of Subchapter 2.4.6. This 'Group of Experts' explained also the background of the "partial collision door" clause in the "VIKING SALLY" specification ("EARL OF GRANVILLE" conversion) and the initial offer of the yard to install this partial collision door for DM 45.000,-- which was rejected by the owners. It would, however, have been possible at any time to have these doors installed for less than DM 100.000,-- in case the trading area would be changed to outside of "sheltered waters" as it occurred when the ferry's route was changed to Tallinn-Stockholm.
JAIC: Probably a yard has to argue differently than a Government commission, who will definitely and sharply draw attention to the faulty practice followed by the maritime administrations of the Nordic countries for decades by accepting the bow ramp as upper extension of the collision bulkhead on car/passenger ferries. The JAIC is of the considered opinion that according to SOLAS the maritime administra-tions may not grant exemptions in this respect, even not if the ferry trades regularly within 20 nm from the nearest land. Stenström said that it is a fact that in the Baltic about 70 ferries have been trading on which the bow ramp was the collision bulkhead. Of these 70 ferries 35 had the interlock between ramp and visor. The first vessel with such a construction was built in Finland. Meyer Werft is not responsible for it, Stenström said. It is considered a fact that the way "VIKING SALLY's" visor/bow ramp were built corresponded in those years absolutely to the state of the art and technique.

On 30 November Klaus Rahka from the Finnish JAIC phoned a member of this 'Group of Experts' and reported the following:

• They had carried out a break test with the mock-up of a side lock. It broke at 134 ts. load.
• They further carried out a bending test with the mock-up of the visor lug being part of the Atlantic lock. The load required to cause a deformation as found was found to be 200 ts., i.e. the Atlantik lock had held at least 200 ts according to Klaus Rahka.
• Börje Stenström was present during the tests and his comment at the end was: "We are not changing the report. Why should we be that friendly to the yard?"

This attitude was also reflected in the next telephone conversation on 12 December when Börje Stenström stated the following:

• The publication of the Final Report had been postponed.
• They had a full commission meeting last Monday/Tuesday (04./ 05.12) with Andi Meister, Enn Neidre, Uno Laur and two professors attending from Estonia.
• Purpose of the meeting was to establish what else had to be done.
• As far as the technical side was concerned (his job) they believed that the factual side was well covered by the Part-Report already, which would not be changed very much, although some analysis will still be carried out.
• On the operational side they would have a long distance to go because the Estonians practically had not delivered anything, although Andi Meister - being no more a Minister - was said to be writing every day. Enn Neidre and Uno Laur have neither commented in writing nor verbally, they are absolutely passive. T
• he Swedish and Finnish side developed the opinion they have to investigate the operational/educational side themselves, but do not know how, because the information is more or less exclusively in Estonia. They had hoped that something would come from their Minister, but so far in vain.
• Next meeting will only be mid February 1996.

  This means that the date for the publication of the Final JAIC Report, announced with so much enthusiasm only a couple of months before had been postponed to some unknown time in the future.
  In this connection a fax has to be mentioned which was sent by Kari Lethola already on 12 November to Olof Forssberg only, which reads - office translation - as follows:
  "Representatives of the F.B.N., Chief Director Muttilainen (No. 2 in the organisation), Valkonen, the legal man Makkonen and the engineer Fabricius - met at the beginning of last week in Hamburg Holtappels, Hummel and possibly some other representatives of Jos. L. Meyer Werft. The yard had invited them to come to Hamburg. Simo Aarnio interviewed Makkonen subsequently. Makkonen repor-ted that the yard's representatives had first asked whether the F.B.N. had anything "against the yard". The answer was no. Possibly the yard wanted to check whether there could be a conflict of interests between F.B.N. and the yard in case of possible legal proceedings in the future. Thereafter they presented the results of their investigation. I hope that we shall have the same information after the Friday meeting in Stockholm. In any event, they do further maintain their theory that the hinges broke first and not the Atlantic Sicherung. Fabricius took the same view during subsequent discussions. He had inspected the visor in Hangö before the trip to Hamburg. Tuomo and Klaus shall come and interview Fabricius pretty soon.
  The Papenburgers have also pointed out that "Estonia" had traded with a water-filled visor for quite a long time already (almost all the time). There are clear indications for that inside the visor.
  Holtappels did further indicate that in case of possible legal proceedings against the yard they would right from the beginning disregard the JAIC investigation results to the effect that no one could use it as evidence against the yard. This would be done on the grounds of bias (partiality) of all three Estonian members. Holtappels did not give any reason for this, but possibly he means that

• Andi (Meister) had at the time of the casualty the political responsi-bility for the appropriate safety rules and also because the govern-ment had been the owner of the company, which partly owned the vessel and/or had been the operator.
• Enn (Neidre) is working as safety chief for Estline, which partly owned the vessel.
• Uno (Laur) was Enn's predecessor in this job.

  We shall possibly continue to discuss this matter.
  Regards, Kari"

  The contents of this fax allows the following rather astonishing conclusions:

  (a) Even after almost 14 months of "joint" investigations the Estonians - although being in the chair - were not informed and thus did not take part in crucial decisions concerning the reliability and credibility of JAIC.
  (b) The chairmen of the Finnish and Swedish JAICs were pretty much aware of the background of all three Estonian members and as Olof Forssberg reported to Inez Uzman, the Swedish Minister for Communication and Transport, and Kari Lethola reported to the Minister for Justice in Helsinki, it has to be assumed with certainty that the problems were well known at least inside these administrations as parts of the respective Governments. Nevertheless nothing was done from their side until Dr. Holtappels raised the point. It finally led to the resignation of Enn Neidre in April 1996 as member of the JAIC. He remained, however, an expert of the Estonian JAIC and as such participated undisturbed in the work, had access to the complete documentation, attended the meetings as before and even participated in the drafting of the Final Report. Whether this nominal change in the position of Enn Neidre did improve the reliability and credibility of the JAIC is a question for the reader to decide.
  (c) Remarkable is finally how experts with differing opinions - like Mr. Fabricius - were being treated: Tuomo and Klaus had "to talk" to him.
  Note: As a matter of fact engineer Fabricius never showed up again in this case.
  (d) The meeting between the F.B.N. and this 'Group of Experts' was already the second one and confidentiality had been agreed. The validity of agreements with the management of F.B.N. seems to be rather short. In this case it was broken by F.B.N. immediately after their return to Helsinki.
  At a subsequent meeting in Helsinki on 23 November between Kari Lethola/ Klaus Rahka and a member of this 'Group of Experts' the following information was received:
  - Andi Meister, the head of the International Commission (IHK), was no more the Estonian Minister of Transport but was sitting at his home writing the Estonian version of the report; they had so far however received nothing.
  - Uno Laur as the personal representative of the President of Estonia in the "Estonia" matter came together with the President, Andi Meister, Enn Neidre and the then Prime Minister by military plane to Turku on 28 or 29.09.94 - probably 28.09.94. The Prime Minister was at first also a member of the Estonian intermediate commission but was subsequently fired, when it turned out that he was a weapons smuggler. Tuomo Karppinen was also in Turku on that day, the first one in the early morning hours had been Kari Lethola.
  Note: According to the notes made by prosecutor Birgitta Cronier, then in charge of the ESTONIA case, on the morning of 28 September 1994 "Kari Lethola is already on site in Utö". See Enclosure 38.5.463.

  - The co-operation between the part commissions could be better. Each national part of the JAIC was working internally on its subject, the exchange of information/documentation was basically restricted to the meetings. This refers in particular to the Estonians who have produced very little, so far, but also to the Swedes. Börje Stenström is an acknowledged expert in naval architecture, but it seems almost impossible to persuade him of other alternatives once he has made up is mind. He is not a good casualty investigator. They are expecting a lot of problems before the Final Report is agreed upon.
  - They know nothing about the working lists where the twisted port hinge of the bow ramp was mentioned repeatedly for repairs.
  - This 'Group of Experts' explained to them the connection water in visor / gap in ramp / water on car deck / clothing around the port hinge of the ramp. They were themselves puzzled about the many clothings hanging around that area which could only be explained as the crew plugging the gap in the ramp from time to time when the ramp and visor were closed.
  - They will continue to investigate the above circumstances. The probability that the scuppers on the car deck were open was also discussed, that one or several non-return valves were blocked, that pipes leading from scuppers on car deck towards outboard through the 1st deck (deck below car deck) were corroded/leaking and in connection with open non-return valves water penetrated the starboard side of the 1st deck (vessel had a permanent starboard list of 4-5° around which she was rolling probably up to 10° to starboard).
  - In the further discussion it became very obvious that they would like to do a much more technical investigation with the fantastic possibilities they have in VTT, however, however this was rejected by the Swedes respectively allowed to a rather limited scope only.
  - They were also informed about the repeated invitations of this 'Group of Experts' to the JAIC to come to Hamburg and Papenburg, to talk to the von Tell representative and relevant yard workers, which they did not know at all. Obviously the channel of information between the JAIC and this 'Group of Experts' ended on the private desk of Börje Stenström. The invitation was repeated to them and they promised to consider.
  - Kari Lethola promised to try to find the passenger of "SILJA FESTIVAL" who has told the newspaper HELSINGIN SANOMAT (published 29.09.94) that ESTONIA left Tallinn with open visor.
  Note: At that time the statement of this passenger had been in the file of Lethola for sometime already. He denied during the following 2 years frequently to know the name, however, when some of his files were finally inspected by members of this 'Group of Experts' in December 1998 the statement was found and copied. See Enclosure 19.236.
  - It was agreed to send them everything in copy which was sent to the Swedish Commission and further on to send them blind covers.
  This was the first time for this 'Group of Experts' to get the chance to look at the other side of the coin and make the amazing experience that the relationship between the Finnish and the Swedish parts of the JAIC was not as good as demonstrated to the outside and, in particular, that this was basically due to the behaviour of Börje Stenström. Moreover, that Stenström basically dictated the scope of the technical investigations exclusively in accordance with the hypothetical casualty scenario and the cause considerations developed by him.
  Already in December everything which had been submitted in writing to Stenström was sent in copy to the Finnish part of the JAIC and further on they received blind copies of all correspondence.
  It was also considered to be remarkable that Stenström had not informed the Finns about the damaged port outer hinge of the bow ramp and the consequentially open part of the bow ramp to the water-filled visor, which, in fact, rendered the ferry initially unseaworthy with the privity of her owners/ tech-nical managers. The Estonian part of the JAIC knowing these circumstances, of course, from their questioning of the relief crew remained silent. It is unknown what the Finns did after having been informed by this 'Group of Experts' about such grave deficiency as the partly open bow ramp being plugged with mattresses, blankets and similar material to avoid the worst - water in large quantities on the car deck - from the always at sea water-filled visor. No official reaction was noted until Karpinnen made himself the laughing stock of the shipping community when he invented the "floating mattresses" during the press conference in which the Final Report was presented.
  The total disregard of Börje Stenström for orderly investigation is further demonstrated by the way in which he chose to file documentation he received in his capacity as JAIC member. Instead of having the documents registered in the logbook as provided for by law he kept them unregistered at home. Only after his death in February 1997 were these documents found in his house, and subsequently registered with the small notation "Inh. fr. BS 971006 or 970326" meaning "Arrived from Börje Stenström on 06.10.97 or 26.03.97". This should of course also have been done with the repair lists of ESTONIA on which the repair request for the damaged port outer hinge of the bow ramp was made, however these lists were never registered.
  Note: The alleged "List of maintenance and repair works on M.V. 'Estonia': April 1993 - August 1994" - attached as Supplement 230 - just contains the engine and electrical part - deck is not mentioned. Moreover this "List" was received by the Swedish JAIC from N&T only on 31.10.97 - five weeks before the publication of the Final Report. - See Enclosure 38.5.465.
  The year 1995 ended with a letter from Börje Stenström dated 22 December by which he asked in total 11 questions with regard to the contents of the memo this 'Group of Experts' had handed over at the November meeting - the letter is attached as Enclosure 38.5.464 and shall be commented on in connection with the reply dated 22 January 1996.