39.4
The Survivors' Statements

As stated before, the non-classified statements were copied from the files of the Swedish JAIC in January/February and sent in bundles to Hamburg. All statements were in the Swedish language, i.e. the original Finnish and Estonian statements were already translated into Swedish. See also Subchapter 36.5.
It took almost 3 months to analyse and evaluate the statements. The result was astonishing as the hypothetical sequence-of-events of the JAIC did not at all match with the statements of the survivors. It follows that the JAIC had disregarded the passengers' statements and just relied on the testimonies of the crew members, in particular, of Silver Linde and Margus Treu.
Note: Chapter 21.2 demonstrates the "reliability" of these statements.
The summary and evaluation of all statements, the changed sequence-of-events and cause consideration as well as the conclusions resulting therefrom were submitted - together with a summary of the technical findings in a 87-page letter dated 22 July 1996 to Börje Stenström with copy to the Finnish part of the JAIC.
Stenström wrote a few comments by the letter of 30 September, however, the Finnish part of JAIC never did reply to this letter. The letter is attached as Enclosure 39.4.471. It was classified by the Swedish part of the JAIC on 02.08.96 and declassified again on 06.03.98 - 14 months after the publication of the Final JAIC Report.

 

39.5
Communication and Investigation as from April 1996

April: Since the beginning of 1996 the Finnish Environment Agency was preparing the removal of the fuel oil from the bunker tanks of the ESTONIA. This should be carried out by sophisticated ROVs, able to cut holes into the vessel's side. The heavy fuel should then be heated and sucked out by means of equipment which could, however, only be used up to wind force 3-4 Bft. As this meant that there would be quite some idle time at sea for the vessel "HALLI" from board of which the ROV was operated, Tuomo Karppinen and Klaus Rahka of the Finnish part of the JAIC took the chance to stay onboard at those idle times and used the ROV for examinations of interesting parts of the wreck. See Chapter 28. This 'Group of Experts' was kept closely informed and even asked what they wanted to have examined. Thus a fax with various points of interest was sent to Tuomo Karppinen on 18 April - see Enclosure 39.5.472. Tuomo Karppinen also wrote down in a memo which items the Finnish part of the JAIC would like to have examined and as it is revealed from the memo that their requirements went much farther than those of this 'Group of Experts'. Also Börje Stenström wanted more and better pictures from the wreck when he wrote by fax of 15 April to Tuomo Karppinen:
"re: Pictures from 'Estonia'.
After some consideration I can still see the necessity for us to try to get better pictures from the damage to the deck and the front bulkheads, inclusive of pictures through the holes in the vessel. Furthermore, close-ups of the electric cables to the sensors of the bottom lock, in particular the free ends and the backside of the plate to which the sensors had been mounted.""
See Enclosure 39.5.474.

He should have remembered that the sensor plate and the free ends of the cables had been cut off in his presence by the divers in December 1994 - see Chapter 27 - and thrown away.
Since it was one of the really urgent requirements of this 'Group of Experts' to have an own look at the wreck the Finnish part of the JAIC was requested to permit a member of this 'Group of Experts' to attend one of the planned ROV surveys. This was however at once and categorically rejected. Nevertheless Karppinen and Rahka kept reporting on these ROV inspections, for example Karppinen on 29 April:
"The water was so dirty that the ROV operators refused to put their equipment into the water in order not to endanger it. All the time the Norwegian M.V. "TERTNES" was dropping sand and rocks into the water only 100 m away from the wreck, therefore the visibility was zero. "TERTNES" left on Sunday and will return only in June. They will make another attempt by ROV next weekend. So far they have searched the whole wreck except for the extreme aft and found nothing - no hole cut into the side."

May: Börje Stenström, whose health was continuously deteriorating, complained bitterly about the Estonians who still had not delivered anything, thus the Swedes had practically taken over everything from them. Enn Neidre was replaced by Pritt Mänik. He stated, that they had accepted our letter of 22.01.96, also the plugging of the bow ramp by the crew and it will be included into their report. He was aware of the fact that the Estonian witnesses were lying to them and did not tell the full story, however, "What can we do?"
Note: They should have listened to the surviving passengers.
He did not read the Hellberg book, but others in the Commission have and feel that the yard is "treated quite well". When the gap in the bow ramp was further discussed, it turned out that the gap was now apparently an admitted fact. Stenström also spoke about the interlock between visor and bow ramp and it turned out that he believed that the visor could only be closed if the bow ramp was properly closed and locked. He was informed that the visor could be almost closed (for painting purposes) if the bow ramp was fully open. Also the water in the visor and on car deck was discussed and the passenger video. Stenström was informed in detail about the missing material at the starboard hinge compared to the port hinge. Stenström further informed that their report was still not ready and that they would send the draft to N&T, ESCO, B.V. and the yard before it would be finalized so that all parties involved would have a last chance to comment on their respective parts. Stenström further advised that they believed to have enough evidence to evaluate their case, but if any diving on the wreck would be done they would certainly want to examine certain things. Compared to the Part-Report they had "softened" the Final Report not to put more or too much blame on the yard. They did not get the information about the officers from the Estonians which they need. They cannot even blame them for the speed. He will send the draft report next week. Margus Treu has said that the watertight doors were open.

June: During a telephone conversation on the 5th Klaus Rahka advised that he would go out by tug to M.V. "HALLI" tonight, to attend another ROV inspection of the wreck. They had a meeting of the technical group, i.e. B. Stenström, T. Karppinen, Metsaveer and Ingerma, M. Huss and himself. The atmosphere was quite relaxed and it seems that they do accept a break load of 175 ts for the side locks now.
Subsequently Rahka wrote as follows:
"With respect to doing a test including weaker than actual weldments we seem to share an interest toward a test, because that would be the only practical way to find the magnitude of an extreme minimum strength of a lock of this general configuration. As it is now - estimates of minimum strength have only been made analytically, and we see a strong chance that these estimates inevitably produce low values for the strength estimates. The forepeak structure is high quality FE 37-type steel, which thanks to its high ductility could work to even out loads between the three lugs, thus raising the result above that obtainable by calculation only. Technically it would thus be valuable to determine the behaviour of such a structure, because the assumptions underlying the analytical calculations most likely underestimate load sharing between the three lugs. An experiment would be the only reliable way to find how much this technical minimum is larger than the analytical estimate."
Such a test was subsequently also carried out and for details see Subchapters 34.3 and 39.2. The complete fax is attached as Enclosure 39.5.475.
On 8 June SVENSKA DAGBLADET published an interview with Olof Forssberg of which some parts are quoted below:
"There is no guarantee that the Commission's report will be completed by the 2nd anniversary of the casualty. This was said by Olof Forssberg, chairman of the Swedish part of the International Commission.
The delay of the report is a disappointment for many relatives. On the 2nd anniversary the liability of the owners for the casualty becomes time barred and the relatives had stated that they need the report of the Commission to sue the owners.
It cannot wait

F: As there is a time-bar period of 2 years the relatives cannot sit and wait for our report. They have to commence legal proceedings on basis of own material, said Olof Forssberg.
SvD: Why is the report so much delayed? From the beginning it ha been said that it should come out 1 year after the catastrophe. Now it is uncertain whether it will be ready on the 2nd anniversary.
F: It has to be borne in mind that we here in Sweden cannot do everything in the commission. This is actually an International Commission with an Estonian chairmanship.
F: There are always difficulties if one is working in a commission with leaders from 3 different nations and if one is an own national commission. There is hardly a subject which due to the language does not lead to delays and complications.
Discussions about selection of words
F: The text is read and everybody has to agree, and that takes time. Always discussions remain about the selection of particular words, in particular in the judgement of people and people's behaviour, i.e. that the words have to be chosen very carefully.
SvD: It has been said that the delay is due to disagreement within the commission?
F: This I deny categorically.
SvD: Is there agreement between the delegates of Estonia, Sweden and Finland?
F: In case we do not agree, we are writing our different opinions. Because majority decisions are not allowed, we have to reserve our rights.
SvD: About a year ago the commission submitted a part-report concerning the technical aspects of the casualty only. The behaviour of the crew shall be dealt with only in the final report.
Olof Forssberg is today neither confirming nor denying information concerning missing initiative of the Estonian crew.
SvD: What is your opinion about the picture of the master as outlined by the journalists Anders Hellberg and Anders Jörle in their book about the catastrophe? The master is said to have been authoritarian and incompetent.
F: Talks with pilots show a different picture. There is much different information about the master.
SvD: When 'Estonia' got the list, however, the master choose to turn to port which increased the list?
F: Theoretically, it would have been better to turn to the other side. It is, however, not so easy just to say that the master turned to the wrong side. It is often so that in case of a list this side is turned into the sea, exactly as the master did.
Bad Repairs
SvD: The yard which built the 'Estonia' is alleging that N&T neglected the condition of the vessel and postponed necessary repairs. Can you reject this allegations?
F: We shall comment on this in our final report, said O. Forssberg and added that the German yard has "a number of theories at the present time". He pointed out that the yard e.g. was interested in a Russian report which alleges that the casualty was a result of the ferry having been used as a smuggle ship.
SvD: Do you mean that the yard is looking for any straw to find an explanation which would release her from liability?
F: We get the impression that they are trying to do that.
SvD: How was it to investigate the largest civil casualty in Europe in modern times?
F: - Many times people are of the opinion that because so many have lost their lives there must be a rather complicated cause for the casualty. There can, however, be a rather banal accident even if the consequences are disastrous.
- It is easy to conclude that a lot of people must also have made a lot of mistakes. Sometimes however life is quite simple such as that an accident occurs.
SvD: Will the theories and speculations come to an end once your final report is submitted?
F: No, because we have no access to the wreck the rumours will continue to live. This was the same with the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg, Dag Hammarsköld's air plane casualty and the murder of Olof Palme - theories are coming and emerging in uniform distances."
The complete article is attached as Enclosure 39.5.476.

On 13 June Klaus Rahka informed that the ROV inspection of the wreck had brought nothing. It might be repeated but Kari Lethola wants a diving investi-gation. Finnish divers had made an offer already and one diver can work on site for about 20 minutes. One job will be to closely film the sensor plate and the free ends of the cables of the Atlantic lock sensors, however the wish list of this 'Group of Experts' would also be favourably considered. Rahka was informed that his proposal to make a further break test with tack-welds had been accepted and the test was already being prepared.

July: In early July the evaluation of the many statements of the survivors was completed and based on the noise and time scenarios revealed from these statements, a new casualty scenario was developed which differed considerably from that of the JAIC. The present stage of the technical investigation by this 'Group of Experts' including the interpretation of the passenger video, the summaries and evaluations of all survivor statements and the consequently newly developed casualty scenario and cause consideration were - as stated before - submitted to Stenström with copies to the Finnish JAIC. - See Enclosure 39.4.471.
While in the Swedish and Estonian media a squabble was carried out between Andi Meister/Uno Laur and Olof Forssberg and other Swedish JAIC members and experts, the rumours that Andi Meister would resign from the JAIC were growing and, indeed, on 30 July he resigned.

Börje Stenström commented this as follows:

• Andi Meister was already very tired at the last meeting and had indicated that he was considering to retire. They believe that the Estonian complaints about the Swedes withholding evidence was just an excuse to create a break in the commission which, however, would not be permitted by the politicians on both sides. The Estonians were apparently under growing internal pressure to avoid what becomes more and more obvious viz. that the main blame lies with the management and crew and that the evidence given by the Estonian crew members is wrong. Stenström further said, that he had a lot of material at home which was not even registered. See also Subchapter 35.7. He declared not to have the repair list for the bow ramp damage. He was told by chief engineer H. Moosaar (of the 2nd crew), Hobro and Rasmusson that the copy remained onboard. That was clear, however, where was the original? No reply.

August: The diver videos and three amateur videos were received, viewed and evaluated which took time and the further development and discussion of the new casualty scenario took even more time. Sweden and Finland were on vacation.

September: On 5 September a member of this 'Group of Experts' met with the Finnish part of the JAIC in Helsinki when a copy of the passenger video was handed over - see Subchapter 39.3 - and all subjects were discussed. It turned out that the JAIC trusted the model test results of SSPA more than the reports of the survivors and, further, maintained their initial findings and casualty scenario in spite of all the contradictory evidence submitted to them by this 'Group of Experts' and others. The results of the meeting are summarized in a memo and because this was the last meeting with the JAIC the conclusions shall be quoted a follows:
"Tuomo Karppinen, who is obviously in overall charge of the evaluation of statements, is very uncertain and unsure. He was apparently following instructions when submitting the scenario explained under 1.8. without creating the impression of being entirely convinced himself. In addition, he obviously has not yet carried out a detailed evaluation of the statements, which is really necessary to understand the full background. The obvious fact that his nautical experience is limited to some yachting does not make it easier. Consequently, it again has to be concluded that the Commission is still not doing the required work as it has to be and can be expected with a case of this dimension. It is not enough to explain all indications of an early starboard list with "but the seas continued to strike from port side until the visor fell off."
It has to be decided now whether we shall spend some more time in explaining to them in more detail why the starboard list must have occurred much earlier, etc. The next Commission meeting is at the end of September. They will under all circumstances complete their report before Christmas, even if it should not contain the latest stage of the investigation. The pressure from government side is said to be very severe."
By letter of 30 September Börje Stenström commented on some of the issues raised in the letter of this 'Group of Experts' but no word abut the survivors' statements and the resulting new casualty scenario.
Since 24 September Uno Laur was the chairman of the JAIC.

October: The exchange of information by fax and telephone between the JAIC and this 'Group of Experts' continued and some time was spent with the discussion of the statements of ex-boatswain Luttunen, who testified that the three lugs of the Atlantic lock on the forepeak deck had been renewed in 1982/83, most probably by von Tell AB, Gothenburg. The JAIC did not accept the statement of Luttunen, because it was not confirmed by other crew members having been onboard with him. It led, however, to an analysis of the paint layers of the starboard lug and the visor lug which revealed that the basic primer of the starboard lug was grey and of the visor lug was yellow. As the basic primer of the foreship at the newbuilding stage had been yellow, this analysis result confirms the Luttunen statement, but even despite such improved knowledge the statement was still disregarded by the JAIC.

November: The JAIC had a commission meeting for three days in Stockholm from 19-21 November at which 24 persons attended, among them Enn Neidre - who as the reader will recall - had officially resigned from the JAIC. See Enclosure 39.5.477 - List of Attendants.

December: Following the above-mentioned meeting various JAIC members and experts made different statements to the media, and the yard was again attacked. Soon thereafter Börje Stenström wrote an apologetic fax to Dr. Holtappels, which is quoted as follows:
"You will no doubt learn through your press monitoring about what was going on in Stockholm during the past days. A radio channel reporter had talked to an outside expert, getting the impression that there were additional facts about the locking mechanisms beyond what is mentioned in the Part-Report. This led to activities in several other media including two TV channels by which I have been interviewed. I stated repeatedly in the interviews that we do not point out who installed the lock attachments of their current dimensions. Unfortunately this was now picked up in only one of the broadcasts, but rather an impression that it was now more clear than before that the yard had installed undersized lockings.
Lawyer Witte was also interviewed and claimed quickly that chances to sue the yard will now increase. I will call Witte Tuesday morning to explain to him that his conclusions are not based on facts of our report, on the contrary we will remain silent on the issue of who may have installed the weak parts."
The complete fax is attached as Enclosure 39.5.478.
Note: Marine investigators and/or naval architects are not known to be professional in public relations.

39.6
Changes in the JAIC

The Estonian chairman Andi Meister resigned on 30.07.96. The chairmanship had been offered to Kari Lethola and to Olof Forssberg, however, was rejected by both of them as the Prime Ministers of Estonia, Finland and Sweden had decided on 28 September 1994 that the chairman should be Estonian. Only in the course of September did Uno Laur accept the appointment and took over the chair on 24 September. Already on 30.07.96, the day of Andi Meister's resignation, Heino Jaakula - from the Estonian National Maritime Board (E.N.M.B.) - was appointed as member.
In April Enn Neidre had already resigned from the JAIC upon pressure from Sweden and Finland caused by the remarks of Dr. Holtappels (see Chapter 38.4). As stated above Neidre was replaced by Pritt Männik, but remained an expert to the Estonian JAIC and participated in this capacity full scale in the JAIC work including the drafting of the Final Report. The initial judgement that the JAIC was biased due to its Estonian members remains upheld.
The Finnish expert Simo Aarnio passed away on 22.01.96 and was replaced by Kari Larjo on 27.02.96.
There were considerably more changes to come which will be explained in the following chapter 40.