40.3
The Development from July to December

July: In the meantime the "WASA KING" specification dated 25.09.92 which had been received at the exhibition from the Turku Repair Yard - see Enclosure 3.4.96 - had been translated and evaluated. See Subchapter 3.4 - when Tuomo Karppinen phoned on 1 July and reported the following:
- He would finish the Report in two weeks, then everything would be in the printing house and the printing would start.
- The result would be the 1st draft which would then be sent to all members and experts for comments to be delivered by mid August. The enclosures would be in a separate supplement of about 500 pages.
- After printing of the final version the Report would be published circa mid to end September.
- A new Swedish Commission would be formed to investigate everything the Swedish Government did or did not in connection with the ESTONIA;
- Karppinen was then asked whether he knew about the repair specification dated 25.09.92 - Enclosure 3.4.96 - which he confirmed and further advised that he had spoken with Tuomo Mäkki about it, who had made an offer for the bow ramp hinges but not for the visor locking devices.
Note: This is true. Behind the respective item is a handwritten note: "Price to be quoted after visual inspection." Apparently Mäkki never inspected the locking devices visually because in the meantime it had been decided to sell the vessel and only those items were repaired by the sellers which had to be rectified according to the sales contract.
Karppinen further explained that he had also spoken to the last Finnish inspector, Charles Richardson from Wasa Line, who had told him that at the time the specification was made up by the crew they did not know that the vessel would be sold.

- Next the possibility that the Atlantic lock had been changed after newbuilding was discussed and Karppinen said that there was a small chance because the basic primer of the visor lug was found to be yellow but on the starboard lug grey.
Note: Actually the basic primer of all lugs had been yellow at newbuilding - see Subchapter 2.4.6 and Enclosure 2.4.6.63.
- Finally Karppinen advised that it had been decided that this 'Group of Experts' would receive no parts whatsoever from the JAIC Report before the publication.

August: On 13 August Tuomo Karppinen advised on the following:
- The draft version of their Report had now been distributed to the members and experts except for three chapters which are still missing.
- He expects amendments, because after all delegations have read through the draft he is certain that not everybody will agree. - Amendments are sent to him and he incorporates them into the existing text.
- They still hope to publish around the 3rd anniversary.
On 15 August the Swedish JAIC had a working meeting in Stockholm.

September: From 3 to 5 September the Swedish JAIC went again through the text of the Report and apparently concluded the matter. During this meeting it came to a clash of different opinions which led to the resignation of the psychological expert Bengt Schager three days later on 8 September. In a subsequent interview by Jutta Rabe, Bengt Schager did explain the situation as follows:
"BS: It was a meeting where we should look at the text. I was prepared for that meeting because as I figured out, it was the last chance to alter some of the details in a favourable way as I regard it is the truth. I was very well prepared and got the message that this meeting would only deal with the language problems and such things and that the report should be printed even though not all the chapters were ready, I didn't think that this was a proper way of working with it and then I told them that I would resign and, also I might mention, before that, when Olof Forssberg was the Swedish chairman, he was in favour for the opportunity for me of having a special opinion also printed into the report and then, later on, I understood that Mr. Laur would never allow a special opinion from me printed in the report. This, together with the rush in timing was the basis for my decision, and the long frustration also.
Q: But you emphasize just at this moment that their truth and your truth, so there is a difference between your truth and their truth?
A: There is a discrepancy and, of course, I believe that I am right, but I don't know and that's why I would like to be revealed my thinking when the report is there, so that everyone who is reading the report and listening to me, or, perhaps is reading what I am writing at that time and can see for themselves and judge, because when you are one against 20 you have some difficulties with, you have consequences with your relations, with the rest of them, and arguing for something, when you have 20 against you, of which 10 are silent but hostile and 10 are arguing against you, you have a friend at your side frequently saying: "Bengt, stop, for heaven's sake, stop," then you may come to a point, where you are really questioning yourself. Then, after a while, you have to continue because you are believing in a certain thing and the rest of them could not really give me good arguments. So, then you have to continue, in a way. Even though, of course, it makes you sometimes a little bit uncertain whether you really have right or not."

On 18 September Tuomo Karppinen started during a telephone conversation:
- He received the comments/corrections from members and experts on Monday, 8 September, and has given the corrections to the printing house this Monday, 15 September.
- He will receive three printed copies in about two weeks which will then be read through again by the English language expert and himself at least twice.
- Then the final version goes to the printing house and then it takes 4-5 weeks, i.e. publication mid to end November.

On 22 September during a further telephone conversation Tuomo Karppinen said that they will have another full commission meeting in Tallinn due to unexpected difficulties with the text and only thereafter the final corrections can be made and printing started, i.e. publication early December.
On the same day "SVENSKA DAGBLADET" published an ariticle which contained the first interview with Bengt Schager after his resignation and which reads - office translated - as follows:
"'Estonia' Report is Protecting the Crew.
The 'Estonia' Report is incomplete. The Estonian chairman tries to avoid criticizing the crew and this has disturbed the work of the commission, alleges an expert, who resigned from the investigation.
Turbulent Investigation.
The investigation of the International Commission was accompanied by numerous delays, censorship, accusations, criticism by the Judicial Ombudsman and change of chairmen.
July 1996: The Estonian Chairman Andi Meister resigned after having severely criticized the Swedish part of the Commission.
May 1997: Olof Forssberg, chairman of the Swedish part of the Commission, was forced to resign after having lied to a radio reporter.
"I don't trust the Commission any longer", said Bengt Schager, psychological expert of the 'Estonia' Commission, who resigned from the investigation under protest. Now the 'Estonia' Report, which will be submitted to the printing house shortly, risks loosing much of its credibility.
Bengt Schager is of the opinion that the commission did not properly investigate the safety culture onboard of 'Estonia'. The question was much too sensitive. "There has been a preparedness to talk matters and circumstances unfavourable for the crew to their advantage."
Bad Quality.
The 'Estonia' Commission is a three-nation commission with experts and members from Estonia, Finland and Sweden. B. Schager means that the work was very much disturbed by the obligation to reach agreement. The Swedes and Finns had frequently considered giving up.
"It has been so important to keep the Commission together to avoid that somebody acts on his own initiative", he said.
"I do not believe that the quality of the report is good. You find more lessons to learn from this casualty than is mentioned in the report, there had actually been lots of defects onboard", said Bengt Schager after almost 3 years work.
Ferry Sentenced to Death.
Bengt Schager stressed that there is no disagreement inside the Commission about the main cause of the casualty: These were technical defects which sank 'Estonia' down into the depth. The large ferry was sentenced to death. This conclusion has never been in dispute.
The question about the acting of the Estonian crew in the very situation has, however, been in dispute the more, Bengt Schager is of the opinion that there are lots of question marks.
"There are lots of things which belong into the report but which you cannot find there", he said. B. Schager is critical about the way the report deals with the acting of the crew: "Safety culture was with certainty not at the standard which could be expected".
But he means that also other parts are defect. "Certain analysis work was more or less just average work. We should have gone much more into detail and investigated much deeper", he said pointing at the fact that they were practically investigating Europe's largest ferry casualty in modern times.
Stressed Commission.
B. Schager sees two reasons why the investigation, according to him, shall remain faulty (imperfect): Certain questions have been sensitive whilst the commission has simultaneously been permanently under stress.
The investigation requirements could not withstand the requirements of the media for a quick completion and, therefore, an incomplete report shall be submitted.
B. Schager means that the Estonia Commission should have permitted herself to investigate the matter properly."
The article is attached as Enclosure 40.3.481.

The interview is self-explanatory. It confirms the bad atmosphere inside the JAIC which existed practically from the very beginning, at first due to the dominant behaviour of Börje Stenström, followed by the discrepancies which led to the resignation of Andi Meister and finally due to the attempt of Uno Laur to protect Estonian interests.
On the 3rd anniversary of the catastrophe "SVENSKA DAGBLADET" published a small article under the heading "Investigation of the 'Estonia' Catastrophe" which reads - office translated - as follows:
"Criminal Violation of the Maritime Law and/or Causing Other Persons' Death" is the heading under which the Criminal Police is investigating the 'Estonia' catastrophe going on parallel with the investigation of the International Commission. In addition to survivors' statements the police and the chief prosecutor have among other things interrogated representatives of N&T, who had the technical responsibility for the vessel and of the classification society B.V. who approved vessel's construction and condition. "Some further interro-gations are pending", said chief prosecutor Tomas Lindstrand, who is leading the inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to find out it somebody will have to be prosecuted for the 'Estonia' catastrophe."

October: On 17 October Tuomo Karppinen reported as follows:
- The report was changed at the recent meeting and, as a matter of fact, they are still discussing details.
- Next week the English language expert will come again for two days and check the report whereafter it will go to the printing house.
- He estimates that it will take several weeks before the final version is printed and they would be happy if the publication could take place before the end of the year because this is what the politicians are demanding from them.
- He said further that they were aware that "REGINA BALTICA" is either "VIKING SAGA" or "VIKING SONG", but they did not look into the "NORD ESTONIA" matter and they also had not realised that Ulf Hobro had been employed with Sjöfartsverket as safety inspector before he joined N&T.
On 20 October Tuomo Karppinen reported more details:
- They have had a meeting in Helsinki with Ann-Louise Eksborg and Uno Laur attending when the report and some minor changes were finally discussed. Casualty scenario and cause considerations remained unchanged. The report is now finalised.
- Commencing tomorrow he will go through the changes together with their English language expert Bing Crossfield from London, which might take two or three days.
- Thereafter the changes will be worked into the existing manuscript by the printers and a further manuscript will be printed, which he hopes to receive around 26/27 October.
- He will then go through the complete manuscript once again and hopes to be able to submit the final version by the beginning of November, i.e. week 45, to the printers who will then commence printing 5000 copies, which will hopefully be completed in week 49.
- This means that the report will be published either in week 49 or 50. The exact date will be fixed as soon as printing has started.
- Since the summer, i.e. after the exhibition of this 'Group of Experts', they have included a new chapter into their report which concerns the "upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck = car deck" and have tried to find an explanation for the attitudes of Sjöfartsverket and Finska Sjöfartstyrelse.
Thereafter it was decided to have an up-date exhibition in Stockholm during the time of publication of the JAIC Report and the preparations commenced straight away.

November: In the early days the Swedish TV 2 program "STRIPTEASE" showed the second part of their "Estonia" investigation. It was apparent that the "STRIPTEASE" journalists had a copy of the Final JAIC Report or one of the drafts of it, which they had submitted to Prof. Vassalous of the West Clyde University, Glasgow, one of the leading naval architects in the UK. Vassalous was asked to give an opinion on the technical part and the conclusions, which he did.
The JAIC had concluded:
"The casualty sequence may have started around 00.55 hours when an A.B. seaman heard a metallic bang behind bow ramp. Locks and hinges broke completely through one or two heavy waves just after 01.00 hours. Consequence: The locks were too weak. 'Estonia' had met similar wave conditions only once or twice earlier between Tallinn and Stockholm. The accident occurred under conditions that were probably the worst she had ever encountered. The casualty has no pre-history, everything happened in one sequence and very quickly."
" Vassalous commented:

"To reach ultimate loads at sea so that the components could fail in one or two loads is highly unlikely . Most components that fail at sea do so because of fatigue, there must have been a pre-history. Therefore the cause for the failures has to be found in the condition of the ship, and especially of the visor."

" The professor did not accept that the visor was really completely o.k. on the casualty night nor did he accept that the conditions were unique. He stated that cyclic loading is the nature of any structure, failure caused by fatigue loading is "a fact of marine life".
Failure to use common sense by the JAIC was his conclusion.
More uncertainty came up when the General Director of the E.N.M.B. and Estonian observer in the JAIC, Kalle Pedak, and the head of the Maritime Division (Department) of the E.N.M.B., Aarne Valgma, went public by giving an interview to the Baltic News Service about the circumstances surrounding the diving investigation of the ESTONIA in December 1994 when only Aarne Valgma had represented the Estonian side.
The following is quoted from BNS message:
"The divers' mission, which lasted for 64 hours, was filmed and the video picture was continuously forwarded to the support vessel. The Swedish Maritime Administration, which had commissioned the mission, supervised it from aboard the same ship, and also the Swedish criminal police observed the course of the mission there.
Valgma said that during the 64-hour mission there were moments when there was no video picture on his monitor.
"All I can presume is that the diving work was not filmed during those breaks." Valgma told BNS on Thursday. Maritime Department general director Kalle Pedak said it was not very likely there were breaks in the video recording during the divers' mission.
"Valgma had admitted that at intervals he saw no video picture in his monitor room and had no access to the ship's main monitor", Pedak told BNS. "I believe there was a video picture on the main monitor all the time, because the divers were constantly watched".
Pedak and Valgma didn't want to comment on why the video picture was interrupted on the Estonian observer's monitor.""
The complete wording of the message is attached as Enclosure 40.3.482.
On 17 November the following message was received from the JAIC:
"Re: Press conference concerning the presentation of the Final Report of MV 'Estonia'
The Joint Estonian, Finnish and Swedish Commission to investigate the 'Estonia' catastrophe presents its Final Report on 3rd December. The Commission meets in Tallinn to present the Report jointly at 12.00 hours. Simultaneously the Report is submitted to the Swedish and Finnish Governments. A press conference shall be held in Estonia as follows:
Date : Wednesday, 3rd December 1997
Time : 13.00 hours
Place : Sakala Centre, 12 Rävala Avenne, Tallinn
The Report, which is in English, can be simultaneously picked up, i.e. at the BoA/Stockholm at 11.00 hours and at the BoA/Helsinki at 12.00 hours." T
his was the end of the communication between the JAIC and this 'Group of Experts' because the JAIC ceased to exist after the publication of their Final Report.

40.4
The Second Exhibition in Stockholm 1 to 14 December 1997

The Motivation

The decision to have another Exhibition in Stockholm before, during and after the publication of the Final Report of the International Commission was based on

(a) the growing certainty that the International Commission would conclude in their final report that the casualty was mainly caused by the too weak locking devices of the visor due to faulty design, etc.;
(b) the fact that such an Exhibition was the only possibility of proving quickly and convincingly to the national and international media as well as to the Swedish public that the above-mentioned conclusions were wrong;
(c) the frequently stated wish of many visitors to the 1st Exhibition to come back and give them the chance of comparing the findings of the JAIC with the findings of the German 'Group of Experts' after the Final Report had been published.

Preparations

Based on the experience with the 1st Exhibition it was decided to organise everything in close cooperation with the two relative organisations SEA and DIS and moreover to invite them to perform the exhibition jointly with this 'Group of Experts' and participate actively in the day-to-day preparations. This was welcomed by both organisations. Whilst SEA offered the assistance of their vice chairman Odd Lundkvist, who had been a conference/exhibition manager before his retirement, DIS offered the services of their technical expert Alve Wendt as exhibition guide in order to help this 'Group of Experts' with the many visitors to be expected. In addition, SEA would show their own little exhibition simultaneously. The SEA exhibition would draw attention to the crucial mistakes made by the Swedish government in the handling of the ESTONIA affair. DIS wanted to put up some screens whereupon they would outline what they thought were the real causes for the disaster and who had done what wrong.
When it was definite that the Final Report would be published on 3 December, 1997 in Tallinn and copies could be picked up simultaneously in the JAIC offices in Helsinki and Stockholm the following arrangements were made:
- advertisements should appear on 29/30 November, on 1 and 2 December, and again on 8 December
o in DAGENS NYHETER, SVENSKA DAGBLADET, AFTONBLADET, METRO - all in Stockholm and countrywide;
o in GÖTEBORG POSTEN appearing in Gothenburg and along the Swedish West Coast with the following text:

 

 

- the media were invited for 4 December;
- the opening times of the Exhibition were announced to all members of Parliament, the navigation schools and public schools in Stockholm and surroundings, all members of DIS and SEA, the Swedish survivors and many others.

The Exhibition

After arrival on 30 November 1997 a first review of the Sunday papers revealed the following:

- DAGENS NYHETER: two complete pages with the headlines:
(1) "The Final Report About Estonia : Nobody Will Be Blamed."
"Interview With The Survivor Carl Övberg."
(2) "The Swedish Maritime Administration Acknowledges Mistakes."
"Estonia and Diana II Received Exemptions. In Spite Of Many Warnings About Dangerous Visors The Safety Was Not Improved."

- AFTENBLADET: one full page:
"Estonia Had A Crack In Her Hull."

- GÖTEBORG POSTEN: Front page:
"Doubts Why Did Estonia Sink."
One further complete page: "It is impossible to dispel the doubts."
Interview with Olof Forsberg, the previous chairman of the Swedish Commission.
"Disputes about the visor."
"Mine explosions and Mafia Sabotage: Such explanations for Estonia's foundering require fantasy. There are, however, also well founded alternatives to the conclusions of the Commission."

This 'Group of Experts' was only mentioned in connection with other investigation results and alternative conclusions to those of the Commission.
This time no one was invited to the opening nor was there a press conference on the occasion of the opening, nevertheless visitors started streaming in right from the beginning and it can be said that the average number per day was in the range of 200, however, there were days with twice this figure.
The visitors spent a lot of time with reading, had less questions and thus the stress for the Exhibition guides was much less than previously.
Also the atmosphere this time was different right from the beginning, it was much more relaxed and free of tension, which was certainly to a considerable extent due to the presence of the representatives of the relative organisations, mainly the SEA Exhibition represented by Odd Lundkvist.

1st day - 1 December 1997
Visitors started to stream in even before the Exhibition was opened at 11.00 hours. The day was full of pre-arranged interviews with German Finnish, Swedish and English TV and radio teams. Nobody from the writing press was spotted.

2nd day - 2 December 1997
Whilst the chair lady of the Swedish Commission together with the administrator Gunnel Göransson were in Tallinn to attend the ceremony on the next day Lennart Berglund and Odd Lundkvist managed to obtain substantial parts of manuscript of the Final Report and members of this 'Group of Experts' started immediately to analyse the contents.
The chairman of the Association of Swedish Marine Underwriters, Sten Gathenborg, paid a visit to the Exhibition and everything was explained to him. He asked thereafter whether it would be possible to have a private show for the Swedish Marine Underwriters without the public and this was agreed for 9 December, from 08.30 to 11.00 hours.
In the afternoon the Hamburg office phoned and informed that two complete sets of the Final Report of the Commission including supplements had just arrived by courier from Kari Lethola, the chairman of the Finnish JAIC, which meant that almost 24 hours before the official publication the JAIC Report was available to this 'Group of Experts'. The main parts were sent by fax and the analysis commenced at once in order to have some comments already on the following day.
During the evening and parts of the night the Report was analysed as well as possible and already then it became quite obvious that

• the JAIC's scenario was based on the possibility that the vessel could have encountered 1 or 2 heavy waves which could have been able to break to locks of the visor, etc. and
• the JAIC had completely ignored the passengers' statements as to time of heel, water on 1st deck and on car deck and
• the JAIC had completely ignored the disastrous maintenance condition of visor and bow ramp; but had, to the contrary, found that the vessel had left Tallinn in a completely seaworthy condition, well maintained, manned and loaded.

  The conclusions were - as already in the Part-Report from April 1995 - that "the visor attachments were not designed according to realistic design assumptions ..." and "the attachments were constructed with less strength than the simplistic calculations required", etc.
  So not very much had changed during the past 3 years, almost nothing of what this 'Group of Experts' had submitted to the JAIC had been taken into account, it was thus still the Yard and only the Yard on which blame was put.
  The defence was prepared straight away by so-called "First Remarks on the Report of the International Commission" of which 400 copies were distributed to visitors until the closing of the Exhibition. One copy is attached as Enclosures 40.4.483.

  3rd day - 3 December 1997
  As of 11.00 hours the Report plus Supplements could be picked up by anybody at the office of the Swedish JAIC.
  An article appeared in "DAGENS NYHETER" wherein the previous psychology expert Bengt Schager, who had resigned from the JAIC in September, stated that ESTONIA had left Tallinn in an unseaworthy condition referring to the evidence of the Sjöfartsverket inspector Åke Sjöblom, who had left the vessel only shortly before her departure. This led to additional questions from many visitors.
  Next, Gerhard Klahn phoned from Ystad in Southern Sweden and stated to have seen a TV interview with the above-mentioned Åke Sjöblom shortly after the casualty during which he had said that they had found the bow ramp in a totally unsatisfactory condition and had strongly recommended to their Estonian colleagues not to permit the ferry to sail in this condition, which, however, was ignored. He was then asked by the journalist what he would have done if he had checked the ESTONIA in a Swedish port? He replied that under absolutely no circumstance would the ferry have left port.

  4th day - 4 December 1997
  This was the day of the press conference of this 'Group of Experts' right in the middle of the Exhibition. It began at 11.00 hours with approximately 40 journalists and four camera teams attending, many of whom had been in Tallinn the day before. (Reportedly some 200 persons attended the press conference of the JAIC.) Dr. Holtappels submitted the first analysis of the JAIC's Report, drew attention to the obvious mistakes and wrong conclusions, answered numerous questions from partly very insistent journalists who were much better prepared than they had been in June. Simultaneously the survivor from the 1st deck, Carl Övberg, was introduced to the media and told his story and answered questions.
  Thereafter it was explained by means of the models that the scenario of the JAIC was not possible to have happened and, as a comparison, this 'Group of Experts' scenario was presented, as supported by the statements of the survivors and other facts.
  The two main newspapers in Stockholm reacted as follows:

  1) DAGENS NYHETER:
  - Front page: Top story the Jeltsin visit covering most of the page. A small column on the left side: "Estonia: The yard bears the main responsibility."
  - Page 2: "Estonia Without Finale. The work of the three nation commission is clearly meeting opposition."
  - Page 5: Full page: "The Locks Of The Visor Were Too Weak."

  
  The Yard is criticised by the Commission. The locks had insufficient dimensions. A drawing illustrates the weak points including the damaged visor and ramp hinges, the gap in the bow ramp, the missing and damaged rubber packings, etc. with detailed explanations.
  Also the scenarios of the Commission and of this 'Group of Experts' were illustrated and compared with each other.
  Comments from Uno Laur, Dr. Holtappels, Inez Uzman, a speaker for the Ship Owners' Association and Lennart Berglund were quoted.
  Mini portraits of Arvo Andresson, Andi Meister, Kent Härstedt, Jan-Tore Thörnroos, Silver Linde and Margus Treu were shown, who were considered to be the main persons of the drama.
  

  - Page 6: The names of the 852 persons having lost their lives (full page).
  - Page 7: Full page: "Difficult Decision Not To Recover (The Bodies)." "Distress Call Came Too Late." "Nobody Will Be Prosecuted."

  2) SVENSKA DAGBLADET:
  - Front page: Top story "The 'Estonia' Report". Heavy waves and weak construction of the visor sank ESTONIA. These are the conclusions of the International Commission's Report. The catastrophe could however have been avoided if the Classification Society Bureau Veritas had been more alert.
  Headline: "Bureau Veritas Is Accused." "The Catastrophe Step By Step." Only at the bottom is there a small note on the Jeltsin Visit.
  - Page 2: Two-column comment: "After Three Years."
  - Page 4: Full page: "Weak Visor Picked Out As Casualty Cause". New information in the Final Report of the Commission puts the blame for the weak visor which caused the casualty on the Yard and Bureau Veritas.
  "The Yard Criticises Many Items." "More And Better Locks On Russian Vessels." Drawings illustrate the last hour of ESTONIA and the scenario of the Commission. Interview with Wanda Wanninger (Wachtmeister).

  3) GÖTEBORG POSTEN:
  - Page 1: Three-quarters of page: "Weak Locks And Late Alarm. ESTONIA's Sinking Explained On 228 Pages. Now The Legal Follow-up Begins."

  5th day - 5 December 1997
  The reactions to the press conference were:
  - in DAGENS NYHETER : Nothing.
  - in SVENSKA DAGBLADET : On page 6 a quarter-page article: "The German Yard Criticizes The Report."
  - in TT PRESSEN (nationwide): "The Yard does not accept any blame."
  - in GÖTEBORG POSTEN: "German Criticism Against The Estonia Report."
  "The Yard Is Supported By Sweden." Christer Lindvall, managing director of the Swedish Masters' and Ship Officers' Association, agrees to a certain extent that 'ESTONIA' sank due to poor maintenance and not faulty design or construction by Meyer Werft.
  In the morning Lennart Berglund and Anders Lindström, managing director of Sjöfartsverket, were interviewed on Breakfast TV and Lennart Berglund stated to have reliable information that Åke Sjöblom had discovered the damaged bow ramp and tried to stop the ferry. Lindström reacted with obvious shock and said he knew nothing about this, but would certainly investigate it.
  This triggered off some press activities which were, however, overshadowed by the new developments in the Palme murder case, which were told to the media in a separate press conference at 10.00 hours. Probably for this reason the press conferences of DIS and SEA at the same time were just attended by one or two journalists.

  6th day - 8 December 1997
  The Exhibition was reopened at 11.00 hours and the visitors streamed in more than before and the questions were sharper and more precise because all of them had read the comments in the papers, followed the TV and radio comments and sometimes had even studied the JAIC's Report respectively were in the process of doing so and wanted to fill gaps by looking at the Exhibition and asking questions. This was exactly what this 'Group of Experts' had expected.
  A number of retired masters, pilots, engineers, divers and even safety inspectors from Sjöfartsverket came and stayed on an average of two hours. Many came again on one of the next days. In addition, people calling from all over the country and also from Finland, offered their knowledge, photos, videos.
  The repair manager of Turku Repair Yard, Arvi Puroya, also visited the exhibition and upon being questioned he stated that
  - N&T had not booked any drydocking space for January 1995 for ESTONIA,
  - nor had he received any repair specifications.
  He also confirmed that the only JAIC member or expert who had ever visited the yard was Tuomo Karppinen.
  One of the visiting retired pilots stated that the traffic controller of Sandhamn had told him that he had frequently seen ESTONIA passing on her way out with the visor slightly open. This was mainly during the last weeks before the casualty.
  Another visitor said that the weather statements in the JAIC's Report were wrong and "selected". The naval architect Per Fagerlund stated that he had immediately called his friends at SSPA when he heard the nonsense of Karppinen that the speed had had no relevance for the catastrophe and they had strictly rejected to have found anything during their tank tests which would support that and also had made it quite clear that they did not want to be quoted in this connection.
  A visitor, who refused to tell his name, stated that he had been working for Stolt and had been on the Stolt diving support vessel "STOLT COMEX", which had been on the ESTONIA position already a few days after the casualty and which Stolt immediately offered to Sjöfartsverket for a diving survey. He said that they had made some tests in the early stages and measured radio activity near the vessel.
  In the evening the Swedish JAIC explained their findings and conclusions to the survivors and relatives. Reportedly Mikael Huss said that the Yard had not only miscalculated the loads, but had also used the wrong low quality steel. Ann-Louise Eksborg said that the manual locks were only to be used if the others were out of order. The expert of DIS, Alve Wendt, put the question to Mikael Huss, whether they had considered what would happen to the ramp hinges if the vessel would proceed with fully open ramp and 15 kn speed against head seas? With certainty the hinges would break. M. Huss replied that this had been neither considered nor calculated, although it was part of their scenario. Note: See Subchapter 34.10 - The hinges would break and the ramp fall off.

  7th day - 9 December 1997:
  About 300 visitors were counted.

  8th day - 10 December 1997:
  On Breakfast TV 2 Sten-Christer Forsberg - the Technical Director of Nord-ström & Thulin - was interviewed in connection with the conclusion of the JAIC. He admitted the general responsibility of N&T for the conditions of the vessel upon departure from Tallinn with exception of the too weak locks. They had no knowledge about this hidden defect and said that had they known, they would have rectified it.
  Forsberg, however, was not confronted with the repair specification of the last Finnish crew from September 1992.

  9th day - 11 December 1997
  Among the visitors were Ann-Louise Eksborg and Gunnel Göransson from the Swedish JAIC, who did not contact the guides.

  10th day - 12 December 1997
  On this day from the Finnish JAIC chairman Kari Lethola with his administration director and the two managing directors of the Swedish Masters' and Ship Owners' Association, Chister Lindvall and Per Ringhagen, visited the exhibition.
  Also the truck driver Torbjörn Cederkvist appeared and confirmed:
  - the burning off of the lug of the starboard side lock;
  - the burning off of mating boxes for securing bolts;
  - the dismantled flaps between bow ramp and car deck at the port side and crew members pulling them into position after the ramp had been opened;
  - frequent water on car deck at sea, car deck doors open not locked at sea;
  - water still streaming out of the closed visor, when he drove from the vessel in Stockholm;
  - the port ramp hinge was broken and the crew was unable to close the ramp for some hours;
  - the vessel returned to Tallinn for repairs on one occasion;
  - vessel moored stern first in Tallinn at least 2-3 times.
  His statement was taken and he was available whenever required and also prepared to testify before the public prosecutor.
  Note: But was never heard.

  11th day - 13 December 1997
  Apart from visitors, the survivors Sarah Hedrenius and Pierre Thiger came and had a close look. Their statements were taken in June already, thus just some new information was discussed. Both rejected the conclusions of the JAIC entirely on the basis of their personal experience.

  12th day - 14 December 1997
  This was the last day and although it was a Sunday some 150 visitors came until 19.00 hours when the Exhibition was closed.
  It has to be assumed that about 2.500 visitors saw the Exhibition this time.
  The "Black Book" already offered to the visitors of the first exhibition for writing down their feelings and impression was put again on the table near the entrance and was put again on the table near the entrance and many visitors made again use of it. The entries - translated into English - are attached as Enclosure 40.4.484.

  40.5
  "Why did Estonia sink?"
  The Engineer Knows the Answer.

  Seminar Organised by the Royal Technical
  University (KTH) Stockholm on 01.12.97
  This seminar, planned already to take place in June, had to be postponed due to the delayed publication of the JAIC Report because it was practically a presentation of work and results of the JAIC. Since Swedish was the main language the Finnish lawyer of Messrs. Meyer Werft did attend and his report reads as follows:
  "The purpose of the seminar was apparently an attempt to explain for shipbuilders and engineers the conclusions drawn by the JAIC in its recently published report.
  Among the audience one can find a number of representatives for the shipbuilding and shipping industry in general, but also some insurers and lawyers.
  First speaker was Ms. Ann-Louise Eksborg, recently appointed chairman of the Swedish national commission.
  She discussed the aims and purposes of commission work mainly from an internal Swedish point of view, emphasizing the importance of the JAIC integrity especially towards those authorities, who supervise the activities subject to an investigation, i.e. The Board of Navigation, the Board of Aviation etc.
  She took it for granted, that parties subject to an investigation would not participate in the work.
  On my question whether she thinks these high principles were followed b the JAIC she immediately grasped the purpose of the question and admitted, that the Estonian members were not impartial if measured by this standard, but she explained their presence in the JAIC with the allegation that apparently all Estonian navigators are or have been employed by the ESCO. There should, however, not remain any doubt among the audience after this answer, about the fact that the JAIC was clearly prejudiced.
  Tuomo Karppinen then ventured to explain the sequence of events as per the JAIC's apprehension, first stating that times given have the exactness of ± 2 minutes.
  Karppinen then stated that some of the points of time given are more reliable than others, as these can be explained by means of outside sources; such are: the time of departure, the time for passing the waypoint, the time for the first MayDay message and the consequent radio traffic, as well as the time or the Estonia disappearing from the radar screen of the Mariella.
  Karppinen, however, started the summing up of the events with the "bang" heard by the AB, and after that, in my opinion, all points of time are in fact based on the indications given by crew members, not by the passengers. Accordingly the JAIC is, albeit the point of time cannot be verified, of the opinion that the events started at 00.55, that the visor locking devices were broken between 1.05 and 1.10, and that the visor fell off at 1.15 with immediate list as a consequence.
  From the evidence recorded it is apparent, that the JAIC is not, as said, attaching any greater significance to statements by passengers.
  Karppinen also described the maneuvering of the vessel at this period of time, i.e. the total lack of maneuvers with the exception of the fact that the speed was turned down when the vessel already had a severe list.
  A member of the audience very in detail expressed his opinions how a vessel in a situation like this should be maneuvered, by reducing speed, turning the stem/stern against the sea etc., to which Karppinen responded that obviously, if the vessel had been turned such that the angle to the sea would have been abt. 90 degrees, the water could not have entered through the ramp at all and the vessel would have been saved. Karppinen had obvious difficulties with explaining to the audience why the JAIC did not clearly say this in its report.
  After this discussion, there could not be any uncertainty in respect of the fact that grave errors by the crew significantly contributed to, if not even caused the accident."
  In respect of Rahka's paper, as far as I could understand, the difference in opinions between the yard/the JAIC viz. the strength calculations regarding the visor locks is now being explained with reference to a turning moment caused by the impact of the seas coming from abt 30 degrees to port from the vessel's line of heading.
  Rahka emphasized a number of times that irrespective of how the calculations are made ,the locks were too weak anyhow.
  Rahka denied, that the JAIC would have said that the speed was of no significance at all; he (and Karppinen) stated, that a speed below 10 kn, would have nullified the risk of visor failure, but the point is that speed impact is linear while wave impact is proportional.
  As to Huss's two papers, there was nothing extraordinary to be mentioned.
  Fransson discussed the Solas requirements as to the placing of the collision bulkhead extension, and concluded that the solution onboard Estonia was in conflict with the applicable rules.
  Much was discussed about the original approval by the FBN and subsequent approvals by the BV on behalf of the Estonian BN. I did ask Fransson what his opinion is about the alleged seaworthiness of the vessel at departure from Tallinn, if the vessel de facto was in breach of the Solas requirements, and he transferred the question to the JAIC representatives, of which Karppinen ventured to answer. He said, that the seaworthiness statement in the report is to be understood as a legal and formal one only! This answer no doubt is the more peculiar, as the breach of the Solas requirements clearly is a "formal and legal" failure, as the vessel no doubt had valid certificates.
  In the end I asked Karppinen about the repair list from the Turku repairyard, and the answer was that in fact this was not a quote, but a summary of the items the deck officers had forwarded as a "wish", and Karppinen's rather unfounded conclusion was that actually there were nothing at that time to remark about the locks/hinges/packings!
  He had no proper answer to the question that the list no doubt also comprised items which the JAIC has chosen to mention as unrepaired, that is the packings. How the JAIC has arrived at the conclusion that the remaining items were not of importance or, as he is saying, did not exist, is unclear.
  He did after the seminar take great pain in explaining to me that the list is not an usual "to do" list, but something else, which I refused to understand.
  As such the seminar was interesting, but too comprehensive with too little space for adequate questions; too much was packed in the program. Another problem was the heterogeneous composition of the audience, a number of participants with knowledge based on media information only took up the time with self-evident questions.
  I met afterwards Karppinen and Rahka on the airport, and we had a pleasant discussion waiting for the much delayed plane.
  I told them that my opinion is, that they have an uphill task in convincing the interested parties in respect of the correctness of their conclusions, as the JAIC in the eyes of any outsider is prejudiced, and as some conclusions, such as the role of the crew, are obviously quite wrong. The two gentlemen admitted the difficulties with the Estonians once more, but emphasized of course the value of their own contributions. They welcomed me or my prospective principals to study the background material now available at the VTT."
  Nothing more remains to be done but to compare the investigation results of the JAIC with those of this 'Group of Experts', which is done in Chapter 41.