41.2
Differences in Methodologies

When this 'Group of Experts' set out on its assigned task there was considerable experience in writing and structuring of similar reports especially with Capt. Hummel. But then there was the Report of the Court compiled under the direction and written by the Hon. Mr. Justice Sheen on the capsizing of MV HERALD OF FREE ENTERPRISE. A similar accident, brilliant in its clarity and style and - so we still think - an ideal example to use. Justice Sheen in the descriptive part of his Report used the "historical" method in compliance with general practice in writing such reports. The facts are presented in timely order. This 'Group of Experts' hence applied this method as well but adjusted it as far as possible to the different methodology applied by the JAIC in the compilation of their Report in order to ensure comparability of the texts of both reports as best as possible. (See Subchapter 41.1.)

The Report of Justice Sheen sets a further example: It compiles all facts relevant to the casualty without regard to source and consequences. No facts are disregarded. Facts deemed relevant which however could not be clarified were clearly marked as such. This 'Group of Experts' has accepted this standard and attempted to adhere to it to the fullest extent possible. There were however additional problems in this investigation. Those who had information and knowledge pertaining to the sinking of ESTONIA were often unwilling to share it with this 'Group of Experts' or purposely mislead us by offering wrong information. Evidence was destroyed or manipulated. This 'Group of Experts' has therefore augmented the standard by the rule, that facts are only considered to be true if and when they are confirmed by other information.

Last but not least Justice Sheen sets a third example when he draws conclusions only that are fully supported by and not in contradiction with the facts collected and found to be correct. This 'Group of Experts' has accepted that standard as well and complied with it.

The methodology of this 'Group of Experts' can be summarized in three sentences:
1. Collect and describe all facts provided they pertain to the Casualty.
2. Ensure confirmation of the facts and state which relevant facts are not obtainable or not ensurable.
3. Draw conclusions only provided they match with all confirmed facts.

The JAIC - according to their own statements - applied a completely different methodology. They commenced their work by the establishment of a hypothetical assumption of the cause of the accident. Already on the 1.10.1994 Kari Lethola informed the press, the JAIC strongly believed that failure of the visor caused the casualty. See Subchapter 37.2 . On the 17.10 1994 the JAIC published their 2nd Interim Report containing the assumption that the visor had separated from the ship as a result of failure of all three locking mechanisms. When this statement was made, the accident had just happened 19 days ago, the visor had not even been officially located - that happened a day later - see Chapter 24 - and it took another month before it was brought to the surface for inspection on 18.11.1994 - See Chapter 26 - and another two weeks before it was inspected on 2.12.1994 - See Subchapter 37.2. In a press release of 16.12.1994 the JAIC was already able to confirm its opinion that the strength of the locking devices for the bow visor in combination with the sea loads on the visor in the prevailing wave condition and headway of the ship was the main cause of the accident.
For investigators to work out a theoretical assumption first and then to see whether the facts fit into it, is unusual because such procedure contains the danger of a biased selection or treatment of facts given the nature of human beings. Such method does not merit criticism however if and as long as the investigators have the will and the intellectual flexibility to abandon their preconceived assumptions if not all the facts fit them.
Despite numerous discussions between the members of the two investigating bodies, described in detail in Subchapters 38.1 to 38.3 and the presentation of new facts by this 'Group of Experts', the JAIC on 02.04.1995 published its Interim Part-Report the conclusions as to the cause of the accident had not changed, which did not surprise us, but we were stunned to read that the findings published in this interim report 2,5 years before the publication of the Final Report will remain unchanged See Subchapter 38.3.
The fact that the JAIC did not find a path out of its own prejudice was however by far not the worst malpractice exercised by them in the course of their investigation. Contrary to generally accepted standards again emphasized by Justice Sheen the JAIC from the very beginning of its investigation destroyed evidence vital to any attempt to find the actual cause for the catastrophe. An outstanding example is the bolt of the Atlantic Lock. Having established and published that it was the locking devices, which had failed due to faulty design; the JAIC should have made every possible effort to present the essential piece of evidence to prove their allegation. If nothing else fairness and decency vis-à-vis the accused builder should have commanded such action leave alone the order of the three Primeministers, who had founded the JAIC, to find the true causes for the disaster. Given the importance of this piece of evidence the reason for dumping it into the sea and thereby into oblivion can only be qualified as affront: against everybody affected by the catastrophe: It seemed more important to Mr. Stenström to take the ship's bell with him in the helicopter and it did not appear to him that the bolt could have been sent by normal surface mail if he attributed such importance to the bell. For the sordid details see Chapter 27.
But evidence was not only destroyed, it was also tampered with to an extent unheard of in modern history for an investigation instituted by Westeuropean governments. Again one example will suffice. Reference is made to Chapter 34.6 where the manipulation of the underwater video-tapes is described.
As the reader might now assume evidence was also disregarded when it did not fit into the hypothetical assumptions. Again just one example out of all those described in the previous Chapters of Part C of this Report: The recordings made with video cameras of the wreck by divers of the Swedish Navy, when they surveyed it in the first days of the month of October 1994 and those of the divers, who were in the wreck during the investigation of the wreck by the divers of Rockwater A/S have never been presented to the public although members of the JAIC were present on the diving platform at least during the inspection by the divers of Rockwater A/S. See Chapter 27 and Subchapter 34.6.