CHAPTER 39

THE YEAR 1996

This was the year of change when this 'Group of Experts' had to realize that the JAIC was not really trying to find the truth but was fighting for a particular truth as already stated before.

 

39.1
Communication and Investigation up to March 1996

In January some time was spent drafting the reply to Börje Stenström's letter of 22.12.95 which - finally - was agreed and sent by fax of 22.01.96 to Sweden. As the contents is of some importance the questions with answers shall be quoted below:
1. On top of pages 4 and 6 you say that von Tell submitted and B.V. approved load calculations for the locking devices. The only document we know about is the short telex from von Tell to B.V. informing that they had used LR rules for defining the strength of the locking devices and were somewhat high on shear stress (must presumably refer to the locking bolt). Have you seen any calculations?"
as to 1:
We have seen part of the telex exchange between von Tell-Hamburg and Gothenburg and also have seen some of their memos. From both it is revealed that there have been discussions (probably by telephone) between BV-Hamburg and von Tell-Gothenburg, and it has to be concluded that von Tell-Gothenburg have made calculations. This is also confirmed by the telex you have quoted and which is in your possession. To answer your question, we have not seen any of the von Tell calculations as we do not know where the files from von Tell-Gothenburg are, if they should still exist. We do conclude, however, from what we have read and heard from von Tell-Hamburg that such calculations have been made."

2. On page 6 you further say that von Tell produced drawings sent to the yard for production. The von Tell drawings showed the von Tell deliveries and the complete assembly but not installation arrangements. Agree that the parts indicated by von Tell as "Werft Lieferung" are not clearly identified as information or as manufacturing guidance and we say in our text that this may have been misleading."
as to 2:
The parts marked "Werft Lieferung" in the von Tell drawings are generally according to scale respectively oversized in case they had to be made to fit for installation onboard. These parts are always drawn in such a way respectively the dimensions are stated in such detail that burning diagrams for the 1:10 shop could easily be made and/or the detail drawings were directly used for production. When questioning the yard workers having done the above-mentioned work in 1980 there was not the slightest indication that this "may have been misleading" - as you say in your report."

3. On bottom of page 6 you say that the yard compared the von Tell design requirements with own results. Again, where are von Tell design requirements given?"
"as to 3:
When we say von Tell design requirements then we mean dimensions and form of the von Tell parts as could be taken from the drawings respectively from the information on the drawings supplied by von Tell. In other words, the yard obtained the load requirements which von Tell had based their dimensioning of the locking devices on by drawing conclusion from these dimensions and comparing the results with own calculations. In addition, this matter was certainly also discussed on the telephone, possibly personally."

4. Page 7, item a), refers to welding tables instead of drawing information. The steel drawing for the visor does indeed contain very detailed welding information for welds which may be regarded as standard, such as butt joints between plates of different thickness. It is lacking, however, details of the non-standard welds, such as welding 60 mm thick plating. This seems to be contrary to your explanation."
as to 4:
The steel drawing does contain some welding information and we agree to your statement that butt joints between 2 plates of different thickness have to be regarded as standard. This, however, does not refer to shape of the respective steel plate edges. It is for this reason that at the lower right corner of drawing 1103 very detailed dimension sketches can be found. The same refers to other dimension sketches on other parts of this drawing. We assume that your missing welding information is for the 60 mm plate. This can be found in way of the visor arms (butt joints) as well as on the very detailed sketch of the welds of the cylinder lifting lugs. In both cases, however, the measurement information does not refer to the thickness of the welding seams but to the preparation for the welding seams. The thickness of the welds is only indicated by the thick-black coloured area. For comparison please look at the detail "visor arm/bushing", where you will not find any measurement. Consequently no welding preparation was required because a fillet weld was planned. The black-coloured area, however, indicates a rather thick weld and reference is made in this respect to page 8c, i.e. the thickness of the weld should be between 50% and 70% of the thickness of the structural member to be welded. Due to the very clearly and easily recognisable black-coloured area the welders could not understand why they should not have followed instructions."

5. Page 8, item (b). the lugs of the bottom lock show clearly that the holes for the bushings were made by machine flame cutting. The lugs for the hinges show at several places a machine flame cutting pattern. (The coarse flame cutting pattern still being a question-mark.)"
as to 5:
We have to assume that the lugs for the bottom locks including the holes in the lugs for the bushings had been made by the 1:10 shop by means of machine flame cutting. The lugs for the hinges, however, have been definitely drilled. This is confirmed by the evidence of those who have done it in 1980, the respective drawings, photos and, last but not least, the remains of the hinges at KTH. In particular, the outer port hinge - showing only very minor burning marks at one location - demonstrates the original condition of the hinges at time of delivery, whilst at the stb. hinges due to the severe burning marks 10-15 mm material is missing. This is contrary to your previous statement when you said that the initial thickness would be still there.
In summary we agree that the holes in the lugs for the bushings of the Atlantic lock have probably been machine flame cut, although we have not yet found the respective drawing for the 1:10 shop (probably due to the use of "Diana II" drawings). As far as the holes for the hinge bushings are concerned, however, we emphasize that these were drilled, which we are able to prove and have done so already. We strongly suggest that you re-measure the hinge remains at KTH again and you will find out that at the stb. hinges there is 10-15 mm material less than at the port hinges. That leads to the conclusion that at the stb. hinges at least 10 mm material was missing (taken away by the burning) which at port side is still there. What effect that had on the alignment of the visor you may conclude yourself."

6. Page 9, first para. We have not seen any von Tell drawings giving welding information to the yard."
as to 6:
The respective drawing will follow shortly."

7. Page 11, last para. We understand that Viking Sally was on the contrary a few hundred tons lighter than originally estimated."
as to 7:
"Viking Sally" was not a few hundred tons lighter than originally estimated, but during the building phase the steel weight was continuously controlled very carefully in order to avoid overweight which would reduce the deadweight figure. As a matter of fact, AB Sally commenced arbitration proceedings against Meyer Werft claiming that the vessel was too heavy and thus could not carry the contracted deadweight, which, however, was not found by the arbitrators.
All this has nothing to do with the welding seams which, in total, correspond only to max. 2% of the steel weight.
Your assumption is probably based on the well known fact that Meyer Werft vessels have proved to be heavier and stronger than ordered for decades."

8. Page 12, 4th para. We have no documentation showing that the bottom lock was installed to meet a design load of 132 tons. If available, please provide. Bottom of the same page, the safety factor is not so easily defined in a design where base material and welds carry the load simultaneously because the welds have some much lower ductility once the yielding strength is exceeded."
as to 8:
The 132 ts figure is based on 7.5 mm welds and on a permissible tension of 150 N/mm². (7.5 mm welds were initially applied.) The safety factor considered can be defined as the proportion between the nominal tension and the tension of the breaking tension of the basis material."

9. Page 13, bottom. Was the extract from the von Tell drawing with the length of the side lug S70 released by the yard for production? If so, based on which calculations? As far as we can calculate, the strength of the side lug installation was somewhere around 100 tons when subjected to the combined pulling and bending force. This matches the actual tests carried out in Helsinki."
as to 9:
The lugs of the side locks were made according to von Tell drawing. The yard has made sure that the length was sufficient. The relatively low LCC of the side locks is not due to the too short lugs but due to the wrongly placed stiffeners at the bulkheads behind the lugs."

10. Page 15, mid. The "Copenhagen Convention" you are referring to certainly does not put any obligations on classification societies but contains an agreement between the Nordic countries that classification societies may be authorised to perform certain functions under the jurisdiction of one country and agreement that such authorization will then be accepted also by the other administrations."
as to 10:
Name and application of this convention was given to us by the Finnish Board of Navigation as an explanation why they did not become active in SOLAS matters concerning vessel's structure."

11. Further observations. I have looked back on ROV videos and have seen views of the bottom lock sensor mounting plate where the smaller holes for the magnetic sensors are clearly visible. Still no signs of the sensors themselves."
as to 11:
- We have also had more closer looks at the mounting plate in question and still did not find any sign of sensors, which, according to a member of the relief crew had been removed already several months before (due to damage sustained during the ice-winter 1994). In our opinion it is also clear from the videos that the cables for the sensors have been cut.
- The condition of the rubber packings we have discussed so many times and we have nothing to add to this.
- The visor was not flooded during sea trials (there were 4 people present, among them the BV surveyor Lohmann and the von Tell representative Todsen). At 22 kn speed and vessel pitching in head sea near Helgoland some water was leaking through the packing. After return to Emden they carried out the chalk-test and found that the packing at one location was not fitting tightly enough; a flat bar was welded in way, the packing fitted again, a high pressure hose test was carried out, and the visor was accepted as being weathertight by owners, BV, Yard and von Tell. (Signed acceptance or delivery certificate has been sent to you.)"

"Have also seen plenty of rubber packing on the forepeak deck in various state of separation from the flat bars. Understand the visor was flooded already during the sea trials. Do you have any information about how this was corrected."
"General:
You will recall that the quantity of water at sea inside the visor respectively the height of the water level has always been in dispute between us. Although there are very clear water marks inside visor and outside the (closed) ramp you would not accept this, which we could never understand until you gave us the explanation for your attitude. Your explanation was the gap at the lower port side in way of the securing bolt (which did or could not engage the mating pocket at the ramp side), i.e. there was a small opening of the bow ramp through which water would have penetrated the cardeck much earlier already with serious consequences, which it obviously did not do and therefore the water could not have been as high in the visor as we say. Upon my question where do you know this from, your answer was that the gap was caused by the severely twisted port outer hinges of the bow ramp, which had been stated in the working list several times for repairs but had not been repaired because it is a major item. We have thereafter looked a bit deeper into this and can see on the videos that the hinge was under repair. We have also found the explanation for water in the visor up to the visible marks, i.e. above the gap, and still no water on cardeck (at least not in dangerous quantities, i.e. crew members have plugged the gap each time bow ramp/visor were closed when they had to go down anyway to hammer the bolt of the Atlantic lock closed and at the same time plugged clothing, sheets, rags and the like into the bow ramp gap. You can still see these rags, etc. hanging respectively being pressed in way of the initial gap." The complete letter is attached as Enclosure 39.1.466 and its contents have never been disputed by the JAIC.

On 8 January 58 pages of the index from the Swedish JAIC's register were received and carefully studied. The non-classified documents of interest, in particular the statements of the survivors, were ordered and subsequently copied and sent to Hamburg by members of the SEA relatives organisation. The statements and other documents arrived in bunches in the course of February and March and were very carefully studied, which took some time since they were in Swedish. Reference will be made to this further turning point in the investigation under the respective month. On the same day the Swedish JAIC plus the Sjöfartsverket observer Sten Andersson met again with S.C. Forsberg and Ulf Hobro from N&T who were accompanied by their lawyer. No details of the meeting are known.

February: In an internal meeting of this 'Group of Experts' it was decided to build a mock-up of the Atlantic lock with as-found welding seams, i.e. 3 mm, and have it pulled to destruction. The JAIC was informed accordingly and it was offered to have the break test performed by VTT or any other institute in the choice of the JAIC. After some time Klaus Rahka - the Finnish metallurgist expert - came back on behalf of the JAIC and declared that the JAIC was happy with the "Institute for Shipbuilding" (Institut für Schiffbau) of the University Hamburg to perform the break test, but that the JAIC would like to attend. The preparations for the tests, to which Klaus Rahka submitted own proposals, commenced and took several weeks. The JAIC Report was now scheduled to be published on 15.06.96. At the same time this 'Group of Experts' started the publication of a request to the Swedish people in the Swedish Text-TV for photos, slides, videos and other documentation/information about the condition and performance of the ESTONIA during her 20 months in service under this name. The request was repeated daily for 6 months and led to several slides, photos and videos, among them the so-called "passenger video" of 19.09.94 which shall be commented under "April" when it was received.

March: One of the highlights of the month was the publication of the book "Katastrofenkurs" (Catastrophe Course) by Anders Hellberg and Anders Jörle. Hellberg was working as journalist for DAGENS NYHETER and had proven on several occasions to have had confidential access to the classified files of the Swedish part of the JAIC while Anders Jörle was then working in the Stockholm office of "GÖTEBORG POSTEN"
The conclusion of the book written after more than one year of investigation was:
The sinking of the 'Estonia' had been caused by the failure of the visor hinges which were considerably pre-damaged by faulty and unqualified performed repairs. The catastrophe was programmed and could have had occurred practically at any time. Contributing factors were the facts that the master had not been on the bridge during the decisive last 15-20 minutes and further that the vessel departed from Tallinn with full port ballast water tanks but still had a starboard list.

This was, more or less, a confirmation of the tentative casualty scenario and cause consideration of this 'Group of Experts' and in complete contradiction to the JAIC. Stenström said that he would not read the book, but his colleagues had done so.

 

39.2
The Break Tests and the FE Analysis of the Visor

The first break test of a mock-up of the Atlantic lock with 3-mm welds (as-found) between bushings and lugs was carried out by the Institute for Shipbuilding of the University Hamburg in the presence of Tuomo Karppinen and Klaus Rahka of the Finnish JAIC.
The result was the breaking of the big visor lug at a load of about 210 ts, a result which was in total contradiction to the calculations and findings of the JAIC and hectic phone calls between Karppinen/Rahka and Stenström followed. For details of this and the break tests performed subsequently reference is made to Subchapters 34.3 and 34.4. The result of this first break test meant that the break load of an intact Atlantic lock installation on the forepeak deck would have been in excess of 210 ts. As the lugs on the forepeak deck failed at the accident whilst the visor lug held, it follows that the lugs on the forepeak deck of ESTONIA must have had a holding power inferior even to a new lock with only 3 mm welding seams.
At this time the attention of the JAIC was also drawn to the results of an FE analysis of the visor and the loads on its locking devices which had been performed by the Technical University Hamburg-Harburg - see Subchapter 34.2. The result of this scientific analysis was that as long as the visor hinges were intact the load on the Atlantic lock was only in the range of 50-60 ts. - much less than on the side locks - and that the force direction was towards aft and upwards. Only after the visor hinges were broken the load on the Atlantic lock almost tripled and the force direction changed towards forward/upwards, i.e. the mode in which the lugs failed at the accident. All this was submitted in detail and in combination with the detailed break-test results to the JAIC, however without any obvious result. Upon request of the JAIC three further tests were prepared, i.e.

- with a strengthened visor lug to find out the break load of the 3 lugs with 3 mm welds;
- with tag welds between lugs and bushings;
- without welds between lugs and bushings;

Klaus Rahka attended at one further test and he even made written proposals - see Enclosure 39.2.466.1 - the others were left to the "Institute for Shipbuilding".
In any event, it had been established that an intact Atlantic lock installa-tion with 3-mm welds only failed at a load of 210 ts, and that the visor lug made of mild steel was the weakest point. It was further established by the FE analysis of the visor performed by the TU-Harburg that the load on the Atlantic lock was comparatively small, less than 1/3 of the break load, and that the force direction was aft/upwards as long as the visor hinges were intact. Since the lugs on the forepeak deck, however, broke in a forward/upwards mode at a load below 210 ts, it has to be concluded
(a) that the visor hinges were already broken when the Atlantic lock failed and, further,
(b) that the Atlantic lock installation was no more intact, a fact that was confirmed by the investigation of Prof. Dr. Hoffmeister. See Subchapter 34.8.

All this in combination with the side lock break-tests results by VTT, Helsinki, indicated very clearly that the intact, i.e. as built, locking devices of the visor had by far not been as weak as the JAIC had outlined in their Part-Report and this 'Group of Experts' could correctly demand from the JAIC to correct their load assumptions and conclusions. This, however, was not done in spite of all the contradictory evidence, which could not be better demonstrated than by the fax that the Swedish JAIC administrator Gunnel Göransson did send to the 'STERN' representative in Stockholm in April 1996. It reads - office translated - as follows:
"I hope you received the DN article, Anders Hellberg, who wrote the article did follow up the commission work already from the beginning and did also write a book which has recently been published.

Here are the answers to your questions:
1. Why does the Commission disregard the rumours concerning sabotage, dumping of narcotics, the master involved with the Russian Mafia? The damage scenario is so clear. The Commission has examined the visor and knows that all the locking devices, Atlantic lock and side locks were properly closed when the visor broke off. Therefore the rumours that the visor shall have been opened early and that then the locking devices could not have been properly locked again, cannot be true. Furthermore, if they would have had indeed the intention to dump cargo overboard it would have been much more suitable to do it by the stern ramps.
2. Did 'Estonia' comply with requirements for so-called 'short voyages'? The answer is yes. The law requires that if the vessel proceeds more than 20 nm from the nearest land, there has to be a radio operator onboard and there has to be provision in the lifeboats (food and water). 'Estonia' had this after she flew the Estonian flag and it was valid until the accident. Earlier when 'Estonia' traded between Stockholm and Turku she had an exemption.
3. Cause of the casualty?
The commission maintains its opinion as stated in the technical Part-Report, see page 31. a.)
The locking devices of the visor were constructed with less strength than required according to calculations. Extraordinary heavy weather. The ramp enclosed by the visor construction, etc. The report shall be ready later summer or early autumn. Regards, Gunnel"

Subsequently Olof Forssberg was interviewed by "DER STERN" and the resulting article with the heading "Unqualified Rubbish Talks" published in STERN Nr. 18/96 shall be quoted in parts:

"STERN : Witnesses did reportedly hear already shortly after 20.00 hours starting noises on the car deck ... . What explanation does the commission have?
Forssberg : Of course all sorts of noises were heard. We have heard 135 witnesses (Note: actually they heard 5), however no one heard car noises or did see anything respectively. Furthermore the car deck was control-led by cameras and the pictures were transferred to monitors on the bridge and in the engine room .... . I do not understand that this is taken seriously in Germany.
STERN : Is it true that certain witnesses' statements have never been properly followed up and that they are now classified?
Forssberg : During the pending investigation not everything is public. However, when we present our Final Report all the statements will be put on the table.
STERN : How did the casualty develop according to the Commission?
Forssberg : ... The combination of weather, waves and speed explains why the visor was torn off. In addition, the construction of the vessel, the connection between visor and bow ramp was not very fortunate, and the locks were not strong enough to master the situation.
STERN : Is it true that divers were allowed to examine every-thing on the sunken ferry except for the car deck? Is there something hidden?
Forssberg : In order to be able to enter the car deck difficult burning work is necessary. There was no reason for this. It is irrelevant for our investigation whether there were drugs or cobalt onboard.
STERN : Isn't it wrong to bury the 'Estonia' under concrete in the light of these speculations before possible new evidence has been secured?
Forssberg : We have all the information we need. ..."

The fax from Gunnel Göransson and the STERN article are attached as Enclosure 39.2.467.
The STERN questions were answered and the interview was made well after the results of the break tests in Hamburg and Helsinki were known to Forssberg.
It is also amazing to note that Forssberg states that the JAIC has all information they need while at the same time Stenström, Karppinen and Rahka are preparing a detailed ROV inspection of the vessel and Lethola even considered another wreck examination by Finnish divers. See Subchapter 39.5.

 

39.3
The Passenger Video

On 30 April a 90-second video was received which showed the closing of the visor looking down from the open deck 8. After the visor was closed the operator zoomed on the starboard visor hinge for quite a while and the result was shocking. The video showed very clearly and without doubt that the hinge was in an inoperable condition: The outer bushing stuck out, with its lower half missing and the securing plate was gone as well, just to mention a few of the very serious deficiencies demonstrated by this video. The video was taken by a Swedish passenger only 10 days before the last departure of the ESTONIA, i.e. on 17 September 1994. In order to secure this valuable evidence properly and to obtain the most reliable information from it the reconnaissance expert Bryan Roberts was instructed to evaluate the video tape by means of his acknowledged methods and summarize his findings in a report. For details see Subchapter 12.5 and Enclosure 12.5.180. Various images were made and one was sent by courier on 4 June to Börje Stenström together with the explanation of what this 'Group of Experts' could see on the images/tape, i.e.:
- there is a clear gap between the outer hinge plates vessel-/visor-sides which was obviously created by the steel bushing not sticking far enough through the bore, i.e. the larger part of the bushing is at the outer side of the visor hinge plate. - the outer securing plate is missing although 3 bolts can be seen.
- the lower part at the outer part of the bushing is apparently missing because you can see the end of the visor arm respectively the deck where the bushing respectively the securing plate should be.
- From the original of this photo, which is slightly clearer than the attached copy, you can also see that the hinge plates at vessel's side are not parallel to those from the visor.
- Furthermore, at the inner side there is a rust spot where subsequently the upper fracture occurred.

Börje Stenström replied on 16 June as follows:

"1. Starboard side hinge. Have double checked together with Mikael Huss and Hans Öberg that the free ends of the hinge beam side plates are parallel, not converging as the video picture shows. This may influence the virtual position of the hinge bushing. Will look forward to a computer enhanced picture when available."
The Swedish JAIC showed the images sent to them to N&T for comments. The result is unknown.
In August, during a meeting in Hamburg with the representatives of the relatives' organisations DIS and SEA, Henning Witte and Lennart Berglund, the video tape was shown, without mentioning the date when it was made. After his return to Stockholm Witte informed the press which triggered off some interviews with JAIC members and N&T on which SVENSKA DAGBLADET reported on 31 August as follows:
"The video film was made by a Swedish passenger when 'Estonia' was in Tallinn harbour. Meyer Werft refuses to say by whom and on which date the film was made, but stated that it was "shortly before the casualty".
The film shows quite clearly, believes Meyer Werft, that the port hinges of the bow visor had been manipulated. The yard's conclusion is that carrying parts welded together in order that the hinges function better will lead to weakening of the load carrying capacity.
Shots from the video film are known to the International Commission for more than 1 month and they have received an offer to obtain a copy of the film. This shall be done shortly by the Finnish Commission members, said Olof Forssberg, Chairman of the Swedish part of the International Commission. He refused today to comment on the degree of importance of the picture material as evidence. This will, however, be determined before the substantially delayed Final Report will be published. ..........
On behalf of the owners N&T the technical manager, Sten-Christer Forsberg, rejected the last play-out of the German yard."
"This is nothing new or changed, not everything is as obvious as it seems. We have seen the shots from the video which the yard has sent to the Commission and we have replied that these pictures do not prove what the Germans are alleging", said S.C. Forsberg.
"The pictures are data enlargements and are of the same fantastic quality as the Germans are talking about their own behaviour. We base ourselves only on our own material which confirms that the vessel was 'in good condition' before the casualty", said S.C. Forsberg.
He also rejected the conclusion of Meyer Werft viz. that there should be no welding at load carrying parts in order to make the hinges of the visor function better.
"There have been no welding works at the visor hinges. This is furthermore another one in a line of allegations put forward by the Germans. Earlier they had already alleged that the bow visor was opened when the vessel was in Stockholm. But the visor is mainly not opened when the vessel is in Stockholm", said S.C. Forsberg, who characterised the acting of the German yard as "unethical".
The remarks of the N&T manager shall not be commented, however, the attention of the reader is drawn to the picture on page 292 of this report which shows the ESTONIA at her berth in Stockholm with open visor and open bow ramp.
On 5 September a copy of the video tape together with the Bryan Roberts report was handed over to the Finnish part of the JAIC in Helsinki. It was viewed jointly with Kari Lethola, Tuomo Karppinen, Klaus Rahka and Kari Larjo and everybody realised and recognised the deficiencies as explained in the report of Bryan Roberts. Subsequently the tape was sent to the Criminal Police Laboratory for examination whether it had been falsified, which it was not. Thereafter a copy was sent to Olof Forssberg of the Swedish JAIC, who informed prosecutor Tomas Lindstrand about the video.
By letter of 13 September, however, Forssberg sent the tape to the Military Intelligence Service (MUST) - see Enclosure 39.3.467 - and asked for data processing and contour strengthenings of certain sequences.
The MUST reply came on 20 September and is attached as Enclosure 39.3.468.
The "comments on the picture sequence" by MUST reads as follows:
"Mikael Huss mentioned a 'white line' at the bottom of the visor arm and the right part of the hinge. Upon studying the sequences picture by picture it is visible that this line is connected and sometimes looks broken. We have made 2 examples from each part picture which show these variations.
Such effect might occur with pictures if the distance between 2 objects is just few frames. Sometimes the objects are melting together and sometimes there appears to be a gap between them. This is due to the digital sensor of the video camera, respectively, how this sensor meets the shadow in each single picture."
The result is not negative and it is nowhere mentioned that the video tape is not reliable and cannot be interpreted correctly.
Nevertheless Stenström wrote on 20 September to this 'Group of Experts':
"Regarding the tourist video picture, we have of course studied the report of Dr. Robert with great interest. Unfortunately it does not come out from his report whether the analysis is based on a computer enhanced picture or purely from work with isolated pictures. Was a computer treated picture ever produced? We have looked at the video tape handed over to our Finnish colleagues two weeks ago and have done so on a screen where the pictures could be fed one by one with retained clarity. In this mode most of the details in the hinge area jump around quite a bit and the starboard hinge bushing is twisted clockwise almost as often as it is twisted anti-clockwise. We are attempting to get a computer processed picture from the copy we have and will study further the possibility of a pre-accident damage to the hinge arrangement."
On 28 September DAGENS NYHETER published under the heading "The Hinges of the Visor Were Sound" the comment of Olof Forssberg: "The pictures which allegedly show that the visor hinges were maltreated show instead that the hinges were 'completely sound'."
The article is attached as Enclosure 39.3.469.
On 21 October Anders Hellberg wrote in DAGENS NYHETER under the heading "Video Film Causes Controversies" and quoted the following comments:
"Olof Forssberg: "We do not believe that the pictures show anything new, none of them reveal that there was such a damage as alleged by the relatives."
Hellberg went on to say: "Börje Stenström pointed out that the loads during the casualty night affected the port and not the starboard hinges as the yard is now alleging."
Finally he quoted Sten-Christer Forsberg, the technical manager of N&T, who could find nothing serious in the report of the English expert:
"As far as I understand the judgements of the Swedish defence and the JAIC destroy the basis for the theory of the German yard."
The article is attached as Enclosure 39.3.470.
Börje Stenström wrote on 3 November to this 'Group of Experts':
"Have arranged for a copy of the data processed picture of the deck hinge to be sent to you. This picture is produced by superimposing in a computer program all the still pictures during a time period. In the 'average' picture so obtained the distorsions, which are numerous in any one still picture from a video camera, will be eliminated.
I am still not certain whether Dr. Robert has used such technique or not in his work. In this cleaned up picture we cannot see any signs of the distorsions that Dr. Roberts is reporting about.
Am trying to look into the listing of discrepancies you made in the fax but have very little evidence to by. Likewise we have no evidence of any contact accident with a berth of breakwater, certainly nothing that has been reported to the class."
The picture received showed the same as all the other images and the tape itself. It was nevertheless sent to Bryan Roberts for comments, which read as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of the 12 November and the enclosed print 0:05:17. This is within the bracket of frames I used in my Report. The complete range showing the starboard hinge assembly being 0:05:13 to 0:05:40. These were all used to arrive at the conclusions in my Report.
The frame 0:05:17 is one of this sequence and, with frame by frame re-examination I can see no reason to change the content of my Report in any way. The change of angle between the visor bolt (annotation 10) and the outer bushing (annotation 8) can be clearly seen on images in this sequence and equally well on frame 0:05:17, although the quality of the images I used were rather better than this print.
In assembling my Report I examined all frames on the video tape with any possible relevance to damage or distortion. These were viewed frame by frame on a Sony UP5200 printer/projector which allows visual examination of each frame and printout of selected frames at a chosen degree of enlargement. The ability to scan a sequence allows the comparison of one frame to another and any difference between components of an assembly to be seen."
Bryan Roberts' reply was sent to Stenström by fax of 15 November together with the following remarks:
"Since you have given your photo together with the report of Bryan Roberts obviously to the press - where else should they have got it from - and bearing in mind your and Olof Forssberg's remarks to Dagens Nyheter published on 21.10.96 (copy attached), we will now also give the comments of Bryan Roberts to Anders Hellberg and others."
Stenström's reply came two days later on 17 November:
"To clarify matters, the picture of the starboard hinge first appeared on Swedish TV in an interview with the lawyer Witte, obviously after he had had a meeting with you. Media naturally demanded comments from the commission and only then did we make our opinion public.
As to the technicalities, we have also looked at the pictures one by one and, as I have said before, there is considerable jumping around of the contours of the details. The average picture obtained by superimposing all pictures via a computer program then shows the correct shape, better than any isolated picture. Taking the contour of the bottom of the hinge beam as an example, the "mean picture" shows that it stops short of the hinge bolt locking plate. Many of the individual frames show the same thing. To comment only from an individual frame showing the opposite obviously becomes dubious.
We are at the moment not exploring this matter further."
In other words, the JAIC would completely disregard the evidence contained in this video and that's what they did. It was not mentioned at all in their Final Report. Hellberg, however, wrote again on 25 November, obviously after having spoken to Bryan Roberts:
"Hinges of 'Estonia' Were Damaged.
Dispute about video film, British photo expert rejects casualty investigation. By Anders Hellberg
The 'Estonia' Commission does not believe in the information that the starboard hinge was dangerously damaged when 'Estonia' left Tallinn on the evening of the 27th September 1994.
In case the Commission had taken another attitude a large part of the blame for the catastrophe would be with N&T, having been respon-sible for the operation of the vessel, and with the classification society Bureau Veritas, who performed the inspections.
The members and experts of the Commission, however, do not believe that it is possible to draw the same conclusions from the video, taken on board of 'Estonia' weeks before the catastrophe, as the English photo analysis expert did.
- "This is pure nonsense", said one of the members to DN during the meeting the Commission had in Stockholm last week.
- "The total arm holding the visor is winding like a snake in the film due to unevenness of the video - it is not possible to draw conclusions from such material", said one of the experts.
- "We do not trust the interpretation of the British photo expert who has been instructed by the German yard", said another member.
According to the Yard and the British photo interpretation expert Bryan Roberts the bolt, which holds the starboard hinge, is not there and the bushing through which the bolt should go is partly missing. Thereby the whole hinge should have been so dangerously weak-ened that it collapsed in the heavy weather and was also the cause for the visor to fall off. The Swedish experts of the intelligence Service, MUST, state in their short report that there are variations between different pictures of the film and that this should explain, among other things, why the bushing towards the bolt appears to be broken.
Bryan Roberts said he was astonished by such an attitude:
"It is obvious that on a number of picture details of the deck can be seen which should not be possible to be seen" - this is a fact which is difficult to get around. There can be no doubt that the bolt of the hinge is missing.
Roberts, who has long years of experience as a photo interpreter inside the British Military Intelligence Service, said he had used a number of pictures in video sequences and that his expert opinion therefore was not just based on one frame.
Although the angle to the bushing was changed, it could be seen on a large number of frames on the video. "I cannot understand", said Roberts, "how other experts can come to a conclusion other than mine. I would be pleased to meet them to discuss the matter."
But the Commission consequently cannot trust Roberts without changing their initial opinion stated in the Part-Report from 1st April 1995, viz. that at first the locking devices failed before the hinges broke. According to the opinion of the yard, at first the hinges collapsed due to having been weakened before the locking devices at the bottom of the visor broke."
Thereafter the video film was not mentioned again in the Swedish media but was brought back to the attention of the public by the Exhibitions held by this 'Group of Experts' in Stockholm in June and December 1997. See Subchapters 40.2 / 40.3.