As a further consequence of the Lennart Henriksson interview the Estonian Government ordered on the 7 March 2005 the forming of an expert committee “to investigate the circumstances related to the transport of equipment for military use on the ‘Estonia’ ”. The order was on 6 October 2005 extended to the effect that it should additionally be investigated whether there were substantial circumstances related to the causes of the sinking of the “Estonia” which had not been investigated thoroughly enough.

The young prosecutor Margus Kurm was appointed as chairman of the expert committee and has ever since questioned numerous witnesses in Estonia, Sweden and Finland, collected substantial quantities of material, however, was denied permission by Johan Fransson to talk to the divers having carried out the divings on the wreck in December 1994 from “Semi 1” and furthermore, was also not allowed to talk to the Navy divers having performed the secret divings on the “Estonia” already early October 1994.

In March 2006 Margus Kurm submitted his preliminary Report to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice.  According to the Swedish news agency TT the Report was immediately classified and kept secret for 3 weeks, whereafter a (PART) “Report of the Committee of Experts formed for the investigation of circumstances related to the transport of equipment for military use on the ‘Estonia’ in September 2004” was published – see Enclosure 33.  The Report is hereafter called “the Kurm Report” and in summary its contents can be explained as follows:

(1) JAIC Investigations criticized
It was criticized that the JAIC did not do everything possible to rule out explosions onboard and did restrict the divers’ examination to the bow area only without having the complete hull examined, which would have been necessary in order to rule out underwater damage to the hull as cause of the sinking.

(2) Shocks, Vibrations and Scraping Noises
Generally Kurm puts much more importance on the statements of the survivors as the JAIC did, and, among other things, evaluates the evidence concerning the three heavy blows/shocks which made the ferry shake and vibrate shortly before the first heel to starboard.  More than 50% of the survivors have testified respectively and at least 5 did report about scraping noises from below which were heard simultaneously.  The survivors associated those shocks and noises either with a collision or with explosions since a grounding had to be ruled out due to the water depth and proceeding through ice was also not possible at this time of the year.

Note: The JAIC explained the shocks and scraping noises by “Estonia” running over her own visor which had allegedly just fallen off.  This is for a number of reasons impossible, because : (a) If the visor would have fallen off  it would have sunk like a stone. – See the Technical Opinion by the Technical University Hamburg-Harburg in our Report, Chapter 34.11, pages 1208 ff. (b) It has been proven by survivors’ statements, e.g. Pierre Thiger and others, that the visor was still connected to the ferry when she was already on the side. (c) It has been further proven by the technical evaluation of the video material available and the damages to the visor/its actuators that the visor remained attached to the vessel at least until the ferry was more or less upside down. – See in this context Chapter 3.2 of this Update.

(3) Water on Deck 1
Also this most important fact was hardly investigated by the JAIC, in fact the Finnish member of the JAIC, Tuomo Karppinen, is up to day alleging that there was just a “trickle of water” on Deck 1 without ever having spoken to one of the survivors from Deck 1.  In fact the statements of survivors from Deck 1 clearly prove that there had been a lot of water in the alleyway and partly also in cabins which came from below, i.e. Deck 0, via the lift casing and the spiral stairway.  All this was properly evaluated and understood by Prosecutor Kurm.

(4) A Hole in the Starboard Side
Kurm also refers to the diving expedition in early December 1994 which was organised and paid for by the Swedish Sjöfartsverket (Johan Fransson) and partly carried out on behalf of the Swedish JAIC.  (Estonia was just represented by one observer and Finland reportedly not at all.)  Kurm also picked up the statements by the ex Swedish Navy diver who did testify among other things to the Finnish lawyer Henrik Gahmberg, that during divings by Swedish Navy divers already in early October 1994 on the “Estonia”, he had seen a hole in the starboard side. – See Enclosure 34 – Statement Hakan Bergmark.

Kurm further explained that it was revealed from the official video footage of the December 1994 divings and ROV examinations that one ROV had been inside the cardeck, however not through the partly open bow ramp (gap was too narrow) but through an unknown opening in the starboard hull plating in way of the cardeck.

Note: See in this context also Chapter 12 of this Update “A Geotechnical Opinion on the Basis of the Underwater Documentation (ROV)” by Dr. Jan Laue of the Technical University, Zurich – concludes that there are indications of a hole at the starboard side in way of the forepart of the cardeck.

(5) Professional Discretion
Kurm explained that his expert group attempted in vain to talk to the divers of the December 1994 expedition, who were, however, obliged to professional discretion according to their contracts with the Swedish Sjöfartsverket.  Johann Fransson, the responsible director, refused to release the divers from their obligation to remain silent, even 11 years after the divings, which doubtless made it even more important for Kurm to talk to them and it is indeed just a question of time when this will occur.*

(6) Secret Documents in the USA
In the last part of his report the prosecutor indicates that the US Intelligence Agency NSA has three documents in connection with the sinking of the “Estonia” which are classified because they do affect the National Security of the United States.  This is revealed from the investigation by the US journalist Drew Wilson in accordance with the “Freedom of Information Act”.  The document was published in his book “The Hole” in April 2006 – see www.diggorgpress.com.

So much for the published part of Margus Kurm’s Investigation Report, which, strangely enough, does not mention with a single word the subject in the heading, viz.: “…. The investigation of circumstances related to the transport of equipment for military use on the passenger ferry ‘Estonia’ in September 1994”.  Consequently it has to be assumed that there is much more in his complete Report, which is, at least for the time being, too sensitive for the Estonian Government to be published and it remains to be seen when the public will be finally fully informed.

*In the meantime the Swedish Government gave permission that representatives of the International Consortium may talk to these divers.