The Conclusions drawn by this Group of  Experts in May 2000 and presented in Chapter 43 of its Report stand.  No amendment or alteration is necessary. 
In this Update we have shown that in the course of the  past six years - and in particular after the disclosure of Lennart Henriksson  in November 2004 - the attitude of the Governments in Sweden and Estonia seemed  to have changed to more openness and transparency whilst in Finland taciturnity  remained to be the dominant attitude, when it came to the foundering of the  ESTONIA.  
 
Nevertheless some of the evidence, which has been  established and reported by this Group of Experts many years ago was finally  accepted officially in the societies of Sweden, Finland and Estonia at its  actual value. 
This refers for example to the video footage produced  by the Finnish ROV on 02.10.94, i.e. 4 days after the sinking. Here one can see  – as we have pointed out repeatedly  –  that the rails of bow ramp were cut-off and that the preventer wires were detached  from the bow ramp.  Since the rails and preventer wires had  been  attached to the bow ramp upon  departure of the vessel from Tallinn and as both are not accessible at sea,  they must have been cut off respectively detached after the sinking and before  02.10.94 by divers. We have brought this conclusion to the attention of the  JAIC, the Governments, the media and the public in our Report, during  the AgnEf Seminar and elsewhere – as did the  Independent Fact Group – the only ones who picked it up after 5 years were the  Swedish Parliament member Lars Ångström and the Estonian prosecutor Margus Kurm.  Ångström presented it to the entire  Parliament and to Transportminister Mona Sahlin, whilst in Estonia it became  part of the Kurm Report. 
 
There is, however, other evidence which still waits to  be acknowledged at its value and importance such as the orange cube at the  portside bow ramp coaming, which was years ago identified by different experts  to be an explosive charge.  It had not  been there on 02.10.94, but it is clearly visible on the videos of 09.10.94. No  doubt it must have been placed there during the days between the 2 and 9  October 1994 by divers.  Considering the  damages at the starboard side created by an explosion what other conclusion can  be drawn from this fact, but that this explosive charge failed to detonate,  when the one at the other side of the vessel did ? 
 
There must also have been other activities around and  at the wreck between May 1996 to August 2000 as the videos of the  Rabe/Bemis divers show. Since the Swedish  Government curtailed the order of investigation given to the National  Laboratory of Forensic Science to the timespan from 02.10.94 – 06.12.94 these  activities will not be further investigated yet. 
 
On the other hand the evidence indicating the  existence of a large hole in the starboard hull at the forepart of the cardeck  has been confirmed by the scientific evaluation of the respective video footage  by a soil expert.  Furthermore the  detailed evaluation of the entries into the logbooks of the Finnish Coast Guard  vessel “Tursas” for the relevant  days did reveal, that the reason for the endless search cannot have been the  unability of the detection of the visor but that the search was most likely  conducted for another object, a rather small one and therefore difficult to  find. It must have been thrown or fallen over board from the sinking “Estonia”  and was - and possibly still is - of considerable importance to the Swedish  Armed Forces. Which other reason could there have been for the presence of the  Swedish Commander Tönnström onboard of the “Tursas”  ?   Apparently the “Tursas” did not find it, because after  the visor had been found “officially”, “Tursas”  was withdrawn and three Swedish mine hunters continued the search by means of  their sophisticated sonar noses. 
 
Also the evaluation of the video footage available of  the “finding” of the visor and subsequently after the lifting of the visor does  indicate that the visor had been moved before the “official finding” because 
             
              
                a) there is  respective damage at the visor, and 
                b) it has been  proven that the visor remained attached to the vessel until she was almost  upside down. 
               
              The various examinations of the metal samples cut off  of the starboard front bulkhead carried out by different institutes do prove  that there had been an explosion and this is not contradicted by the BAM  examination, whether the “Spiegel” and others like it or not. 
                 
                By means of the brilliant video footage produced by  the Rabe/Bemis divers it was for the first time possible to explore the actual  condition of the front bulkheads and the bow ramp much better and in much  greater detail. By combination of this material with the already existing visor  photos and repeated evaluation of same it has been shown that the visor had –  most probably – been pushed up by an explosion. This fact seems to be known by  surviving crew members from Estonia. 
                 
                The joint evaluation of the Finnish ROV – videos with  the police and a member of the JAIC revealed irregularities, namely that most  of the videos had been manipulated and at least one was missing. It also  revealed an absurd method ot filing of important material in “hobby archives”  of government agents. In this context we note with interest, that the Finnish  JAIC states in writing, that they have 20 videos of the Smit/Rockwater divings  in December 1994 in their possession whilst the Swedish JAIC states that only  17 videos do exist.  It remains to be  seen what the SKL-inquiry will produce, although Sjöfartsverket Director Johan  Fransson did already tell the media about “the really unfortunate  disappearance” of certain video films. 
                 
                As stated above all this was started by the Lennart  Henriksson interview.  The reason for the  tremendous importance of this interview seems to be the fact, that the Swedish  public for the first time had to realize that their Government had not only  lied to them but had deliberately concealed crucial facts, which, in all  probability, had relevance for the causes of the sinking of the “Estonia”.  The resulting pressure from a large and  increasing number of Swedish citizens on their Government forced the  Hirschfeldt Inquiry. But here again an established pattern functioned: The  inquiry brought no result because it apparently should not do so.  Simultaneously the Estonian Government, however, decided to have a new  investigation on all the circumstances related to the sinking – including the  role of the JAIC - and appointed the young prosecutor Margus Kurm as head of an  expert team with far reaching authorities. In addition, the Estonian Parliament  appointed an own Committee of Investigation to ascertain the circumstances  related to the export of military equipment by means of the ferry “Estonia”. 
                 
                The preliminary Kurm Report was classified after the  Minister of Justice had read it and only parts were published several weeks  later. 
                 
                The Report by the Parliament Committee of  Investigation was published after last minute changes, however, signed by 5 of  6 Committee members only.  The 6th  member, who refused to sign the Report was Evelyn Sepp, who subsequently  published a dissenting opinion referring to the role of the former Foreign  Minister and Committee member Trivimi Velliste. He had at first stated to the  Committee that the transport of military equipment onboard the “Estonia” had  been known to all Government members and subsequently did withdraw this  statement. 
                 
                The above  seems to allow the conclusion that Evelyn Sepp and Margus Kurm have apparently  set their minds to the accomplishment of their tasks with disregard to the  interest of others as well as to political considerations, however, there are  obviously still forces within the Estonian Government not yet prepared to  disclose the full truth. It remains to be seen whether Margus Kurm’s and Evelyn  Sepp’s honourable intentions will come to fruition by the publication of the  complete results of their further work.  
                 
                This Group of  Experts will follow the further developments. It needs to be stressed, however, that it’s members will restrict  their efforts to the investigation of the technical reasons for the accident of  MV ESTONIA.  
              Hamburg, November 2006 
              
                
                    | 
                    | 
                 
                
                  |   | 
                  Dr. Peter Holtappels  | 
                    | 
                  Captain Werner Hummel  | 
                 
                             
                  |