On the night of the 28th of September in the year 1994 the worst maritime disaster in peacetime occurred in the Baltic Sea, claiming 852 lives and with a mere 137 people surviving the sinking. An accident investigation committee was swiftly set up, and was later to be christened The Joint Accident Investigation Committee, or J.A.I.C. abbreviated. This was a combined venture between Sweden, Finland and Estonia. This quickly drew criticism due to the fact that such an approach strongly deviates from international law and due practice, in regards to both maritime and aviation accidents and regulatory measures. This article intends to highlight a severely flawed investigation, disregard for international law – and how politicians, officials and the media – contributed to make all this possible. Moreover, blatant hypocrisy will be exposed, concentrated to the Swedish side, since they effectively took control of the investigation, thus sidelining the Finns and the Estonians.
Sealing the unanswered questions
In December of 2025 the Swedish authorities decided to close the investigation forever, citing the initial highly criticised final report – dating back til 1997 – after all, was correct in its conclusions. And not only this, they openly proclaimed material obtained throughout the years was set to be erased, material mainly consisting of recorded interviews with surviving crew members and passengers alike. Amazingly enough -or not- as will be shown, this move sparked no protests from politicians or officials, as well as no criticism from the media whatsoever. However, one survivor filed a complaint to the Swedish Justice Department, it is safe to say that the outcome will not be in the survivors favour.
Let us turn the tables for a moment and imagine this took place in Russia. Every Swedish politician would compete to be the loudest and most outspoken in condemnation. The media would be in a frenzy, spewing out article after article claiming a cover-up and even a false-flag operation, of course ordered by President Putin and executed by the FSB. This is actually common in the Swedish media when a terrorist attack takes place in Russia. When covering Russia journalists in Sweden need not abide by journalistic principles at all. They simply write what they wish to, void of any sources or evidence. How could they anyway, they state their opinions as hard facts even before any investigation even has begun.
To turn the table once more, how are individuals in Sweden treated if they put forward something critical of an official investigation, the M/V Estonia in this case. Usually they are simply ignored. Depending on who comes forward, the media exploits two tactics, the individual in question is either ridiculed, or some “expert” is brought forward, who simply proclaims the cause has been determined and the report is correct. Strangely enough, these “experts” are never asked to elaborate on the issue. If someone dears to call the accident a false-flag, this person will immediately be labeled a conspiracy theorist, and nowadays, payed by Russia to spread misinformation. Indeed, a sad state of affairs reveals itself.
A forged investigation
To return to the casualty itself – and why the official investigation is severely flawed – the official explanation to the sinking assumes large amounts of seawater flooded the vessels car- and cargo deck following the failure of the ships bow visor. The consequences of a flooded car deck are however well known, it will entail a rapid decline in stability causing the vessel to almost immediately capsize, resulting in few – if any – survivors. Yet 137 individuals survived, it is also to be noted that several more persons managed to abandon the ship, but perished either in the cold water or before they could receive medical attention ashore. Most notably is the fact that 21 individuals residing on deck one, a cabin department located beneath the car deck, managed to survive. Furthermore, also all three engine room crew on duty survived, their place of work located one more deck below.
One would think that those individuals had the worst prospects of reaching safety upwards in the vessel. There is an eerie explanation for all this. Survivors from deck one described significant amounts of water rushing through the corridors. The engine room crew reported there was large amounts of water in the engine room and efforts were being made to pump the water out utilising the emergency systems. None of these testimonies states that the water was penetrating from above, on the contrary, obviously the water ingress was taking place from the vessels hull. Or to put it short, they had prior warning something was terribly wrong.
How did the investigation handle these reports then? Regarding the engine room crew, the statements were altered in subsequent interrogations, the parts about water in the engine room and the efforts to pump it out were omitted. No explanation has ever been put forward to explain this. In regards to statements of passengers the investigation had a somewhat different approach. Their sitings were either manipulated or simply ignored. In the final report observations of water on deck on are not mentioned with one single word.
An alternative cause emerges
The consequent question thus arises, how did the ship really sink, and what was the course of the events? Well, firstly, witness accounts approximate the sequence of the sinking was ongoing from 40 to 60 minutes, which is totally inconsistent with a flooded car deck. Secondly, and even more importantly, survivors from deck one reported a violent and abrupt big heel as they made their way upwards. But, and this is vital, they also noted the vessel thereafter reversed slowly, gaining an almost upright position, temporarily stabilising it and making it possible for those far down below to escape. Hence, it is reported, the ship slowly started to tilt over and ultimately perish. Needless to mention, none of this is broached in the final report, since it basically refutes the officially described chain of events. The sinking procedure is more in line with damage to the vessel beneath the waterline. This is consistent with the observation by the engine room crew and the passengers residing beneath the cargo deck alike. From a stability point of view the above description is in line with how a ship with damage beneath the waterline behaves.
The modus operandi of the J.A.I.C. seemingly was to determine a cause on beforehand and doing everything in their power to find circumstances supporting the pre-determined cause. For certain, this approach is unheard of in proper casualty investigations. Thorough inquests start from zero and meticulously grind through all possible aspects before even thinking of drawing any conclusions. Countless of experts are involved, as well as marine judicial experts, because the vast majority of incidents at sea end up in what is known as a sea trial, where possible legal consequences can be handed out. Nevertheless the J.A.I.C. also here choose to deviate from common practices for some unknown reason, or were they simply afraid that no international court of law would have accepted the way the investigation was performed?
Another blatant deviation, which is a vile part of the event, is the humane aspect. Early on it was promised that the deceased would be salvaged and the remains returned to relatives for proper burials, as far as this was possible. Moreover, promises regarding salvaging the wreck itself for proper inspection was put forward. And here one of the weirdest aspect in the story started to unfold, since it soon became clear none of this was to be, despite two private companies offering to undertake the whole operation. Instead the investigation chose to hire a company going under the name of Rockwater, who were given specific instructions not to salvage any corpses. Consequently the whole operation only focused on documenting the wreck in areas chosen by the investigation. The events were later to turn even more absurd when it was decided to designate the wreck itself as a burial ground, and proscribing any diving expeditions or even vessels to approach or enter the area. Up til this day the area is guarded, as several private excursions can bespeak, who swiftly – and sometimes even aggressively – were pushed back.
One notable exception occurred in 2020, when a team found a hole in the middle of the vessel below the waterline. This was brushed off by hastily summoned “experts” who presented the fantastic claim that the ship had hit a rock as it settled at the bottom of the sea. Just there is one problem, the seabed surrounding the wreck is almost devoid of rocks.
The absurdities in this case do not end there. A couple of years after the casualty it was, seriously, proposed to cover the wreck in concrete, thus sealing it off forever. The process was actually initiated but, thankfully, aborted before any concrete reached the wreck. Probably officials realised how blatantly preposterous it would look undertaking such an unheard of measure.
The demise of a proud democracy
All this took place in a nation which prides itself with its supposed openness, respect for democratic values and transparency for its citizens, as well as abiding by human rights. Yet still it handled a disaster of great magnitude in stark contradiction to the invoked values. The public, and relatives of the perished, will never get any answers about what really took place that fateful night in the Baltic Sea. The relatives were also denied the opportunity to give their loved ones a dignified burial. This must not – can not – be accepted, even though this appears to be the case. Politicians, officials and the media have created an impenetrable wall of silence. In light of all this, one thing is for certain though, Sweden is the last country to point fingers at other nations, which it so often likes to do, and never misses an opportunity to do.
No responses yet