Meyer-varvet anlitade 1999 en ledande sprängexpert ifrån England, Brian H.L. Braidwood. Han skulle utreda de tulpanformade utbuktningar i plåten runt Estonias bogramp. Detta var en reaktion på att jag, Henning Witte, som var ombud för nästan 1 000 Estonia-anhöriga och överlevande, hittade med min tekniske rådgivare Johan Ridderstolpe officiella film- bilder på sprängladdningar på Estonias skrov.

Braidwood blev känd under utredningen av Rainbow Warrior 1985. Hans utlåtande finns i Meyervarvets utredning.

Ämnet publiceras nu då det norsk/svenska MI6 filmgänget från Discovery har undanhållit den centrala informationen att M/S Estonia har utsatts för flera sprängningar. Filmteamet har censurerat all info som kan väcka misstanken om massmord. Därmed är de misstänkta för brottet skyddande av brottsling, BrB 17:11. För detta borde de åtalas, inte för dykfilmningen, som inte var ett brott mot griftefriden.

Anders Björkman och vissa andra påstår att bogvisiret sprängdes bort efter förlisningen. Detta stämmer inte. Ett engelskt utlåtande som Jutta Rabe hade beställt, kom fram till att mycket syre var med i explosionsreaktionen. Dessutom skulle man inte låta den rosafärgade bomben, engelsk militärbomb Hexakomposit, låta vara kvar om man hade sprängt senare. Sprängskadorna på rampen ger ingen mening om man sprängde efteråt. Dessutom hade man svetsat loss visiret efter förlisningen för att undvika uppmärksamhet. Fanns ingen anledning att spränga bort det. Bomberna skulle sänka Estonia fortast möjligt och ge anledning att kunna peka på en falsk flagga.

34.7.1
Supplementary Investigation Report
by Brian H.L. Braidwood, MBIM, MIExpE, Weymouth/UK

After the discovery of further unexplainable damage in way of the starboard front bulkhead of the wreck above and below B-deck, Brain Braidwood was requested to examine also these areas. His respective findings and conclusions are explained in the above mentioned report which is attached as Enclosure 34.7.1.435.1. As to the damage above B-deck level the expert has concluded on the balance of probabilities:

1. The condition of the port actuator was caused by damage when it ripped through the forward bulkhead on tearing away from its base plate.

2. The lack of damage to the starboard actuator means that the adjacent hole in the forward bulkhead must have existed before it passed through when it tore away from its base plate.

3. The hole in the starboard forward bulkhead was not caused by the starboard actuator.

4. The pattern of petals along the sides of the hole is characteristic of explosive damage.

5. The hole in the forward bulkhead was caused by an explosive device.

6. The damage to the bow ramp is indicative of an explosion.

7. The seat of the explosion was on the after side of the bulkhead.

8. It is possible that the damage above and below B-deck/upper car deck level was caused by the same explosive device.

 

As to the damage below B-deck the conclusion on the balance of probabilities are:

1. The hole in the longitudinal of the manual lock access space by the starboard side of the car deck was caused by an explosion.

2. The damage extending down the ship's forward bulkhead from the starboard side locks was caused by an explosion.

3. The damage to the starboard side of the bow ramp below the level of B-deck was caused by an explosion.

4. The damage to the lower part of the visor on the starboard side was caused by an explosion.

 

CHAPTER 32

UNEXPLAINED DAMAGE / UNEXPLAINED EVIDENCE

 

32.1
INTRODUCTION

 

As this charge attached in way of a very sensitive area - the port side locking devices of the visor and the fastening of the port bow ramp actuator - obviously did not explode, the corresponding area of the starboard side was analysed for possible explosion damage which was positively identified by the underwater explosive expert Brian Braidwood. This resulted in a further analysis of the available video footage all received from the JAIC. The results are outlined in the following subchapters.

.........

The upper void space behind the starboard front bulkhead shows considerable damage to the bulkhead plating with the plating bent from inside to outside and frequently cracked. This had obviously been possible because the upper part of the visor moved forward after the starboard hinges and side lock had failed and never contacted the front bulkhead again, because at the lower end of the blown open plating a big steel part is extending almost horizontally which otherwise would have been pressed back. The same refers to the steel tongue extending from the visor plating in way which was also not pressed against the bulkhead.

The image below on the left shows the lower part of the damaged upper front bulkhead looking from bottom to top. The image on the right shows the damage further up.

- the area between the lug and the hook shows intense smoke marks and had obviously been exposed to heat (arrow 1).

- the bulkhead plating at the change-over from white to blue and deeper is cracked at least twice with the plating severely distorted and plating parts torn out (which exclu-des pounding) - (arrow 2).

- a deep fold in way of the contact area with the flatbars housing the rubber packing of the vessel runs up the aft bulkhead from visor bottom to the hooks (arrow 3).

- the way the two hooks were crushed together (arrow 4).

.....

Final Comment
This 'Group of Experts' emphasizes that the video images and the other evidence discussed in the foregoing are evidently based on the material in the possession of the JAIC. However, the JAIC has nowhere in its report in any way commented on this most disturbing evidence, including the presence of severe structural damages to the hull.