|
Questions concerning liability
|
 |
 |
1) Why has there been no official
investigation of the causes of the accident? |
|
|
The German authorities saved the main wreckage
pieces especially for this purpose and repeatedly offered to the Swedish
consulate in Hamburg, as the representative for the Swedish authorities,
to carry out or to help with an official investigation. The consulate had
been very busy with the case and was well informed. It first delayed the
response for a long time, and finally on November 23 in 1950, after valuable
time and important evidence had already been lost, the consul, Torsten Bergendahl,
categorically declined all offers concerning an investigation. Any reasons
for this rejection are missing in the archives, and it is even unknown if
the consul decided on his own or upon order from Sweden. One can assume,
however, that the relevant Swedish authorities had some general knowledge
about the serious flaws in Ormen Friske's construction and possibly thought
that they would be embarrassing for Sweden. Perhaps there was also the intention
to protect the relatives of the victims and other involved persons against
legal controversies on compensation issues. |
|
2) What would have been the effect
of an investigation? |
|
|
The result would have been the same as in the
present analysis of the photographic material. Because the construction
flaw that made the keel break must be considered as the result of gross
carelessness, the responsible public prosecutor would have been forced to
investigate concerning the crime of causing death through negligence in
15 cases. ("Who causes somebody else's death through negligence,
is sentenced to prison for up to two years or, in case of a minor offense,
to fine. Severe crimes are punished by prison from six months to six years.
When judging whether the crime is severe, particular consideration shall
concern 1. whether conscious risk taking of a serious kind is involved,
or 2. whether the offender, when special attention or skill was needed,
was influenced by alcohol or any other substance or otherwise was guilty
of a serious neglect." Swedish Criminal Code, chap. 3, § 7). |
|
3) Against whom would have been investigated? |
|
|
The construction drawings had disappeared without
trace directly after the accident. But it is known who took part in drawing
them. These were three persons: the project's initiator and leader, Sten
Schröder, the only one of those with liability who later fully took
part in the disaster voyage and lost his life, shipbuilding expert Sam Svensson,
who later took part in the disaster voyage only for the first day after
the start in Sweden, and Bror Westerlund who later was the foreman of the
team of shipbuilders that built the ship. |
|
4) Who knew about the extremely weak
point in the keel? |
|
|
Because the keel was not covered by color paint,
many must have seen the five plank joints below the stern edge of the keel
swine. Besides Bror Westerlund, there were five other shipbuilders. During
the spring equipping in 1950, when the boat was still docked up after the
winter rest, once again many must have seen the weak point. First and foremost,
however, the three men who had made the drawings, Schröder, Svensson
and Westerlund, must have seen it several times with attentive expert eyes.
The later victims of the catastrophe, apart from Schröder, had no chance
to see it, because they came from all over Sweden first to the start of
the voyage, when the boat was launched already, with the keel no longer
being visible. |
|
|