Quote: "A little information of the tragedy: The disaster of this is the ship catching fire in 1990, killing 158 people." -From Wikipedia.org here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Star.
It was planned and for that reason I choose to call it a conspiracy theory. Now, I don't usually throw myself into conspiracy theories, but the society seems incredibly naive on what goes on, democratically speaking, so I put myself on the outside of it as a "conspiracy theorist"/clown to see if I'm actually right, defeating a headstrong "right or proper" public (that is probably so unknowing, almost as I hear the feeble words, "but what could I know?".
Someone delivered a highly combustible/flammable finish to the ship's corridors well knowing of its potential risk. The friends and acquaintances of this supplier on the hidden mission of someone, put it on fire.
Manipulating some of the alarms and knowing the ship's system, this was an insurance fraud and a well planned crime set on fire by laundry and a shining finish, a cosmetological shape-up.
The information afterplay can be seen as a social separator.
Results:
A society entertainment scheme,
a lot of feelings,
great drama and
astonishment of disaster,
and finally, a hidden investment scheme and insurance fraud.
What's the insurance fraud? As with dumping cars in some lake, it lies in the outcome of an upgrade, a make-over of the ship.
Conclusion: I think a more correct sentence by the judge would be to grant a certain sum of insurance money well below or somewhat below the cost of both a new ship and a make-over, that the owner(s) get neither. If it could be proven that deep recklessness has been part of the tragedy, the owner(s) should have had nothing.
By Terje Lea, 10.03.2005. 31.01.2010. 06.03.2010. 09.03.2010 and 23.05.2010. End.