arsse,
If you really have studied all that's been placed on this and the previous forum, you will know that none of us has said that negligence was definitely not the cause of this tragedy.
As soon as you use words such as 'probably' and 'likely' you simply reinforce the case for overturning this verdict.
The criterea of 'no doubt whatsoever' was not thought up by we campaigners to give the MOD a hard time. It was quite rightly enshrined in the RAF's own rules to protect dead men from the slings and arrows that the living could (for whatever reason or agenda) aim their way whilst they had no ability to defend themselves. That is why the burden of proof is, and has to be, so high.
PprunePop, thankyou. But I must admit to paraphrasing the summing up of the report of the Public Accounts Commitee last year.
Now, pop, can I have the fish back in the message icons?
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.