Originally Posted by
Air Snoop
This is all very true and the jury probably returned the correct verdict in response to the evidence as they heard it. However, unlike in Scotland where a third verdict of 'Not Proven' is available, the English verdict of 'Not Guilty' has the broader meaning of either the accused didn't do it or the case against him/her was not totally convincing. I'm a pilot so legal beagles please tell me if I'm talking scribble.
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster.
Indeed, as I understand it, but in England the court can only consider the charge the accused is indicted with. "Not Guilty" doesn't mean "innocent", it means the prosecution has failed to prove that specific charge. Usually, the CPS will bring the charge they are most confident they can prove. If they fail to do so, because there is a reasonable doubt, the accused is Not Gulity.
This incident was a tragedy for everyone involved, but I doubt AH intended to crash that day. It's natural for victims to want to blame someone [same with fatal illnesses] and I do wonder what sort of posts we would be reading if AH had not miraculously survived [or indeed if he had ejected and survived - IF he ever was inside the seat's envelope].