I’ve read through a lot of this and what strikes me most is that it appears, as with everything legal, that the best lawyer wins; and that ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ might be considered a cop-out.
No procrastination or expert opinion (note the word: opinion) will resolve this and I personally don’t buy the CI decision but hey, that’s my opinion.
What is clear is that there were unfortunate deaths and whilst the loss of the individuals is inexcusable, the effects on families and friends can only amplify the loss, hurt and anger. AH knows what happened inside and, obviously, he is either innocent (as proposed by his brief), or guilty. I’m always reminded of sitting in Whittle Hall some thirty-odd years ago, covering values and standards and that often over-looked but oh so important word: integrity. I might have exhibited some terrible behaviour as a young officer but I can honestly say that in thirty two years of commissioned service that I have always performed my duties and carried the responsibilities assigned to me. If AH is innocent then I really feel for him having to carry the burden of these lives for the rest of his; if, however, he was to blame, then think about the integrity word and make the right decision, away from the umbrella of your lawyer.