WOrkER,
my apologies for disappointing you. I can assure you it was unintentional.
From your first post it is clear that you have followed this thread for quite a while. You therefore know that my only intention is to clear the names of friends not in a position to do so themselves. You must also know that I firmly believe that the burden of proof is seriously undermined, and that is the entire thrust of the campaign.
I entirely take your point that we know what the pilots did - they hit the Mull, (as far as the end result goes), but as you say, we shall never know why. This is the same as the conclusion of the Air Marshal. You need to prove why that course of action was taken in order to secure such a conclusive and damning verdict.
Unless we find out why, the verdict of negligence is unsafe. I feel it is incorrect to assume that one knows what was going on in the cockpit following the change of waypoint. The simulation is just that, a simulation, and there are no known eye witnesses or survivors.
As you have been following this thread, I would have thought that you would have known me better than to accuse me of being selective in quoting the Air Marshal just to 'misdirect' others. My views are widely known and there are many who have read all of the Air Marshal's words, and disagreed with his opinion.
I have no problem at all with people having an opposing view to mine, and I respect you and them for it, so please don't accuse me of misdirection. That's not how I conduct business.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook