Hi Mr Purdey,
I'm happy to agree that a waypoint change was made. That much is known as fact.
With regard to the aircraft turning away (or not as the case may be) I have to say that personally I don't know what happened between the waypoint change and the crash. I have ideas, beliefs and suggestions but I cannot say with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what happened. I also believe that no one else can either!
I take your point, to a degree, on precise figures, but would you agree that some of the questions are unanswerable due to ther being no recorded evidence (time of waypoint change, for example). Yet, some of these answers were presented as 'known facts' during the review of the Board process, ad subsequent reviews.
I agree with you about my 'benefit of the doubt' comment. Chippy63 and yourself are quite right, and I apologise for not getting my point across as meant. I was trying to say that the verdict of negligence was given after assumptions were made (purely to try to make sense of what little hard evidence there was to work with). Questions have been asked about safety of these assumptions and to that end, there are areas of doubt. The pilots should be given the benefit of that doubt, and not convicted outside of the parameters of the rules.
I hope that explains it ... or have I confused the issue further?
I have read the book by Mr Campbell, and whilst I admit it is an interesting read. Mr Campbell's conclusions are just as plausible as other views offered, as it is not backed up by hard evidence. This in itself negates the verdict as another possible solution may fit known facts. If Mr Campbell is right, would you say that the pilots were negligent, or is it an error of judgement?
However, the bottom line is that we will never know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Hopefully, this answers your points. If not, please come back to me.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook