I concur entirely with Ark.
We should be very careful that any statements we make, are unambiguously rooted in fact.
Anybody interested in applying a rigorous standard of proof has to accept that, the only known FACTS are that the aircraft struck the Mull of Kintyre 'below their safety altitude', (only applicable when IMC!) at high speed, and in a high nose up attitude.
Nobody KNOWS how it got there!
A handful of witnesses on the Mull of Kintyre, have stated that the weather was poor, but have also said the weather was 'coming and going.'
NOBODY can tell us the weather conditions experienced from the cockpit. Nor indeed, what was occuring therein.
Though the last known witness to actually SEE the aircraft, very shortly before the accident, speaks of it unambiguosly flying in conditions perfectly suitable for VFR flight!
EVERYTHING ELSE IS A MATTER OF OPINION, AND NOT (r) NOT A MATTER OF FACT.
Including the simulations produced by the manufacturer of this 'unairworthy' aircraft, that suggest a straight and gentle climb from waypoint change to impact.
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent."
These pilots were found negligent, not on the basis of ANY factual evidence, but on the basis, solely of political (with a small p!) expediency.
It remains a complete and utter disgrace.