John Purdey wrote:
"But the unpleasant fact is that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion of negligence - high speed, low level, in cloud, aircraft under control and so on."
There are precious few facts in your list of "facts", JP. There is evidence that the aircraft was at high speed, low level & in cloud, but ONLY at the point of impact. The Air Marshals' contention was that the negligence occurred significantly before impact, and of that there is NO evidence whatsoever. Indeed the only eyewitness reported seeing the aircraft travelling slowly and in sunlight. But, of course, you know all this already.
"Please show us the facts, I said facts, that point conclusively in any other direction."
This is the approach that the Air Marshals took - it must be negligence because there is no evidence that it wasn't. Guilty until proven innocent?
"I first took an objective interest in this tragedy because, as an experienced aviator myself, I could not believe that some of the explanations being floated were serious ones (sabotage; controls suddenly jam and the magically free themselves just before impact ,are two of them."
I accept & agree that sabotage, DME equipment planted by fairies, and all the other nonsense detracts from the whole process. However Sqn Leader Burke and others reported first hand experience of a number of technical issues on HC2's which cleared themselves and left no evidence, but again, you know all this already. How can you discount such a possibility with ZD576?
"I appreciate that the game-plan of the Mull Group is to keep the balls in the air, but we are not only going round in circles, but going round in the same circles!"
Not quite sure what you're implying about the work of the Mull of Kintyre Group here, however are you not one of the people who persists in leading us round in these very circles?