JP, interesting post.
But the unpleasant fact is that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion of negligence
Again, I ask you to brush up on the meaning of the word 'fact'. Even if what you say is true; that the evidence points to a conclusion, is not proof beyond any doubt is it?
Please show us the facts, I said facts, that point conclusively in any other direction.
I can't. I don't need to, as the onus of proof is on those who have to produce evidence beyond any doubt whatsoever that they were negligent.
Chocks has said the rest.
As I pointed out way back two years ago:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found
Now JP, if we are to avoid these circles answer some of the questions put to you, like the one I posed recently:
Answer one question then: Why do you wish to see the finding stand, when there are no facts to support it?