Changing Stories
It seems that the eyewitnesses are crucial to the Support Group’s theory as to ‘cause of accident’. It is also very apparent that the BoI has realised this and their findings indicate an unhealthy bias in the use of available information towards their own, seemingly, pre-determined conclusions.
I don’t buy into this new evidence from Axis on the route they followed in the area of the crash site. The news of the crash would have been ‘hot poop’ in the crew-room not long after they had landed. Human nature says that the crews would have discussed how close they had been to the crash site ( it looks to be no more than 1nm!), the route they followed and the weather would have been principal points of discussion. If the weather had been as stated by the witness to the 2nd Board of Inquiry, then the route should have been clearly remembered, particularly if it caused the formation to take a significant re-route to get back to the Lairig Ghru. I would suggest that the bad weather and whiteout conditions mentioned by the crew to the 2nd Board of Inquiry were obviously not around Ben MacDui at the time that Axis flew by on their first account of the event.
I’m sure that such crew-room discussion formed the basis of the evidence that the Axis crewmember gave to the Court Martial; he would have also given the same evidence to the original Board of Inquiry shortly after the accident; no excuses about the Court Martial being a long time after the accident, please. Things now start to get more than a little ‘smelly’.
1) Was the Axis witness to the 2nd Board of Inquiry the same one as at the first Board ? If not, why not ? More than ‘dodgy’ if the 2nd Board has used another crewmember to refute the evidence of the original crewmember.
2) If it was the same witness, was his new evidence admissible? He has now given evidence that is inconsistent with what he said previously at the Court Martial.
3) If the same witness, was he reminded of his original evidence given under oath ?
4) Does ‘not remembering’ a route constitute evidence that should be used by a Board of Inquiry’ to contradict or refute eyewitness accounts given previously under oath at a Court Martial.
5) Was he coerced by the Board of Inquiry to change his statement?
6) Was a route suggested to him by the Board of Inquiry that might have tied in with eyewitness statements?
7) Has perjury been committed?
Personally, I think this Board of Inquiry and it’s findings are on very dodgy ground. Notwithstanding the above, it appears that they have ignored or disregarded relevant material and come to a conclusion that is not based on evidence. I have read the comments made by the Station Commnder, AOC 3gp and the CinC. I am in no doubt that they have apportioned blame, intentionally or otherwise. The controller has already been found not guilty by a Court Martial.
Yet another MOD conspired travesty of justice is in the making !
Could someone give the full sequence of events relating to the eyewitnesses please?