Eyewitnesses can be mistaken (ask any Human Factors expert or psychologist - eyes are about 70% efficient let alone considering any mental processing errors)
What an arrogant and unsupportable statement that is! If the evidence doesn’t fit what you want then ignore it or change it eh! Or bring out wild generalisations to support a nebulous statement.
Unfortunately, such unacceptable ideals and actions seem to be the norm for BOIs - they were only too obvious in the BOI that I mentioned earlier in which I was involved. Fortunately, as the Controllers 'friend' or adviser or whatever the term was, I was present for most of the evidence gathering and witness statements. At times , I was utterly staggered at the whole proceedings. Evidence was ignored or forced to fit the facts, witnesses were allowed to alter statements etc etc. Thus, when the 1st BOI report was published, it was little more than a fabrication that pointed unequivocally towards the conclusion that best suited the RAF, not the conclusion that was true. Only after our concerted and detailed response, which included the very real threat of further (including legal) action, was the BOI re-convened. Even then, it was a constant battle to get evidence properly reviewed. Ultimately, we were successful but even at the death, the RAF would not fully accept its responsibilities or liabilities.
Dick – was Spot present when the BOI interviewed witnesses or gathered evidence? If needsbe, we can talk 'off-board' so to speak.