I have gradually been working my way through the various annexes to the main BOI report which we have obtained through the FOI Act.
What I quote now, I find very disturbing. The following are extracts from Annex F to Part 2A (dated 30 APR 04) headed
Board's Detailed Response to XXXX (name blanked) QR 1269 (7) Comments.
A question is raised by Spot and his solicitor on BOI findings as to the change of the AXIS formation route given to the Court Martial:
It is noted that XIS formation was “uncertain of their exact route”. Arising from this uncertainty, two routes have now been proffered:
1 Route 1 - The route exhibited by Sqn Ldr XXXXX under oath at Court Martial.
2 Route 2 - The new route that has been provided to the Board.
[/QUOTE]
The Response by the BOI was:
The Board has included the route produced and signed by the 4 members of the formation shortly after the accident rather than the route produced by only one member under the stress of cross-examination
Extraordinary !! I was at the Court Martial. The evidence given under
oath by the
leader of AXIS formation followed the introduction of a
pre-prepared map of their route given as an exhibit. There is absolutely no question that this was drawn under the
"stress of cross-examination"
It is now suggested by the re-formed BOI, that a route was produced and signed by the all members of the formation, shortly after the accident, that was totally different to that produced at the Court Martial.
It would seem blindingly obvious that the RAF Prosecutor would have been aware of such vital contadictory evidence, so why was it never challenged at the Court Martial ?
I remain convinced by the eye-witness statements and less convinced by every effort to undermine them. Please bear in mind that Route 2 (above) now conveniently aligns with the previously ignored eye-witnesses.