John P
“I am not quite clear what this all might have to do with the unfortunate Chinook meeting a granite hillside”.
I think the point is that, for the purposes of this thread/campaign, we do not have to know precisely what caused the crash. The criterion set by the MoD’s own rules was absolutely no doubt whatsoever – a far greater test than reasonable doubt (a Select Committee’s words, not mine). It is for MoD to prove guilt, not others to prove innocence.
Given that many believe the MoD have breached their own rules in this respect, if one could demonstrate reasonable doubt, then in an honest world the verdict would overturned. I believe being able to demonstrate weakness or failure of process and procedure as to the basic airworthiness of the aircraft constitutes reasonable doubt; especially when one can point to the MoD’s own admissions. Please note. The issues I discuss are not supposition or theories, they are facts acknowledged by the MoD, which they choose to ignore. Yet they are quite content to base their guilty verdicts on supposition and theories.
That smacks of having something to hide.