Cazatou
It is, of course, for the BoI to establish which witnesses might have relevant and important evidence to give, and to decide which are the most important, or are likely to be the most reliable, witnesses. It is not incumbent on the Board to interview every potential witness, and they might reasonably limit their questioning to those who are thought to be the source of the "best" evidence. After that, apart from summarising what they saw or know which might be relevant, any witness can only respond to the questions put to them by the Board. Perhaps the Board felt that the crewman could, at best, only repeat what Mr Holbrooke had to say. That does not make them incompetent. However, Mr Holbrooke himself has made clear that his evidence to later inquiries was drawn out by questions which were not put by the original BoI. For the MoD to translate this into "he changed his evidence" is disingenuous in the extreme. Whether his evidence actually sheds any light on the cause(s) of the accident is another question entirely.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I think the crew might have been at least partially at fault, but I do not believe the evidence is, or ever has been, conclusive. On that basis alone, this verdict is unjust and should not stand.
Regards
Ginseng