John Blakely,
Re your Post #2387.
Quote "Have a look at the "join" in the BOI Stn Cdrs comments where the first findings were rejected from above and ask yourself if this is the way the RAF should be dispensing justice in a criminal case."
As you will be aware there were in fact 5 "Reviewing Officers" in this case. The first of whom ,OC RAF Aldergrove, confined himself to commenting on aspects which related to his Station.
OC RAF Odiham concluded his comments by stating that the Captain of the aircraft had a "Duty of Care" to the Passengers and that he reluctantly concluded that the Captain had failed in that "Duty". That is your definition of "Gross Negligence" which was the finding of the AOC and CinC.
The AOC concluded that the Co-Pilot, as the incoming Detatchment Commander, had a duty to persuade the Captain of the Aircraft from following the course of action which resulted in the crash. There was another crew available who were rested and fed and had no "Crew Duty" limitations which could affect their decision making. He therfore concluded that the Co-Pilot was also guilty of negligence.
Uniquely in my experience the BOI was then "Staffed" at MOD level and reviewed by CAS before publication. No change was made to the findings. Therefore the findings were essentially the same at every level from Stn Cdr to CAS and not confined to a cabal of AOC and C in C.
Rather than a "Rush to Judgement" the process took so long that Publication was further delayed to avoid coinciding with the anniversary of the Crash.