Originally Posted by An Teallach
Green Granite
By the tenor of your post, you seem grossly to misunderstand where the burden of proof lies in this case. JP is not correct: The burden lay on Wratten and Day to prove that the crew were grossly negligent "beyond any doubt whatsoever." Therefore, it is not for us to prove that control jamming (or any other possible cause) was the cause of the tragedy, it was for the reviewing officers to prove that no cause(s) other than gross negligence by the crew resulted in the tragedy.
An Teallach You are, like every one else who posts on the subject lately, paranoid about people who do not appear to share your view of things. The statement I made "that the possibility of something happening is not evidence that it did happen" is correct, and therefore jp is correct in that one satement of his, that no evidence of of any technical fault exists. if any other of his statements are true is a matter of conjecture.
I am quite aware of the issue here and I agree that there is no
evidence that the crew were grossly negligent "beyond any doubt whatsoever."
on the other hand there is no
evidence that they were not, therefore the benifit of doubt must go to the air crew.
Conjecture is not
evidence but a lot of people here seem to think that if they repeat things often enough it will become so.