Originally Posted by pulse1
green granite,
Hopefully, to put this one to bed:
The evidence was the detached pallet springs. FACT.
The interpretation of that evidence is that:
a) they were detached during the impact - probably the most likely one.
OR:
b) they were detached before impact - quite possible as a previous occurrence with this particular aircraft was under investigation.
To say that there was no evidence is illogical, inaccurate and a disingenuous spin of reality.
As cazatou said earlier,
I agree about the pallet springs but my point was that there is no direct
evidence that they
caused the crash, but there remains a strong
possibility that they
might have, and therefore the negligence verdict must be wrong. I think the main problem is the use of the word evidence, It should IMHO only be used for facts which can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt