Percy Dragon
I don't feel the need to denigrate your contributions on this thread. I also recall, that you are more familiar with this case than has been recently apparent. So don't think that non of us can accept any counter arguments.
Incidentally, I am also reminded of the old chestnut - "it doesn't matter how many hours you have in your logbook, only the next one's important!", but I digress.
The HoL report focused, very precisely, on what has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, been at the very heart of this issue; That is the standard of proof required to find deceased aircrew negligent. As you are only too well aware, it is not "balance of probability," it isn't even, "beyond reasonable doubt." You know what it is.
This seems to me to be in keeping with the very finest traditions of the Royal Air Force, based on the simple fact that those most affected by such a judgement are, tragically, unable to tell us their version of events, and should, quite rightly, be given the benefit of any lingering doubts.
Talking of doubts, your analogy (as was Wratten's) is of very limited use. However, I am intrigued to hear what you think is the exact equivalent in this case of your tyre marks in the road. Because, as I understand it there is no such equivalent fact (Steady on, I've just used Day's favourite four letter word beginning with 'f'! - someone should show him a dictionary!)