Hi Boslandew,
firstly, thank you for your very kind comments at the end of your post. I have always said that I have no problem with people having a different interpretation of the few factual pieces of evidence known about this terrible accident. They, as I, are entitled to their views.
However, and this is the whole point of the Campaign - in order that deceased aircrew can be found guilty of negligence (or, as in this incident - Gross Negligence), the rules state that there has to be Absolutely No Doubt Whatsoever. Surely the fact that there are so many differences of opinion as to what may have happened on 2 June 1994, this in itself renders any interpretation as falling below the required standard of proof.
It is, indeed, the Campaign's objective to have the negligence slur removed from the record of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook. Due to the fact that there is limited hard evidence available (that is not open to different interpretations) the most accurate verdict, should the matter be re-examined, would be one of 'Cause not positively determined'.
Walter,
my apologies, I neglected to thank you for posting the photographs of the orographic cloud. They show clearly how cloud can cover landmass, yet not extend too far out to sea. One could surmise (and that's all it is), that those stood in the cloud could not see out to sea, yet those approaching the Mull could clearly see the coastline and, therefore, make a legitimate change of course.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook