courtney
It would appear you don't understand the process. I am surprised!
The board were constrained in what they could say or report,
W/C Pulford, S/L Gilday, and their engineer colleague on the Board of Inquiry, had a
duty to find negligence, where the evidence supported it, and where the standard of proof was satisfied.
They did not so find!
(Presumably because they knew, as you have just pointed out, they were dealing with what they 'thought' was 'LIKELY' rather than what was 'certain'?)
If you wish, I shall retrieve W/C Pulford's testimony on PRECISELY this point, which he gave to the FAI.
As we know, Wrattan and Day were more cavalier with their interpretation of the standard of proof required.
Yours is simply a regurgitated version of a discredited suggestion. It appears you have swallowed the 'propaganda' churned out by the MOD in their desperation to disguise the 'leap' to negligence in the comments of the AMs.
Or you are simply mischievous.
Please try to limit your comments to what you know as 'fact' rather than simply regurgitating MOD 'mistruths'. It saves time that way!
Regards T.