Originally Posted by courtney
In view of this I don't think that the rules should allow escape from judgement.
The current discussion between Courtney et al, imho, is in some ways analagous to the O J Simpson cases where the crux was weight of evidence vs standard of proof, within the extant legal framework.
O J was found not guilty in a criminal court because the weight of evidence was not deemed to support the standard of proof required of beyond reasonable doubt (ca. 90% probability).
He was subsequently found to be culpable in a civil court because the standard of proof against the same weight of evidence was only on balance of probability (> 50% probability).
Did OJ Really do it, beyond any doubt whatsoever (100% certain)? Nobody knows the answer to that nor what really happened, although everyone will undoubtedly have their own opinion; it was not however the standard of proof required at the time in apportioning blame. It's exactly the same for this case.
If Courtney/Wratten/Day/MOD were permitted legally to apply a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt (or on balance of probability) then the judgement of gross negligence may well have been proven. The key point is that they were not entitled to reach that conclusion on the weight of evidence vs standard of proof required of beyond any doubt whatsoever (100% certain).
Courtney's hypothesis that a fully serviceable aircraft was negligently flown into a cliff face is simply not sufficiently supported by the weight of evidence to meet the required standard of proof. Quod erat demonstrandum.
TOG