Being out on "day release" (bbc article) seems to me to coincide pretty closely with the statement from the pilot that he assumed him to be out "legitimately"
. It would appear from that that his assumption was correct (the day release is subject to a variety of conditions - whether "no flying in light aircraft" is one I don't know). My point is: where from that does one conclude that the pilot did not know him?
There appears to be an assumption in your post that this is something other than a pleasure flight that went wrong. The media will be all to ready to jump to all manner of conclusions based on little or no evidence without the aviation community helping them out.
By the way, what is wrong with easy claims against insurance companies?
