Walter:
- this seems to contrast with so many posters here that argue against anything being determinable.While individual items of data that could be termed significant can, on their own, be argued there is sufficient available data for correlation such that a specific scenario fitting all such data has a very high probability of being correct.
I believe you'll find that people aren't arguing against _anything_ being determinable at all. What they are doing is arguing that even in, (to paraphrase), the best possible scenario that fits all the available data "a very high probability of being correct" does not fulfill the requirement at the time that a finding of Gross Negligence must be the result of no doubt whatsoever.
Please don't misunderstand me, finding the "specific scenario fitting all such data" is a commendable goal. But doing so should be an academic exercise to try to determine as closely as possible what _might_ have occurred. This comes with the understanding that each data point that is missing, questionable or that goes unconsidered is a point of doubt as to the integrity of the scenario.
Most here have submitted themselves completely to the rules and regulations laid down by the RAF/Army/Navy. While submitting ourselves we were held to the regulations by those who made and/or enforced them. We also expect(ed), as in any trust relationship, that those who would hold us to those regulations might be willing to abide by the regulations that apply to them with regard to the disposition of their minions.
Unfortunately, in this case, it seems two men's trust might have been betrayed since accepting "a very high probability of being correct" fails to fulfill their superior's responsibility to them.