Caz
Thank you.
My point is that the subject (visibility before, at and after Waypoint change) is so fundamental to the MoD’s case. Noting that the onus is on MoD to prove their case, beyond any doubt.
For a decade MoD used this (supposed) lack of visibility as a major factor when continuing to uphold the verdict.
Suddenly, in the space of a few weeks in 2004 they do a complete about turn. What prompted this?
Something must have. Perhaps not the “new” evidence they always say is needed. Perhaps it was a change of staff somewhere, who were simply not prepared to put their names to briefs that would expose their Minister to ridicule. Whatever it was, the retraction casts doubt and weakens the MoD case significantly. And, in this case, weakness equates to doubt.
If this happened in a court of law, the Defence would be on their feet, but wouldn’t get a word in because the Judge and Jury would be falling about laughing at the Prosecution’s ineptitude. But in this case, the MoD are Judge, Jury and Prosecution Counsel; and make the rules up as they go along.