If Chug or anyone else can produce something new, then that is a different matter
The usual MoD line about "new" evidence, while ignoring existing evidence.
But, contrary to popular belief, this has not always been MoD's position.
For example, on 3rd July 2000 Min(AF) John Spellar wrote;
"We have, however, always said that we are ready to examine carefully anything thought to provide a fresh insight into this crash, and that remains the case".
I believe that the Chief of Defence Procurement's admission 15 months earlier, to the Committee of Public Accounts, that one of the pillars of airworthiness had been allowed to crumble on Chinook (and other aircraft), should be taken seriously.
It is not often a 4 Star makes such an admission of abrogation of Duty of Care, which resulted in an inability to validate or verify an aircraft airworthiness audit trail. To be fair, his junior staffs at the time actively prevented knowledgeable staffs briefing him, so he was probably caught unawares and blurted out the truth. Nevertheless, given the preoccupation with rank on this thread (in that rank is always right, regardless of the facts), I believe a 4 Star trumps mere 2 / 3 Star ROs. Surely his admission carries some weight, and deserves to be heeded alongside the ROs' opinions?
While not exactly news, as it had been RAF policy for the previous 8 years not to bother too much with that tiresome and expensive subject of maintaining airworthiness, in the context of evidence made available to the BoI I believe this constitutes a "fresh insight".
But, of course, MoD swiftly changed tack again, back to “new evidence”. And, as failure to implement mandated airworthiness regs is by no means new, we have an impasse. But we also have key facts should natural justice prevail.