... and there lies the whole case. Hard rules require hard evidence. The lack of evidence (destroyed in the crash, contradictions, no accident data recorder etc) means that the hard rule (absolutely no doubt whatsoever) cannot be applied. That is why Wratten, Day and the MOD must still be taken to account. Instead of saying "no new evidence" they need to show the compelling, beyond any doubt, evidence that justified the judgement. I've never seen that.