Hi BB
What I was driving at is this: Since, even if what I think took place, actually took place (and I accept we'll never know for sure) would that be enough to justify the very strong 'gross negligence' charge?
The concept of 'gross negligence' of deceased aircrew is a concept which was only possible for military aircrew of that time. To my knowledge it has no parallel in civil accident investigations, and the military have changed their procedures, so such a verdict is not even possible in military proceedings now.
At that time the standard of proof required to be satisfied for such a finding, was that of 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. This standard is some way beyond standards such as 'balance of probability', or even 'beyond reasonable' doubt!
According to the RAF's rules, without there being 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever', a finding of negligence cannot be made in circumstances in which the crew are unable to provide their version of events.
Some here believe that is entirely in keeping with the concept of natural justice, and also in the highest traditions of the Royal Air Force, which seeks to offer some protection to those unable to defend themselves from serious allegations.
So, in answer to your question; can the charge of gross negligence be justified?
In view of the above, my position is crystal clear: Though we may all have our own 'opinions', no the charge cannot be justified.
I'm hoping you may feel the same way?