And there in lies the problem. The judges motivations and perception of the law can (and often does) undermine or reflect on what he feels the "truth" is. Specific to this trial the nature of the indictment shapes the judges handling and potentially points him in a specific direction with regard to his findings of "truth". One need look no further then the case in Italy to see this at work. As for your comment on an inquisition vs an actual trial I agree whole heartedly. What you have here is exactly that, an inquisition. I have no bias against the French at all. As an observation I find all too many hide behind both a charge of a bias and a defense of an "illustrious" history when confronted with a moment of stupidity...this is not confined to France by any means.
As for the COG I am 100% sure. That is nothing more then math and physics and can be easily demonstrated by reviewing the effect of control input cause and effect. nose wheel steering efficiency is directly effected by COG and if it is subpar then regardless of a preconceived "number" the COG was out of balance to the point that it had a direct effect on steering. So as a matter of provable fact the nose gear steering was compromised enough to both require above normal control inputs and for those inputs to have less then expected impact on directional control.
The difference here in my perspective and yours is also the underlying issue at hand in the trial. All I want is the truth while you want an "acceptable truth". In the end a search for acceptability defeats a search for fact.