This thread may begin to have some relevance once the testimony of witnesses and defendants is heard and accurately reported.
Until then we have little to go on other then the constant rehashing and dissection of the BEA report and eye witness comment from the time of the accident.
As for the French judicial system, those contributors from the USA who are convinced the French are out to "get" Continental ought to look to their own system which the numbers show is heavily biased, in terms of sentencing and imprisonment, against certain members of its own community.
One fact is clear, Continental used a defective method of repair to its DC10. If that repair caused, or was a party to the causes of, the Concorde accident is just one point that a fair and thorough trial should uncover.
The Napoleonic code and the system of investigative trials, as opposed to the confrontational system in front of a jury as used in the UK and US, for instance, has merit and has proved equally as valid as the jury system and is less likely to return a false verdict in cases where an eloquent lawyer puts on a bravura performance to sway a jury with little or no technical knowledge or knowledge of the law.
On the other hand, the interested parties in France, including many not on trial, have a great deal of economic (thus political) influence and Gallic pride is a very strong national trait. One has to trust that the judges are as impartial as they are sworn to be, though history shows that in all countries, including the USA, judges have been partial to political, economic and mob influence.