Hope springs eternal that I can narrow the communication gap between SLFinAZ and Wings Folded.
The miscommunication seems to arise from SLF's assumption that certain procedures of the French legal system match those in the U.S. In particular, in the U.S., the judge (or jury) is not generally allowed to ask any questions of the witnesses. Thus, they are limited to consider only the evidence advanced by the prosecutor or defense attorneys. Because SLF sees the prosecuting attorney choosing only to advance one theory (that COA FOD and ancient Sud Aviation designers are responsible), SLF smells a rat and believes that if this is the only evidence that is going to be presented at the trial, how is it possible that AF procedures could be found culpable or contributing.
But this thought process neglects two things. The first is that the defense attorneys will be able to present their contradicting evidence. While this cannot have the effect of convicting AF, it can have the effect of convincing the judges to find COA and the Sud designers not guilty.
But more importantly, I believe Wings Folded correctly indicates that the French judges will have more leeway in the trial than is available to a U.S. judge. In particular, the French judges will not be limited to hearing (and considering) only the testimony that the prosecutor or defense attorneys choose to present. Rather, they will also be able to directly question the witnesses presented by the prosecution and defense, and adduce additional testimony that the prosecutor (or defense attorney) may not have chosen to elicit.
Further, because of the training and experience of these judges, it is likely that they may be more discerning in their winnowing of the evidence than jury laymen.
While I, too, am disturbed by the one-sided nature of the BEA's conclusions and their apparent endorsement by the prosecution, I am also hopeful that the judges hearing this case will act inquisitively, insightfully and independently. As Wings Folded has indicated, they have the power to do this. Let us see how the actual trial unfolds before jumping to conclusions.