SeenItAll
Hope springs eternal that I can narrow the communication gap between SLFinAZ and Wings Folded.
I do not feel that I have a "communication gap".
I think I understand what SLFinAZ says. I just think he is wrong on judicial aspects. For the reasons you so clearly and simply evoke:
The miscommunication seems to arise from SLF's assumption that certain procedures of the French legal system match those in the U.S.
As will be clear from my posts, I take no issue with those technically more competent than I am, nor do I dispute nor denegrate their views. You are no doubt well informed and sincere when you state:
While I, too, am disturbed by the one-sided nature of the BEA's conclusions and their apparent endorsement by the prosecution,
Strictly in the spirit of commenting only upon procedure, a public prosecutor cannot seriously do anything other than place reliance upon an official body's findings.
But the real strength of French legal process (which our Arizonian friend has failed to grasp) is that the Court has the freedom to investigate beyond those findings. It can and will hear evidence from other sources. In particular the Civil Parties (Parties Civiles), the lawyers acting for Continental, inter alia, and others.
Many of the posters on this thread have clearly read the BEA findings. Probably in translation, but perhaps in the original.
Most will be able to agree that, whichever version they have read, if we take only the BEA findings, we are way short of the 90 volumes of evidence to be seen and heard by the Court.
So where has all the other volume of material come from?
All the parties are free to, and have used that freedom, to make submissions. They have. Hence 90 volumes.
The Judges are, in addition, free to make their own enquiries. That is in the nature of an inquisatorial system, versus an adverserial system wherein they can only take the points made by the parties' advocates.
SLFinAZ is deluded when he thinks that an inquisatorial system is an "inquisition". It is simply a different system of law.
He evidently knows nothing about French legal process.
He therefore dislikes it, thinks it is stacked; he mounts on his chauvinistic high horse, and takes issue with the process.
He thinks it will take 4 months of Court process after close on 10 years of investigation, to "rubber stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion.