I've been a bit bzy in the real world but let me try and clarify my thoughts here.
Yes I do understand that the French system does afford much more significant leeway for the judges. Leaving the semantics aside the fundamental question is still as follows. The prosecution functions as the arm of the state in all legal systems charged with the task (in the broadest sense) of defending the "welfare of the republic". This is by it's nature an adversarial role (when viewed by the defending parties) and also creates an issue in the sense that the state is viewed (by its own system) as being fair and pragmatic. So in effect the very nature of the proceedings gives a subtle edge to the prosecution. This is true in any system and even in the occasionally ludicrous American justice system ("if the glove doesn't fit you have to acquit") the stark reality is that we have far to many innocent people in jail (and on death row and sadly pushing pansies as well).
So while I hope that a fair and impartial examination of all the underlying facts will take place the simple truth is that in any system the judiciary (at the trial level) leans slightly but firmly toward the prosecution. While just as clearly the appellate level takes a tougher stance with regard to any prejudicial misconduct that resulted in a conviction.
Accordingly my view is that the panel of judges is much more likely to lean toward the rational behind the "criminal bill" then to embrace any alternative explanations. If either the operating airline or the airport authority faced scrutiny for it's actions then I feel a much more open examination would take place. Given the nature of the parties charged my thought is that all the factors I brought up will be viewed an "possible" contributing factors in the speculative sense but falling well below the standard required to play directly into cause and effect (or the BEA report would have mentioned them). All these factors will be evaluated at trial and a "fair and reasonable but impartial" judge will certainly ask the prosecution how and why they chose to act specific to the charges.
I'm sure the answer will be well thought out and concise and compelling.....even if 100% wrong. The reality is that nether the prosecution or the panel of judges is really qualified in this regard. In effect we have the exact opposite of the "if the glove....". We have a piece of metal and a burning plane and a smoking crater with dead bodies.
Accordingly "Continental in the library with the titanium strip" is a forgone conclusion IMO...even of this is an unfair and overly simplistic dispersement of blame for a tragedy decades in the making. The alternative that the creeping complacency and erosion of SOP's for a very demanding system made a tragedy a 100% certainty will be viewed with credulity and openly scorned as an attempt to divert responsibility for sub standard maintenance procedures.
This is not in anyway an attempt to downplay the fact that the Continental plane WAS improperly maintained...simply a recognition that a runway contaminated with one or more foreign objects was a statistical certainty over a large enough sample of events. Further given the very real danger a tire failure created for the Concorde any such incident would have a much higher potential for catastrophic failure then with any other plane in service. Accordingly the real question is why a pre-takeoff runway inspection for FO's wasn't SOP? After all it was a question of when...not if this would happen. So how is holding the offending plane/airline responsible prudent vs taking reasonable steps to avoid an incident in the 1st place?