Before we get bogged down all over again, I would like to draw your attention to a statement, published by ACM Wratten on 15 Jun 2000, in which he attempts to defend the findings made by AM Day, which were subsequently endorsed by Wratten himself.
Wratten states:
without the irrefutable evidence of an ADR and a CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact
I suggest that there is therefore doubt, even in his
own mind, as to what occurred, and this opinion is strengthened by another sentence within the same statement:
Why they therefore elected to ignore the safe options open to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know.
Given that the standard of proof required to find deceased aircrew 'Negligent' is, as we know, "beyond any doubt whatsoever", and that Wratten himself, in these two example instances, voices his opinion that there
is doubt, Lord Philip can only come to one conclusion - that the verdicts of 'Gross Negligence' must be quashed.