Yes, well, you can go on looking for fragments of proof or lack of it all day but we can surmise what happened on the balance of probabilities. This is an everyday occurence in courts of law and BOI.
If we are discussing the standards of proof required, please allow me to inform the debate:
A balance of probability is used in civil cases. Of course it was also the standard used by Sheriff Sir Steven Young in the original FAI held at Stirling in 1995. You will recall he made no criticism whatsoever of the two pilots, even based on such a loose standard, since he found no evidence which satisfied that standard.
A higher standard of proof used in the most serious criminal cases, would of course be 'beyond
reasonable doubt', but not even this standard would have been sufficient for the reviewing officer's position.
Since the aircrew were no longer able to defend themselves (not even by voice or data recordings!) the standard of proof required to find them negligent was that of 'absolutely no doubt
WHATSOEVER!'
It is my strong belief that this required standard of proof, is utterly in accordance with both natural justice, AND in the highest traditions of our armed services!
This standard was blatantly ignored in this case.
Let right be done.