Originally Posted by
lomapaseo
The trial was unfair in that it failed to consider probabilities and sellected only a single probable contributor for blame.
Agreed but for that last one - it seems they actually did do more than blame the repair and the engineer.
Continental were found guilty as a corporate entity, plus the individual engineer who did the repair. The head of Continental's maintenance was found
not guilty as an individual. Concorde designers (and I think a regulator) were also found not guilty of manslaughter
as individuals.
However, (and not as widely reported) the court also assigned responsibility for damages - 70% against continental and
30% against EADS as the manufacturer. In doing this they are clearly assigning
some of the blame to the Concorde design.
What I do think is unfair, is that this court has (I think) only been able to look at the defendants before it - I don't think they were procedurally able to assign any blame to AF (for example), whatever the evidence, because someone previously decided not to prosecute AF.