SeenItAll,
Wings Folded: A number of months ago in a different forum on this board, you explained that although the French prosecutors had not levied any charges in this matter against Air France or Aeroports de Paris, no one should be worried that that these entities would escape judicial scrutiny. You stated that unlike U.S. courts in which the judges are powerless to examine the potential contributing guilt or innocence of parties not before the court, the Pontoise judges could be expected to pose questions to these parties so as to assure themselves that they were without any culpability for this tragic event.
I have not had the opportunity to read the transcript of the trial or its decision. Can you inform us if the judges conducted this inquiry as you suggested they would? Or did it occur that their inquiry was limited strictly to the entities that the prosecutors had decided to put in the dock?
Twas indeed several months ago (February?) and I recall your reasoned posting.
I have kept abreast of the hearing while it was taking place, and have of course read the judgement.
I am afraid that I just do not have the time to assemble all those instances in the trial when the court required explanations outside of what the "trial bundle" (not a term with any relevance under French procedure, but a convenient shorthand. I would want to be verbose!), but there were many instances of just such a thing.
What several posters who dislike this judgement appear to overlook completely is that Continental did not hire a lawyer fresh out of law school on a work placement course.
They hired one of the top flight lawyers in France who has recently acted for a former Prime Minister, and for an inheratrix of France's largest personal fortunes.
Acting for Continental, he was able to call for his own witnesses if their version of events worked in favour of his client.
A lawyer with his experience and skill must have made reasoned choices about the strategy. If he chose not to call evidence from parties other than those accused, he did so knowingly.
The trial as is normal under French procedure heard from lawyers acting for the "parties civiles", who were also dismissive of the Continental version. They had no particular chauvinistic agenda.
And the judgement is not "let the French off and blame the Americans".
The mechanic's supervisor was exhonerated. EADS and a French national were found to have a degree of reponsibilty.
Sorry if my reply is abit long, but I wanted to answer your question.