SeenItAll
I must admit I was puzzled that Continental's defense case seemed so focused on trying to establish that the fire has started before the tire burst. To me, it would have seemed more logical that it should have focused on the contributory negligence of AF and Aeroports de Paris. But maybe its goal was to hit a "home run" (i.e., be found completely non-culpable) rather than simply to establish that they were but one of several aligning holes in the swiss cheese.
Continental's lawyers appear to have concentrated on getting their client off the hook, as is their job. The court, concentrating on establishing the truth as is its job, found Continental's argument inconclusive and therefore dismissed it.
That looks like a decent decision to me.
As I said earlier, Continental didn't directly attack Concorde's airworthiness, which would have required attacking AF, BEA, Aeroports de Paris, etc., probably because their seasoned lead lawyer reckoned they stood less chance of success with that approach than the one they took.