Based on my observations here "French law" (at least as it relates to this matter) is an oxymoron.
But it exists, and is the law of that land. That you find it oxymoronic, or personally offensive to your sense of natural justice, or your knowledge of US justice, is irrelevant. From my UK perspective I might, too, but I don't go on about it because it is of no meaning.
Marshall Plan or no Marshall Plan,
people in non-US countries continue do things differently to Americans. It may come as a surprise to you to discover that not all of the rest of the world wishes to be American; that non-Americans are often comfortable with their own cultural constructs; and that as far as they are concerned their laws and conventions are just, reasonable and appropriate. And that is not to say that their laws cannot be improved, but one has to engage with
reality. French law, oxymoronic or not, holds sway in France, the legal jurisdiction in which Concorde crashed.
Simply looking at the actual flight involving the accident we have operational, procedural and cultural indications of negligence. This plane left the gate above max takeoff weight, taxied to a runway position that involved using a rough surface and had tires being subjected to extra stress due to the combination of extra weight, friction and lateral stress on a plane not suitably modified for maximum safety. Based on the best available information from the tower the pilot did not have proper conditions for take off.
And, according to the BEA report,
none of that had the slightest influence whatsoever over the crash, which occurred as a result of Concorde rolling at high speed over a titanium strip dropped on the runway 5 minutes earlier by a departing DC10.
An event that had never previously happened in 105 years of civil aviation.
I have to say, SLFinAZ, that you sound like a cracked recording of someone with their hands over their ears going "la la la la"...