bearfoil,
The takeaway from this unfortunate accident is that to focus "Blame" is far more important than the progress of safety.
The progress of aviation safety (and I assume that you meant safety in that arena), is a proper matter for that industry, those who work in it, those who regulate it.
I have already posted some remarks regarding "blame".
I imagine that all practioners in the aviation industry want to take heed of every incident, even minor ones, to improve safety. Lessons can be learned daily. Not just in one's professional sphere.
The particular topic we debate here has a high profile, partially at least on account of the charisma of the airframe which was lost.
Back to your quote.
The aviation industry must imperatively take every opportunity to learn something about safety. That is its duty.
National law, and its mechanisms, has a duty to inquire into to what happened on its turf.
Nobody half serious could accuse French process of being hasty, nor pre-judged.
The timetable speaks for itself.
A cursory read of the trial transcripts reveals an attention to detail, and every opportunity given to interested parties to plead.
A detailed read reveals a degree of competence and fairness shown by the the tribunal of which France can be proud.
The case was heard at the Tribunal Correctionnel de Pontoise, the correct forum according to where the event occurred.
This was perhaps, and we hope, the last time, that they had to hear a case of this nature.
The findings and judgement are the result of judicial process. The aviation industry must draw its own conclusions about methods, adherence to protocols and so forth.