Danny, you do yourself an injustice in claiming that you would have lost your case had not the charge been withdrawn. Like your hapless client I would have the utmost confidence in your powers of persuasion. As to concocted, one man's concocted is another's brilliant presentation of the facts!
Intriguing though that the case was dropped, for the "Three Musketeers" were seemingly banged to rights. I wonder if your man had pleaded guilty, as he logically should have, if the case would still have been dropped. Perhaps he did himself (and his accomplices) a favour by defying both logic and you. Despite your respect for the evidence (was it termed a Summary or an Abstract, I'm not sure) gathered, there must have been some glitch in it, don't you think? Perhaps Exhibit "A" went to the great smelter in the ski after all, or the RAFP had got the direction wrong in the "I was proceeding in an Easterly direction when...". We shall, I fear never know.
Geriaviator, your pictures are amazing! I can't help thinking that the RAF Museum would be very keen to add copies of them to their collection. Other than "official" photos, I'm not sure that there were many taken privately in that era, other than at the Hendon Air Shows, etc. Was it your Dad's hobby? I mean did he develop and print them as well, or was all that done by the local chemist?
The RAF seems to have got through a prodigious quantity of Harts ("Bleeding" or otherwise ;-) it would seem. You'd think that someone would have travelled ahead, or even rung ahead, before launching three of them towards a would be bog, but perhaps that would have detracted from the operational realism of the exercise! Even in those days Aldergrove would have boasted a signal square, would it not? Didn't that indicate if the grass landing area was fit for use or not? I suppose the advice would be to "land between the wet patches" anyway. Danny?
Two days airborne, single engined, long sea crossings? Respect!