Did the Procurator find there was no case to answer or did he cede jurisdiction of the case to the RAF? There is an important distinction between the two.
Anyone familiar with the 'Chinook hitting back' threads might argue that a board of inquiry is not the most suitable arbiter of guilt or innocence in a fatal aircraft accident case.
Lawyers (especially QCs) are renowned for their 20/20 hindsight. I don't know at what stage and in what circumstances the evidence of the eyewitnesses came to light. Facts being 'available' is one thing. Gathering and presenting them in accordance with the Rules of Evidence is quite another. I was not present at the Court Martial and am not, therefore, in a position to comment on the detailed evidence in the case. Only the RAF Prosecuting Authority know their reasons for pursuing this prosecution, but I am not persuaded their motives were malicious or duplicitous.