My point was that, as with BoIs, the Coroner can only work with the evidence placed before him. And that is DV's point. MoD have a nasty habit of destroying or withholding evidence; or just denying it exists in the first place.
However, in the case I mentioned, the Coroner acted appallingly towards the families, one father in particular. He was a "temp", necessary because of the sheer number of inquests. He did not have a stenographer, due to financial cutbacks, so had to take all the notes himself in longhand. As a result, the proceedings were disjointed and shambolic.
He would not allow questions relating to the three main contributory factors noted by the BoI. He refused to reconcile vastly different witness statements. Time after time he put up with witnesses refusing to answer the question, or offering a wholly unrelated reply.
Most witnesses were patently unsuitable for the questions, and he constantly said "We'll get back to that later" or "Write to me with the answer". Not once did he ever return to get the answer, and both MoD and Coroner's Office confirm that no submissions with the answers were made after the inquest.
Justice was not seen to be done. What was discussed at the 3.5 day inquest could have been finished in a day. Contrast this with Ft Lt Cunningham's inquest, planned to last 3 weeks.
Mr Walker did a fine job on Nimrod. The Government's response? Set up a Committee to look at how to curb his enthusiasm for the truth. A lesser known fact.... The MP representing the family (above) and who had asked Minister some leading questions (MoD actually told the truth in one reply, but this merely exposed the fact they had lied to the original investigators) was placed on this committee, meaning he was not permitted to ask any further questions on related matters. A very effective gag, and stopped awkward questions in their tracks. The more I look at this case, the more it looks far worse than any other.