Growbag
but the Panel of an SI don't just base their findings on 'a feeling' or cobbled together evidence - they make a judgement using the experience that they have and the reason they were chosen to do the job in the first place.
What you say is mostly true in reference to the technical findings. The forensic investigation of the likely cause of the initiation and of the subsequent failure of the shackle release are compelling and impressive. It was carried out, not by the panel, but by technical experts (Royal Navy I believe) at the behest of the Board. However, though evidence based and therefore credible, their conclusions are still only theory, not fact.
However, I am afraid I have good reason to believe that the part of the report that deals with culture and ethos in RAFAT, and which was written by members of the Panel, is not evidence based and is not credible. It is theory, written by civilian psychologists with no actual experience of the military, let alone of the RAFAT, and those theories have been represented as fact.
Please reread 453 and 462. If those of you, like Dervish and Growbag, believe that, despite evidence to the contrary, the SI speaks ex cathedris and must be taken as absolute gospel, then there will be no pursuading you.
My heart goes out to Sean's family, and to Eggman's. It also goes out to their friends and colleagues who watched them both die and are now having their own character and professionalism besmirched.