Hi again, Mr Purdey.
You are correct that I am not, nor will be, convinced by the 'official line'. However, the fact that you have an opposing view to me causes no problem. You have your own views and I respect that. I just happen not to agree with them.
I agree that there were several good speeches from both sides of the argument, but surely the fact that two such convincing points of view can be put forward with the same available evidence suggests an element of doubt?
I recall from memory, (so the wording may be different), that some of the technical faults were either simply discounted or classed as highly unlikely. They were never disproved with evidence backing up the decision. Hardly absolutely no doubt whatsoever. I think it was ArkRoyal who said in a post quite some time ago that absence of evidence was not evidence of absence. I quite agree.
For myself, I will continue to fight for the reputation of two good friends. If you wish to leave matters where they are, again, that is a decision I will respect.
My regards to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook