The SIB became involved at an early stage as did the medics in the form of a 'trick cyclist'. The suspect would disappear from the ops room presumably for interviews and then reappear as jaunty as ever. We found it very odd but he appeared to revel in his new found 'fame'. After a few months he was posted back to the UK, to I think Innsworth, whilst the system tried to come to a decision. We got on with our lives and heard no more about him which lends credence to my belief that he was never charged in connection with these incidents. I suspect he was probably given a medical discharge on mental health grounds.
So why was he not subject to disciplinary action ? We all did wonder about that and it was not until I was doing the Law of Evidence as part of my law degree that the penny finally dropped. All of the evidence against him was circumstantial apart from the one instance when the other loadmaster saw him fiddling with the controls. After I retired I did A level Psychology (to keep my brain ticking over) and discovered that 'eye witness testimony ' was not the gold standard we all thought it was. Several experiments had demonstrated that it could not always be relied upon.
The evidence compiled from the auth sheets, Incident reports and his log
book was not in itself conclusive for reasons mentioned in an earlier post. As for the false log bok entries, the end of the month scrum for the auth sheets would provide some excuse. Any half competent lawyer (there were some very competent lawyers in Singapore) would have shredded the DLS case.
I think only a confession may have sufficed.
Yet I and others did consider him guilty and in my final post on this saga I will attempt to explain why.