Indirectly, this disclosure led to a press release in which the Marseille public prosecutor, Brice Robin, then elaborated on some of the contents of the CVR. M. Robin is not trained in air accident investigation – he is merely a prosecutor, a person whose speciality is to identify someone to accuse of a crime and then prosecute through the legal system. His premature public appearance has contributed nothing to the air accident investigation being conducted by BEA and has served only to feed the insatiable appetites of the global media monster that lives amongst us.
You display total ignorance of French legal procedure.
Monsieur Robin is indeed not an air accident investigator.
He is a "Procureur de la République".
Contrary to your inflammatory remark, totally unfounded, especially the use of "merely" as follows:
he is merely a prosecutor, a person whose speciality is to identify someone to accuse of a crime and then prosecute through the legal system.
you are completely and utterly wrong.
The Code Penal and the Code Civil in France requires that a procedure be opened when a loss of life occurs. It is called "instruction judiciaire".
The BEA carry out their investigations entirely independently.
If a plane went down with only the pilot on board,, no damage or loss of life on the ground, BEA would investigate on the one hand and an "instruction" would be opened at the same time. It has happened countless times. The purpose is to establish the cause of the death(s).
Under some different systems, a coroner would carry out the same function
A Procureur has a duty like any public servant, to be open and inform the public of what is known.
Do not be confused into thinking that the intervention of a Procureur means that criminal actions are considered or envisaged or even contemplated. It is simply a matter of procedure according to the laws of France. When you are better informed about the "speciality" of the role of a Procureur we could hold a further conversation.
There is nothing like enough evidence to predict the outcome of this enquiry, despite what the French public prosecutor would like to believe.
He has opened an "instruction" and has reserved his right to amend the heading of the enquiry.
He has performed his public duty correctly and, contrary to your ill-informed prejudice, appears to hold no beliefs.
The Pontoise trial concerning Concorde revealed a staggering lack of awareness of French procedure from many contributors. Go and take a look. You might emerge more aware.