Rushed approach
Well it's a ridiculous system then as in effect the French prosecutor is passing a subjective judgment as to whether a crime has been committed not even a week after the crash, and whether a crime has or not been committed cannot be determined until the full "proper" aircraft investigation has been completed. So his subjective "gut feeling" will either be right or wrong and so many hares may have been set running unnecessarily. How can such a daft system be justified when in many cases the prosecutor will be wrong?
You display no clue about French legal process, yet choose to be critical of it.
The question of a "crime" or not is not relevant. I explained earlier that when a life has been lost, the "Procureur" for the relevant district opens an "instruction" I explained this in an earlier post ( Iwould quote the post number, but because of deletions, the number keeps changing)
Here 150 lives were lost.
The Procureur (please note the different vocabulary; "Procureur" is not the same thing as "prosecutor"), is obliged to open a case and be open with the public and with all concerned parties.
The Procureur is not investigating the technical aspects; BEA do that. They brief him, and he applies his required public duty to what follows.
He does not have "gut feelings" and as such they are neither subjective nor not so.
Just to be clear, because you seem not to have grasped it. When a death has occurred, the Procureur opens a case. It does not ergo facto mean that there is a suspicion of a crime having been committed.
The, in due course, BEA investigations and reports become part of the "instruction"
Got it now?