Hi gmorton,
Yes, thanks, I'm satisfied with your clear explanation. The first report we saw in
francetvinfo separated the prosecutor's statement with a headline, but it now seems that the two paragraphs were quoted in the correct order. So, as you say, the paragraph containing the qualification "could" is superseded by the one confirming certitude.
Thank goodness they've finally settled that uncertainty, so we can move on.
Quotes from GOULI:
"The fact that the numbers were found in the interior of the flaperon suggests that the flaperon has been disassembled once the exterior analysis was completed."
Probably not, because the prosecutor states that the internal examination was by endoscope.
"I hope this doesn't lead to conspiracists claiming that this was done deliberately to conceal evidence. Just for once it would be nice if everyone could at least agree that the plane came down in the Southern Indian Ocean and that some definitive proof does now exist to support that hypothesis. All the more reason to continue the search for what remains of the hull."
Conspiracy theorists will see any action by anyone as supporting their arguments. Fortunately, most of us asking awkward questions on this thread are what the Christian religion refers to as "doubting Thomases". Science without healthy scepticism is not scientific. (Moderators please note.
)