Genuine question, what if he is guilty of lying initially to the SI and trying to cover up his actions as alleged.
Would posters on here accept that? It seems as though they wouldn't, are we saying the verdict of the CM is unsound regardless now?
Good question. What I'd like to know is why MoD has pursued this officer, but condoned far worse. This selectivity and singling out is unacceptable. Senior officers, serving and retired, lied through their back teeth on Chinook ZD576, Hercules XV179 and others. On Sea King ASaC, the MoD investigations were lied to, and the Coroner's Court grossly misled (and some would say perjury committed). As was the ZD576 Fatal Accident Inquiry. On ASaC, MoD denied pertinent facts to families, despite photographic evidence proving MoD wrong. It made claims before the Inquest that it was not prepared to repeat in court, and then made them again after the Inquest despite knowing them to be lies. Some would say lying to families of deceased is heinous, especially when the aim was to (a) blame someone who was innocent, and (b) deflect attention from the guilty. A recurring theme in many investigations. Why do these cases not draw comment? When you look at the facts, it can only be because of the rank of those involved.