I still can't fathom out why you would do this:
He also later deleted the 28 photographs he had taken from the cockpit shortly before the incident
It just doesn't seem to make sense as it must have likely been a deliberate act to delete them? Also, if the damage to the camera was made when it became free during the bunt then surely the aircraft would have not needed the co-pilot's side stick to recover it? Otherwise, if it remained in place, when the aircraft recovered and things went back to normal you would most likely see a camera wedged in the controls? Unless the Captain admitted that he knew that his camera had become jammed in the controls
and that he
deliberately hid this fact (which he didn't) then there would unlikely be enough proof to prove that he had intended to decieve. I can only guess this is where the deliberations were and why they delivered a not guilty verdict - no burden of proof and the presumption of innocence is a basic right of Law. They delivered that verdict and so that is that, unless someone appeals (very unlikely).
Others have said they know the Captain and say what a good chap he is. I'm sure he is, but I also know the much maligned inquiry interviewer allegedly threatening physical harm - I can't believe he would say this and that would be completely out of character from what I know of him (unless it was outrageously badly-timed banter!!). So where does that leave the debate when it is effectively one word against the other unless there is a full admission of saying it with intent?
As for trying to blame the training and SOPs - purlease.... I come back to Occam's Razor on this. If you take bits of kit into the cockpit and it causes an issue, then you must at least accept some culpability. Otherwise, where does it end? "When my trumpet got caught in the throttle quadrant no one had ever given me any training on how to deal with it...No one told me not to take brass band instruments into the cockpit...etc..."
