So, he didn't speak the truth but was paid to give a good story you reckon ??

I actually thought that the proper information was given at the CM ?? :* By the witnesses, under oath. :ooh: The embarrassing truth is that the MoD made a horses arse of the whole affair, bringing an INNOCENT (as proven) individual in to the frame and attempting to cast him as the scapegoat. With respect MG, your post smacks of the establishment who got their nose bloodied. The intention of the briefing may have been well intended, but the day that the authorities ever ever admit they made a major error in even bringing this case to a CM will be the day that hell freezes over. I sincerely hope that all those who pursued this farcical case are now brought to heel and are also put under the spotlight of justice. If they even suffer only half of what Spot and his family had to endure then it will be still be no where near what is due to them. :mad: :mad: :mad:

There is nothing unusual that Craig Penrice was paid for his time and from what I have read he aquitted himself professionally and as you would expect from an expert witness.

All expert witnesses are paid for the time just like everyone else. They are expected to abide by well established rules of conduct, and are, and are expected to be, indepependent of the party calling them.

The whole point of independent experts is that you may not like what they say (whether you are cross-examining them or calling them) but their evidence is rightly given considerable weight.

All that said, some experts are willing to put their heart and soul into a case, whilst still remaining independent - again from what I have read Craig Penrice did just that - as such Spot and his team were lucky to have him - as was the CM as a whole as part of the process that resulted in the justified outcome.

Sorry for not getting online earlier, but I've only just managed to get upstairs (on my backside) to the PC after breaking my left ankle three weeks ago. Nine screws and a large metal strap are keeping things together and NO - I was stone cold sobre!!

The USAF conclusion is very interesting particularly as it ommitted to mention that 3rd Air Force documentation for UK procedures was culled from various RAF documents - JSP 318A/Low Flying Handbook etc. The CM heard that all Radar Service definitions were included ie Radar Control, Radar Advisory and Radar Information. In the latter case the court heard that in the UK terrain avoidance was the responsibility of the pilot, and this particular point was "accepted" as not being in the 3rd AF procedures!!! In other words, it had been unintentionally omitted when 3rd AF procedures were produced.

I can understand the "dirty washing in public" bit, but let's hope that the RAF BoI picks up on that particular point before too long.

USAF AIB Release
 

To recieve an AIB report, go to this webpage and follow the instructions. http://www.usafe.af.mil/foia.htm

As the RAF Board of Inquiry results should be made available very shortly, the following link is quite interesting. Article from last Sunday's 'Scotland on Sunday'


Nice to see that GATCO is still 'on the case' !

http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/index.cfm?id=1015292003

Thanks for the steer, Barnwood, that Scottish newspaper article you referred to makes interesting reading.

Any news on how the discussion at the Commons Defence Select Committee went?

As you say, well done Gatco for continuing to defend everyones' best interests, especially Spots'.

I know that ill informed comment is sometimes hard to accept but could we please refrain from personal abuse within this forum. Thankyou.