NB: The following is a Prune NFI thread post from ventus45 submitted this am (03/02/15)..
| Quote: CreampuffYou don’t know, for sure, what weather information was transmitted to and understood by the crew.What we do know, for sure, is that there were patent errors in the weather information transmitted to NGA, and that there are patent errors in the transcription, in the ATSB report, of the broadcasts supposedly made to NGA.All grey matter has wisdom in 20/20, unfatigued hindsight, but none has yet been discovered with ESP. To answer that question the CVR would go a long way! Just because it was transmitted doesn’t mean it was received on board NGA. It has always concerned me that the CVR/FDR were not recovered. Beyond all Reason!!! |
A concern shared by many me thinks.
Perhaps there was a very specific reason.
“There is no evidence your honour”.
Consider this “hypothetical”.
Suppose, just suppose, hypothetically, that “the investigation authorities (plural)” reaches a certain point, very early on, where they realise, that knowing whether or not NGA got the Nandi info, was cruicial to whether or not they could shaft DJ fully, with the met as the trump card and the fuel as backup, without DJ having a “met based defence”.
After all, logic says, if he got the Nandi info, then yes, we have got him cold. Shaft to the max.
But, if he did not get the Nandi info, or if what was received was not entirely readable and understandable, it is not so conclusive, it might not be so easy to shaft him on that. It might leave him some wiggle room on appeal, so we have to do him on the fuel.
Further suppose, just suppose, that “the investigation authorities (plural)”, realise that there are only two ways DJ may (or worse – if he gets a good lawyer) wriggle out.
The transmit tape from Nandi and the receive tape from NGA – and of course – subsequent discussion in NGA.
So, two holes to plug.
Suppose, just suppose, that for now, we just leave the box where it is, and make it known, very hush-hush like, in diplomatic circles, that it would be “really helpfull” if a little island nation “declined” to supply their tapes. Given the nature of things – much bigger things – certainly do-able.
Further suppose, just suppose, that, having received advice of such willingness to decline, “the investigation authorities (plural)” now know that only the box could save DJ, so they “concoct” a “rationalle” – beyond all Reason, to “let it rest in peace”.
Then, DJ is “done like a dinner” and “the investigation authorities (plural)” slip out into the shadows – and away – scott free.
Eventually, post shafting, DJ and others, like a couple of blokes in a bloody big house with a grass roof, can be given the stock bullshit, fully aware, that they are safe from being implicated in any way, safe in the knowledge that if it ever went to the land of the legal eagles, their defence would be simple – “There is no evidence your honour”.
Back to reality.
Question. Can a court demand that a box be retreived ?
