to assemble such contributing causes as I thought the evidence had
revealed."

In that regard some of the statements which were made on behalf of the
airline are not unimportant. At one point counsel said--

"By now it should be apparent to the smallest mind that the Company
has not espoused, and does not espouse, a proposition that the
accident can be contributed to a sole cause, let alone a sole cause
of pilot error. If from the evidence adduced, there emerges or is
implicit a criticism of the Company's flight crew, that criticism
has been moderate, informed and responsible."

And in the same context--

"I would, with respect, also remind Your Honour that in the very
nature of these proceedings there has not been an opportunity for a
formal opening where one might have expected just that. But I would
further suggest, Sir, that the evidence advanced by the Company,
which has been in an attempt to bring every witness who can
contribute something towards the causal factors and everything else
has been done, not selectively, and there have been witnesses who
have plainly, unequivocally, acknowledged their fault, their error.
There has not in any way been a parade of witnesses all seeking to
criticize the flight crew and thus, as it were, exonerate
themselves. There has been an endeavour, without selection, to
reveal all the evidence to reveal all the documents ...".

This statement by senior counsel for the airline as to the manner in
which he had attempted to handle his responsibilities should be enough