The motor man is under criminal prosecution for intentional havoc. The black box shows he was speeding up until he crashed and he ignores many alert lights.
I worked on the LAPA case (an aircraft accident during take off) were 66 people died and judges accused for negligent accident. They are very reluctant to use the accusation of intentional. So, there shoul be very clear evidence.
As soon as the government took to improve the service as a campaign strategy, the "accident" is fishy and innocent people dies in between.
I think I am understanding what you are saying. Permit me to re-phrase: Because the motorman has already been charged with "creating intentional havoc," and because the authorities are reluctant to charge using the term "intentional" in these incidents, therefore
there must be clear evidence in this case that the motorman
intentionally caused the accident - perhaps to make CFK look bad. (Please correct me if I am mis-reading your comments or your conclusion.)
If this is what you are saying then you need some education in accident investigation procedures. I am very familiar with this process. As a military pilot I investigated four military crashes (including the Kara Hultgreen F-14 crash) and for 3 years was on the "Go Team" for my employer, the top aviation law firm in the US where I investigated 6 civilian crashes. One NEVER comes to a conclusion about the cause of an accident until all of the evidence is fully analyzed. That includes a thorough visual examination of the wreckage, laboratory testing of critical pieces of the wreckage, examination of the area leading up to and around the wreckage, finding and lab testing of critical components like the CVR and instruments, biological testing of the operators - including blood samples and post mortem testing, interviews of witnesses, , etc. In fact, keeping all options open throughout the entire investigation, even as one is determining the validity of particular theories, is one the of the most important skills of an accident investigator.
In this case, is appears that the train was accelerating until the moment of impact. The K's (including you) and the Opposition are using this as "evidence" that 1) it must be an intentional act by the motorman - therefore the system isn't at fault, or 2) it is obviously a result of the system maintained by the K's.
What can we conclude from the evidence that we currently know? Only that according to witnesses the train was accelerating up until the time of the impact, there was no braking action, and that there was no warning given by the motorman. Anything else is pure guessing.
Since you say you worked on the LAPA 3142 accident then you should be very familiar with this process. Do you remember the cause of this accident? The pilots did not set flaps correctly for takeoff, and failed to notice the alarm that continually sounded warning them of the incorrect configuration during the take-off roll. But, that wasn't the whole story, right? Not by far. The investigators determined that many contributing factors were involved, including lax company procedures that allowed pilots to fly without licensees, and constant maintenance problems. One of the pilots interviewed said it was so bad that on almost every takeoff
some alarm was sounding and they just got used to it.
Perhaps the motorman intentionally caused the accident to undermine CFK. Perhaps the motorman fell asleep. Perhaps he was busy texting his new girlfriend. Perhaps the new brakes installed were installed incorrectly. Perhaps there is a system-wide problem. These are all theories. Like professionals, we should wait until the accident investigation on this train crash is complete before we determine who is at fault.
