still in the minds of some. that s why us, as investigators, professional investigators, have to be 100% certain, not 98, not 99, but 100. there s been so many theories as it relates to this plane. the new york magazine has floated this theory that, quote, the part might have been a replacement part not yet put into service or pulled off a skr scrapped air frame. what do you think about that potential theory? i think it s incredibly wrong. we have a suspected, unapproved parts program. what that does is, if there s a serial number issued for a part on an airplane, then that is tracked video so it s not like you could have an extra one hanging around. those are all accounted for by flaperon, not just been aircraft is it to avoid someone from
potential theory and may explain the why of the investigation but it doesn t help folks understand or get a better information about where the plane may have been. what s your take on the strategy now of sending this single bluefin down to this area, confident they have sort of triangulated the pings through audio analysis? this investigation has been, and the search has been a roller coaster from the beginning. a lot of unusual events. there are two extra order strands we should think of with some perspective. number one, there s no debris. all of your viewers know there is no debris an that means it is harder to find the wreckage and harder for investigators to get early clues about the plane when a maneuvers it may have been doing and its attitude when they went in the water. their previous examples from early clues helped the investigators.
telegraph. some guy in british custody who used to be an al qaeda operator in pakistan told a court that he met several malaysians in pakistan. months them, a pilot. they were talking about a plan to hijack an airplane. they were wondering how to enter the cockpit door? he gave them, he said, a shoe bomb he had made, a relatively small bomb, not big enough to take down the aircraft but powerful enough to break open the cockpit door. here is one potential theory. these guys broke into the cockpit, and maybe had one of the pilots cooperate with the idea that he might be able to save the airplane later. the next thing we have learned is that the airplane climbed to 45,000 feet. would that be a scuffle in
met several malaysians in pakistan. amongst them, a pilot. and they were talking about a plan to hijack an airplane. and they were wonder iing how to enter the cockpit door. and he gave them, he said, a shoe bomb he had made, a relatively small bomb, not big enough to take down the aircraft but powerful enough to break open the cockpit door. so here is one potential theory. these guys broke into the cockpit and maybe had one of the pilots cooperate with the idea that he might be able to save the airplane later. the next thing that we have learned is that the airplane climbed to 45,000 feet. would that be a scuffle in the cockpit? what would that or someone who is not used to flying that plane. it could be a scuffle. it could have been a scuffle of
when we look to the questions they asked, it really seems to me as though they were asking questions that suggests the issue is this. they may believe that the way dunn acted in response to jordan davis may have been justified. but the question i think, is even though he was justified in his reaction to jordan davis by shooting, was he justified in shooting at the other three. and i think what they may be focusing on is those last three shots where dunn got out of the car, aimed at the car taking off and put three shots into it, because if we had to make sense out of the overall picture of the few questions, that s one very reasonable belief, that they may be working through. and then, joey, one of the questions, which really speaks to that potential theory is, if deadly force is justified against one person is it justified against the others? and the judge answered, no. helping to give them clarity they there can be different judgments based on the parties involved here. is that wha