“sending an armored vehicle through the plane’s tail”
Sounds clear enough to me. And if that is what the jury fell for, the verdict needs to be reversed.
I don’t think the jury read that as it was written after the jury was dismissed.
Don’t fall for a newspaper’s poor understanding of the issue. It went through an internal bulkhead.
That was a journalist’s description. Journalists are addicted to hyperbole and don’t know that much about English or about reality. In court there will be an actual presentation of facts, not journalistic foot-in-mouth syndrome.