Though an enticing subject to comment upon, the way the legal process works and does not work is one I'm staying out of - - except to say no one should lose sight of the fact that documents (a fancier word for "records" and which encompasses many other tangible forms of things) cannot testify. Attorneys must assemble (through the lawyerly art, on both sides of a case) a "theory" of the case, more than "a story" yet still seeing deeply behind the scenes already revealed . . . or trying to do so.
If someone can credibly claim to know, at present, a full, factually-based, comprehensive telling of the entirety of the 737 MAX matters, I would like to meet that person. And I'll buy him or her a round of whatever it is they're drinking these days. Maybe, more than one round.
As for plaintiffs' counsel, these air crash disasters weren't some hot coffee spill. I'd dare anyone decrying "agendas" they perceive, to debate publicly and in person any of the well-known attorneys on the plaintiffs' side. I'll moderste, no charge. I enjoy watching a good legal-streetfight, I'm from Chicago, see?