AIG photo ban
I'm intrigued by this - post 1728 refers - as I suspect the salvage operation could have been performed with far less collateral damage. The impression one gets is of a hurried job with inadequate gear; a conspiracy theorist, which I'm not, might venture that it's almost as if further damage was being deliberately inflicted to ensure as little as possible was recoverable.
Someone else, of course, might counter that photographic evidence of a shoddy salvage job wouldn't be great publicity for the insurers, the salvage company or the insurance industry in general.
I think you need to explain that further. What extra damage was caused and how could the recovery have been better? How would that have aided the investigation?