Ah yes, the bodies. On the one hand, there are 43 which exhibit injury consistent with seated and vertical acceleration. But wait, werent there 53 bodies recovered? What of the others? Uninjured? Or was their injury inventory inconsistent with the determination of BEA's that there was no loss of Hull integrity at altitude? No matter, even though the list of 43 victims offered "support" to BEA's "conclusion" it is on the surface only. A human ejected into the slipstream of an airliner's at cruise would exhibit these specifics almost certainly. So there is no academic value to BEA's assertion. What then? If it proves nothing, why include these, exclude the other results, and 'conclude' anything at all? Unfortunately, most of the readers who have ingested the BEA reports, assume BEA is correct. They could be. But it is in no way certain, just as any conclusion would be, gelled prior to conclusive evidence.
BEA, Air France, and ABI all have a monstrous stake in the findings, here, and the findings needn't be accurate, they need only be believed. So, what do we have? A sales job. Not even a good one. No matter. In their shoes, I would be claiming all the same "conclusions".