For the record, I believe "criticism" is indicated in this case. Forget "SubSea", and consider the debris and pollution found within days of the accident on the surface.
Vague "explanations" were expressed "From a passing ship", the "slick is not relevant" etc. The most likely impact location appears to have been actively avoided, and criticism of BEA is "Unfortunate"?
A pallet was found, but it was wooden in manufacture, so could not have been "aboard". Really? Containers hold all manner of odd material, but lumber is evidence of absence? Ill considered pronouncements from the investigators were flying thick at the outset, to include the rejection of loss of hull contents prior to impact. Unproven. Autopsies were denied, and path results were limited (publicly) to conclusions which supported narrow and "beneficial" statements.
Sad? Mildly insulting, in the face of the circumstances, imo.
bear