JD-EE
This is what BEA is doing with a fuller deck of cards to play with. (I get giggles imagining one of the investigators reading this thread knowing things we don't and admiring the flights of fancy on all our parts.)
I see no legal definition conspiracy taking place. So far I see a remarkably open BEA providing enough data to the public for two serious purposes, to put down speculation and let the public know the level of data BEA is working with as reassurance they're on the job. We're taking this a whole lot further than BEA. And out of our discussions may come some valid criticisms of cockpit culture, training, system design, and hardware. (That's more or less my current sense of probability of serious criticisms. I'm biased, of course.)
Hats off to you too mate. As with P2J, you're applying some much-needed logic and sense to what is (largely) for me a very interesting and informative discussion, marred by questionable contributions of a few.
I agree that the BEA have provided as much as they can at this point. Imagine the litigation(s) that would ensue if they published something that caused 'red herring' conclusions in the public domain. They have been as generous with information as they can afford to be at such an early stage, and I'm sure as much as is necessary will appear in the final report.
I'm also curious as to what a BEA investigator would think if he/she was reading this. For 'impartiality' reasons, I'm not sure they could, or would be allowed to. I think there are some valid theories here (with info available), but some of the more extreme makes me cringe...not giggle!