No one should be tempted to think that Lyman is trying to extrapolate his little knowledge into some miraculous proof of dirty dealing.
In the time I worked as an investigator, I would from time to time get the idea that my report might be lacking, if not in data, in disclosure thereof, and also of methodology and group discussion in and within the team.
To wit: X is interesting, let us take a close look.... In preparing my report, I would check each area of investigation, and review it as to lost of requirements.
For this, I would push the red ? , and a list may come up.
"Was X exhaustively researched"? Was there a determination made? What was it? "Yes, it was material, and here's why..." "No, it was not, and here's why..."
"No conclusion..."
"No conclusion" was as important as the big Ah HA! It demanded a mention, else I would be thought other than thorough... And if at a later time, there would be data to refer to, if only for a reading list.
It seems to me, BEA is guilty of a kind of non disclosure that does not serve their mission, nor the public.
PJ2, what was the result of BEA's exhaustive research in re: the EEBay?
I may have missed it, truly, and if I did, my bad.....