Flarepilot; Mach Tuck ..........
I don't enjoy getting into arguments or p*ssing contests, especially over accidents that we really know nothing or very little about. However, your basic premise that an aircraft, after an engine failure, should only be turned towards the operating engine remains aerodynamic nonsense and is misleading at best.
I've never flown any model of the Learjet but that doesn't change the laws of physics/aerodynamics. Additionally, I have never been a "super pilot" nor will I ever be. I've retired so, there is no more opportunity to improve my techniques.
The Lear35 is a transport category aircraft certified under FAR Part 25 and therefore its controllability with one engine inoperative must meet the requirements of that regulation. If it cannot do so, it will not be certified at all.
There is no superman requirement, astronaut capability, or super level of pilot skill required to operate this aircraft, (or any other) with or without an engine failure occuring after V1. In the certification requirements, there is no limitation on the direction of turns that can or may be made following an engine failure. Whether you know this or not is irrelevant; it is nevertheless a fact, in all FAR 25 certified twin-engine aircraft.
So long as Vmca for the particular aircraft type is not violated, the aircraft is and must be controllable (without any exceptional skill level on the part of its pilot) with one of its engines inoperative and, provided the proper airspeed is maintained, the aircraft may be safely turned in either direction.
I do not even know if the accident aircraft actually experienced an engine failure and neither do you. At this point that is hearsay. If it did experience an engine failure, we do not know when it occured or which engine it was. That is also hearsay at this point.
I'll go one step further: IF there was an engine failure and it was the left engine, the fact that the aircraft turned left (if it did), as opposed to turning right, in an effort to return to the airport would not, in and of itself, become the probable cause of this accident. It would not even be a contributing factor.
I quite agree that there are any number of factors that could have caused or contributed to the cause of this accident. At this point none of us know what they might be and we may never know. What we can know, with only a modicum of knowledge, is that turning in the direction of an inoperative engine , in a transport category aircraft, does not, in and of itself, cause any loss of control or present any especially difficult scenario (so long as the proper airspeed is maintained - regardless of which way you turn). If that were the case the aircraft would be useless and, more importantly, it would never be certified in the first instance.
If you don't believe the physics or the aerodynamics, then apply some common sense. Here's a hypothetical example:
You are departing from a runway located in a valley in mountainous terrain. Shortly after takeoff there is an obstruction - to your right - which you must turn left significantly in order to avoid CFIT. You lose the left engine, but because of your theory that you should not turn in the direction of the dead engine, you don't and therefore you fly directly into the obstruction, or you turn right and hit the hill. Does that make any sense to you?
Did you know which engine was going to fail before the takeoff? Should you never go to that airport because the left engine might fail and that means you can't turn into it (left) and you have to crash or hit the hill?
If you lose the left engine you can only make right turns? If you lose the right engine you can only make left turns? I say again, that is utter nonsense and you should not be peddleing that kind of misinformation. We have plenty legitimate things to be concerned about without the addition of fictional theories.
It is indeed possible to lose control for any number of reasons but, assuming you can fly at all, turning in the direction of an inoperative engine in a transport category aircraft should never be one of them and isn't. That's elementary, Watson.
Your provided guiance is bogus, sirs.