I guess that if you were a relative in the courtroom, still in shock at your loss, you would want to hear that the Coroner, the legal or medically qualified person appointed to provide a verdict as to the cause of death, was going to do everything possible to get answers as to why your loved ones were killed while going about their business. Or is there something you find particularly distasteful about that?
My concern is really that the adjective is inappropriate.
Full and thorough investigation would suffice.
Fearless implies that the coroner has already decided that there maybe a need to be aggressive or confrontational with the sources or evidence or those involved in the incident. I see no evidence so far to suggest the coroner will not get full co-operation to get to the bottom of this incident.
Is there some reason you think the coroner needs to start out all guns blazing and being fearless? Or could they approach the investigation dispassionately with an open mind and diligently find out the truth?
If I was unfortunate enough to be involved in this tradegy, I'd want the coroner to conduct the investigation without any apparent "I'll show them" bias from the outset. I'd want neutrality and the truth.
The phase fearless creates the impression the coroner "already knows best" and may decide they can interpret expert testimony accordingly. In my view that's where a previous coroner went rather wrong in another high profile aviation case.
I maybe reading too much into it, but it has already created the wrong impression in my mind, and I suspect I am not alone. Even if there is nothing behind it, the choice of words was in my view poor.