[jack-r-abbit]

Are you completely unaware of the irony in stating your distrust of "any internal investigation conducted by an institution that exonerates it from all wrongdoing" and then pointing to an article about the defendant's father thinking the same thing? Any chance his dad might be less than neutral here as well?

[pdonis]

There's another irony here, which is mentioned in that article. The father said that MIT was not neutral, and seems completely unaware that the Abelson report he complains about says the same thing. The report says that MIT adopted a policy of neutrality, but the actual effect of that policy was not neutral; it was biased in favor of the prosecutors and against Swartz. One of the report's recommendations is to reconsider that kind of policy choice.

[s_q_b]

Of course I distrust his father as well. That's why I want to see the original documents, and make my own conclusions. There's no irony here.

MIT is making a claim that it's report represents the ground truth about the events, an assertion echoed by the previous poster. That claim is dubious, not least because of its provenance.

[jack-r-abbit]

Well, you didn't say that initially. You said you didn't trust MIT to properly investigate itself, and to support your opinion you linked to another person with the same opinion. But that person is also someone you don't trust? I'm not sure how that was intended to help you. But that doesn't really matter to me anymore... I've lost interest in your opinion. Sorry.

[pdonis]

MIT is making a claim that it's report represents the ground truth about the events

Have you read the report? It documents its sources of information pretty thoroughly. There is certainly enough information there for you to, as you say, read it and draw your own conclusions. That's what I've done.