I’m struggling to see how releasing information already provided to the investigation would obstruct it. A self-initiated investigation is not a criminal, or even a civil, legal process—I am much less inclined to accept it as an adequate justification for a significant delay, especially where potentially implicated people have not been put on full leaves of absence.
I’m guessing that the worry is that if Will said he thinks X then that might create pressure for the independent investigation to conclude X since the independent investigators are being paid by CEA and presumably want to be hired by other companies in the future.
Presumably they have interviewed Will and/or have done enough work to reliably figure out what he thinks secondhand.
Independent investigators have incentives both for and against whitewashing for whoever is paying the bills. A reputation for whitewashing causes a loss in interest by organizations who want/need outsiders to view the results as unbiased.
Asking people to turm over relevant emails is close to day-one stuff. And if the investigators haven’t conducted significant enough interviews with Will and Nick yet to have figured out the gist of what Time figured out, this is going to be a very slow investigation.
I’m assuming part of it is that they didn’t want to bias other people’s recollections who may not have been spoken to, but that’s a moot point now with this article.
Yeah I would certainly think/hope investigators would’ve talked to the most knowledgeable people and already uncovered everything in the Time article.
I’m struggling to see how releasing information already provided to the investigation would obstruct it. A self-initiated investigation is not a criminal, or even a civil, legal process—I am much less inclined to accept it as an adequate justification for a significant delay, especially where potentially implicated people have not been put on full leaves of absence.
I’m guessing that the worry is that if Will said he thinks X then that might create pressure for the independent investigation to conclude X since the independent investigators are being paid by CEA and presumably want to be hired by other companies in the future.
Presumably they have interviewed Will and/or have done enough work to reliably figure out what he thinks secondhand.
Independent investigators have incentives both for and against whitewashing for whoever is paying the bills. A reputation for whitewashing causes a loss in interest by organizations who want/need outsiders to view the results as unbiased.
That doesn’t create the same pressure as a public statement which signals “this is the narrative”.
My interpretation of the refusal was that the investigation hadn’t got to hearing all that information yet.
Asking people to turm over relevant emails is close to day-one stuff. And if the investigators haven’t conducted significant enough interviews with Will and Nick yet to have figured out the gist of what Time figured out, this is going to be a very slow investigation.
Seems like we’re in for a very slow investigation. Per Will, looks like “a minimum of 2 months” before the investigation is completed.
That still implies it’s over half complete, I think? Rather unusual not to talk to the most knowledgeable people by that point.
I’m assuming part of it is that they didn’t want to bias other people’s recollections who may not have been spoken to, but that’s a moot point now with this article.
Yeah I would certainly think/hope investigators would’ve talked to the most knowledgeable people and already uncovered everything in the Time article.