The only conclusion I can draw from the IANTD response is that their investigation indicated that the supposed facts in the case as we know them are not accurate. If their investigation showed that this information is inaccurate and what happened was fine, then I can very much see their point of view. In such a case, though, I wonder why a simple statement saying that the facts are not as they seem was not included.
In the case of the drowning at a Boy Scout camp a couple years ago, SDI/TDI made a public statement saying that the PADI instructor involved had not violated any standards whatsoever, and so PADI was not justified in expelling him and failing to support him in the trial. That statement was widely and repeatedly distributed. In response, PADI took the unusual step of issuing a public statement listing the standards that were violated. (IMO, they left some out.) If IANTD is saying that the facts being distributed by these instructors are not accurate, then perhaps IANTD needs to take a similar step.
In the case of the drowning at a Boy Scout camp a couple years ago, SDI/TDI made a public statement saying that the PADI instructor involved had not violated any standards whatsoever, and so PADI was not justified in expelling him and failing to support him in the trial. That statement was widely and repeatedly distributed. In response, PADI took the unusual step of issuing a public statement listing the standards that were violated. (IMO, they left some out.) If IANTD is saying that the facts being distributed by these instructors are not accurate, then perhaps IANTD needs to take a similar step.