You have said
Have you not noticed that those who find the repetition of opinions and shaky conjecture presented as incontravertable "facts" , and large quantities of equally valid information simply ignored because is does not fit the story being told, worthy of opposition, include a German, an American, a Canadian, and perhaps several other nationalities.I think that if a crusade is noticeable in this thread is the one that the defenders of those officers are doing in line of principle despite the evidences only because they were Royal Navy Senior Officers, only because they were British.
I believe this whole thread owes its generation to outrage over an element of perhaps excessive praise by an American author over the career of Captain John Leach whose service was creditable but hardly worthy of "The Highest Traditions".
The thread's value is in bringing to light the fine detail so often edited out of narrative to simplify things for the reader. But it is the duty of the reader to make themselves aware of the context in which historical statements were made. When an officer reports he was in such and such position he cannot be accurate because he has no method of determining such a thing, but his expert audience knows that and makes allowance. When a chart shows Suffolk 26 miles away it must be wrong because no device existed to measure this. It is merely the best estimate of Suffolk's position relative to PoW's unknown but best guess position.
Accusations based on second guessing are bad practice
All the best