What do I mean by an "investigation"?

Someone commenting on a facebook post asked the following, which I really appreciated. My response is below it. Others also chimed in disagreeing that all the relevant information was actually known by the congregation, but my response focused on the nature of an investigation. 

This is a genuine question and not an attack on anybody. I intend to pose it and then permit people to answer or not as they see fit. I will not respond or argue. 

The differences I observe as I read the various accounts are differences of analysis. Is a particular behavior, which everyone agrees occurs substantially as described, "sinful" or "abusive" or "dishonest" or "obfuscatory?" In other words, given a set of facts and circumstances which are, in their essence, known and agreed upon by everyone who bothers to find out, are not the only questions that remain those of moral judgment? 

If the above is accurate, then why investigate? What investigation could ever supply an absolute answer to a question of moral judgment? Would those seeking an investigation really trust some big downtown law firm's opinion on the proper application of scripture to church governance and shepherding? Or, to flip that around, if an outside investigator determined that everything that those demanding an investigation have alleged were true as they have described it, would the outstanding questions of moral judgment truly be resolved? Or, to ask the broadest question of all, what could an hypothetical investigator discover that would be likely to lead to healing and reconciliation at BBC? 

I'm grateful for any input anyone cares to offer, but none is expected or demanded. 

I think your confusion is reasonable, given how in our original letter the word "investigation" is used in a few different contexts with slightly different meanings: the "investigation" into Naselli's conduct, the "investigation" at BCS, and our request for an "investigation." We could have been clearer on this.

What you're describing ("establish facts and pronounce moral judgment") is probably closest to the Naselli investigation/grievances (though even there, that was botched in my mind because there was no attempt to establish facts). What I personally am asking for is broader than that type of investigation, but rather something closer to the Challenger explosion investigation - asking not just "what happened?" and "was it right?", but also "what took us to that point?" "What do we need to change so it doesn't happen again?" The Challenger investigation didn't stop when they discovered the immediate cause (O Ring deformation in cold temperatures I believe), but also identified a culture of ignoring concerns, not creating an environment where people could speak up, flawed decision-making, failures to communicate clearly and properly, sloppy science, etc.

Speaking on behalf of myself (not necessarily on behalf of others who have chimed in), I would like something closer to the Challenger investigation - what happened? How did we get here? How can we make sure that it doesn't happen again? In my mind, this type of investigation is not intended to be a moral "therefore elders A,B,C are bad" but an open handed, Gospel-embracing, "wow, something terrible happened here, how did we get to this point? How can we do better?"