That's exactly why #4 is not unbiased. You say in point #5 that those who seek more context prior to judgement are from the end-is-nigh camp. Reasonable people who are not in that camp also think the emails may have a very different meaning in their true context. Otherwise, great summary.
I used the term "prima facie" on purpose, because it's very apt here.
It roughly means "on first glance" or "on the surface". IANAL, but as I understand it, it's a way of saying "just glancing at the evidence here, it certainly looks like X"
The interesting part about this term is that it's all subjective. So as soon as one lawyer uses it, the appropriate response is to say, "but wait a minute! You're taking this out of context, words have more than one meaning, there was nuance involved, you're twisting what was actually said, etc."
I provided #4 the way I would provide it to anybody on any side of the discussion. I understand the appropriate reply is to get into meanings and nuance -- and I don't mean that as a slam. At some point it gets silly, such as in the famous "it depends on what you mean by the word 'is'" but we're nowhere near there yet.
The problem is that the requester asked somebody to explain it to him. As "somebody", I felt it appropriate to explain what I found prima facie and also my bias.
In highly emotional environments I've found that it's impossible to strike the right tone. Apologies if I could have done better.
Like I said, it was the best I could come up with. Prima facie, something is wrong somewhere.