[halpmeh]

You've conveniently omitted the independent third-parties that had seen the data. It's a messy world. Unexpected things happen. How do these third-parties factor in to Occam's razor? You need to add more parameters to your explanation as to why the third-parties would verify the existence of non-existent data.

Here's another possibility: During goes to DePalma to collaborate and asks if DePalma still has the data. DePalma says he doesn't. During sees this an an opportunity to claim credit for the work.

It's impossible to tell which scenario is more likely. Are you really willing to ruin someone's career over purely circumstantial evidence provided by a biased witness?

[trompetenaccoun]

You mean the sort of third parties that let a paper slip through the cracks which peers contacted by Science.org claim should have never been published because of the glaring errors it contains?

What evidence do you have that anyone has actually looked into those data? In what context? You're simply repeating his claim but there isn't evidence the data was ever scrutinized. In research you're shown other people's data all the time - that doesn't mean that people actually look into it.