My understanding is that Sedin was definitely not responsible for her actions and acted purely on instinct. The humans involved were nothing else to her in that situation than a means of survival and tools, early building blocks for the start of the collective.
That's true. Sedin's mind was all but gone; only raw survival instinct and hunger remained. The emergence of the Borg was a result of a tragic accident, just as you say.
Coming back to what Christopher said, I doubt it that the truth will be kept secret within the top leadership of Starfleet. I am sure President Bacco will learn the truth and she will likely hand pick a few people she trusts enough to handle this information responsibly. I very much disagree with it that the true origin of the Borg should be kept out of history and be forgotten in time. Not only does it feel morally wrong, losing this information would also mean that the opportunity to learn from this part of history will be lost and that there is valuable information missing that could have saved a lot of lives.
I'm not proposing a massive coverup or anything. I just don't think there's really anything to cover up. Again, we as readers, watching from an omniscient point of view, "know" this to be what happened, but as far as anyone other than Hernandez and the Caeliar themselves is concerned, it's purely hearsay. It's a story that a few captains have been told, with no way to confirm it. It's not falsifiable, to use the scientific term, so as far as the government or Starfleet is concerned, it's just an allegation.
Let me suggest an analogy. Suppose a US passenger jet crashes, and someone comes up to the NTSB and alleges that it was the result of terrorists using some new undetectable technology. But the investigators find no evidence to support this, and the witness disappears and can't be found. It's just an unsubstantiated claim, one that would cause a panic or desire for retaliation that might be completely unjustified. In those circumstances, would it be responsible to announce that unproven and inflammatory hypothesis to the general public? Or would it be wiser to wait and say nothing until the investigation turned up something tangible?
That's what I'm talking about. Not covering up a known fact, but choosing not to broadcast an unproven hypothesis that might not be true at all, at least as far as Bacco and her people can discern. You can't even call it a secret; from their perspective, it's merely an allegation.
If we are talking about official records here, I don`t think people would doubt the story.
Exactly. Official records of what? There's no hard evidence. It's pure hearsay.