To be fair, when it comes to accusations of plagiarism, the primary sources aren't necessarily those you want to follow. It's often hard for a dispassionate court to distinguish between an adaptation of their work and a new work inspired by the same, let alone the creator of the original. And even the most competant artist might not realize that their contract gives the publisher the rights to license the work to others without compensation.
That's not to say that it isn't worth hunting those sources down, of course, if one has an interest. But once you have Bradbury's version of events as he interprets them, there's potentially another rabbit hole just behind it.
As an unrelated example, up until just a couple of months ago, Eisner's word was always seemingly taken as gospel on events in the comic industry, and now Ken Quattro's articles on the DC/Fox suit would cast a fair amount of doubt on some of the most critical assertions.
The reference material is also, as we've discussed, very poorly organized, in the grand scheme. But then, I spent most of this afternoon haggling with Google over a (non-comic-related) topic, wherein dozens of searches and following links turned up one mildly interesting item, so I'm a bit bitter...
