"A) Never return here due to immense embarassment for his whole hearted support and braggintg on the superiority of this mission to NASA's. "

The fact that Beagle may have augered into the martian surface at a supersonic speed does not prove much. And it is possible for example, that Beagle could have landed perfectly except that ran across some "difficult" terrian.
And it's possible that if NASA were to spend 2 billion dollar of some spacecraft, that it also would fail. That fact that there is always some level of risk, regardless of how "good" you make a spacecraft, is one of the rationales behind CFB- though I think this particular "reason" is often over emphasized.
Beagle 2 failing is our loss, not Barry's. Barry's main claim was that the project would be funded and flown- and it did just that.
Probably, Beagle's main failure, is that it wasn't designed well enough to allow us to know where it failed. And this same lack of commitment to the art of landing a spacecraft successful on the martian surface was also demonstrated by NASA.