What we need to keep in mind is that sensing an object is different from deciding whether or not to take an action (e.g., hitting brakes, raising alarms, swerving, etc.).
Most LiDAR/RADAR/Camera manufacturers only provide input data. It's like saying "hey, I see this". It's up to the perception software to decide whether or not to make a decision.
In most cars, relatively simpler decisions are made by the car's perception software (e.g., adaptive cruise control, lane change warning, automatic braking, etc.).
Self-driving companies override such systems, and rewire the car such that it is their perception software that makes the decision. So the onus is completely on the self-driving company's software. In this case, it is the perception software developed by Uber to be critiqued - not Velodyne, not Volvo, not the camera manufacturer.
It looks like the engineers at Velodyne feel confident that they should (and would have) sensed the person, and hence their statement. I wouldn't doubt them much as they have been in the LiDAR game since DARPA days when self driving was considered experimental.
From a different angle, Velodyne may not have much to loose by throwing Uber under the bus - especially when compared to how much their reputation is at stake. This is because Velodyne has several big customers (e.g., Waymo, and almost every other self-driving, mapping company that is serious about getting big).
NTSB should and will get access to the point clouds. Uber has a choice of releasing the point clouds to the public - but I highly doubt they will.