When it came time to write the final report, the CAB report author filled in the unimportant parts by checking to see what they'd told the newspapers, and just pasted that in? Sorry, I don't buy it.
If it rotated while sliding, then the explicit CAB statement that it slid tail first is wrong. I understand that no one wants to confront that, and perhaps if we ignore it long enough it will go away, but the puzzle remains nonetheless. Why did the CAB include extra incorrect information when they could have just ignored it? The simplest explanation, of course, is that they believed it.
The ditch had nothing to do with the plane flipping over. If the plane had stubbed on the ditch and flipped, the plane would be at least one fuselage diameter past the ditch. Instead the plane is lying across the ditch. I go into that at some length in my report. So if it was sliding forward, what flipped it?
The pilot didn't level the plane between the embankment and the next impact. Those points were 380 feet apart and the plane was moving 270 feet per second. The distance was a little over three plane lengths and under 1.5 seconds. It was all ballistics then.
I never accused the investigators of lying; I accuse them of sloppy work. They gave the clamoring reporters a first approximation that turns out to be bogus. No great surprise there. The surprise is that the investigators either held on to that bogus story, or came back to it in the course of their investigation.
Asking how a bogus scenario ended up in the official report is a legitimate question, old and thin as the evidence may be. Leaving errors in the official report is not justified by the fact that it's an aspect no one cared much about.