Yes, one would probably notice that something isn't quite as usual. But then, on a short runway (*) like the one in this accident and with a lightly loaded aircraft, the crew was probably go-minded, at least I would have been: Abort only for red lights or really severe things like fire, loss of (directional) control or similar. Since they probably had no indication of any malfunction I can understand why they kept going after V1.
BTW: Out of curiosity last week I attempted, sort of, a takeoff with the parking brake set in our C560 (not a C560XL as in the accident, but the performance is very similar). Also lightly loaded. The tyres started slipping on the dry concrete runway at around 65% N1, the takeoff setting was 89%. It would have easily been possible to start the takeoff run with the brake still set. How they were able to line up on the runway with the parking brake on is a mystery to me however. Especially the 90 degree turn from the taxiway onto a narrow runway usually requires some differential braking (no steering tiller on the Excel!) which they won't have had with the parking brake on.
(*) At 1100m length this runway would be way to short for our commercial operation in the EASA part of the world.