So you too think that the government/MOD have something to hide. As a non-member of both, please do not keep us all in suspense, and tell us what you think it might be? I only ask because I have an inquiring mind.
Sorry for keeping you in suspense. IMHO, there could be several things that the MoD/Government has to hide and several suggestions have already been made on this thread. Some of these suggestions have been shown to have been either fanciful or unfounded, but some remain to be explained.
Having spent some time working at Boscombe Down on MAR recommendations (albeit not on the Chinook), it is apparent to me that the flight test organisation, whether at BD, Farnborough or wherever, had sufficient reservations about the airworthiness of the Chinook Mk2 at the time of the accident, not only to withold Service Release but also for the test pilots to refuse to fly the aircraft. It appears that the MoD, despite knowing of these concerns, decided to press the aircraft into service, apparently under a Service Deviation. I'm certainly not an expert on the nuances of this (though other posters on this thread are) but, for the example that you are seeking, how about the following scenario:
Test pilots, scientists and engineers at Boscombe Down (or wherever) decided that there was insufficient evidence to provide clearance of one or more specific safety-critical items in the Chinook Mk2. As the RAF has limited assets, someone who is empowered to do so within the RAF/MoD decides to stick their neck out and authorise the entry into Service of an aircraft that has not met the normal criteria for Release to Service. ZD576 then crashes with no obvious cause. The Board of Inquiry decides that the cause cannot be established but that, on the balance of probability, aircrew error is the most likely cause. Keen to deflect attention from the, with hindsight, unwise decision to press ahead with the early introduction into servce of the HC2, it is politically expedient to blame the two junior officers who were piloting the aircraft. Although much vitriol has been directed at Air Marshals Day and Wratten, it is entirely possible that they were carrying out instructions from the MoD - the organisation that is, even now, ignoring the findings of what amounts to the highest appeal court in UK, the House of Lords. Perhaps the refusal to change the verdicts is to protect the reputation of a senior MoD official, perhaps that of Day & Wratten, or perhaps it's been done to save the Ministry additional millions in compensation claims.
What is surely undeniable, though, is that no-one knows, beyond any doubt whatsoever, what happened to ZD576. Indeed, even Wratten, in his statement of 15 June 2002, writes that it was his task "to reach my own conclusions". His statement also includes the rather damning (in relation to his conclusion) statement that "without the irrefutable evidence of an Accident Data Recorder and a Cockpit Voice Recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact". The fact that he then goes on to, indeed, reach his own conclusions, dismissing all of the suggested possible technical malfunctions that may explain why the crew didn't carry out the obvious and planned 7-degree turn to the left, speaks volumes. It is tempting to blame Wratten's supreme arrogance (as displayed so embarrassingly during his infamous Paxman interview) for ignoring the hypotheses of others in favour of his own (infalliable of course) analysis but I suggest that it is also possible that he may have been following orders from above, whether within the military or political arena.