I'm afraid that the longer this has gone on the more and more pointlessly over-analytical it has become. Gross negligence seems a bit unfair but let's face it, the aircraft in question was not found to be unserviceable prior to the crash so what do you expect the establishment to say?
Yes, the crew were making do with less than ideal circumstances (chopping and changing between the Mk.1 & Mk2, crew duty issues, restrictive icing clearance etc) but hey, when are circumstances 100% ideal on SH? Rarely, I can tell you. Improvise, adapt, overcome. That's what they'd been taught and that's what they were doing. If they weren't happy they wouldn't have got airborne in the frst place.
No-one seems to countenance the thought that the crew, like countless SH crews before them, might have just been 'cuffing it' on a low-arousal task. Dissecting every last detail of what was a routine flight is wholly counter-productive because a crew will often make things up as they go along. Yes, there'll be a broad plan to get from A to B but the finer detail often changes for any number of reasons ranging from the trivial to the safety-critical. With this in mind, over-analysing the minutiae of the crew's actions just seems desperate.
Nothing will be proven, whether it's regarding waypoints, rotor overspeeds, spurious captions or whatever. As admirable as the campaigners intentions are, you just appear to be grasping at straws and are clearly fighting a losing battle. Sorry if the truth hurts.