you state that the aircraft was not found to be unserviceable prior to the crash - it was, of course not proven to be seviceable either
Grasping at straws mate. There are a whole host of things that can't be proven, some on one side of the argument, some on the other. It can't be proven that the pilots weren't playing stone-paper-scissors in the cockpit seconds before the crash but it's pretty unlikely. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it seems that the aircraft was serviceable and yet all this effort seems to be channelled towards trying to do the near-impossible, namely, prove a negative (that the FADEC might not have been working).
Just because there had been a few FADEC issues in the weeks that preceded the crash doesn't mean there were at the time. As it stands, even the layman can see that without concrete evidence, your arguments are pretty thin and that you're grasping at straws in the forlorn hope that someone will reverse previous decisions. Face facts, it's not going to happen. Not on the off chance that something
might not have been working.