The point, surely, is not whether he was an FA, an electronic technician or Whistler's mother. The point is, was he in any way part of the scenario that caused the accident?
Obviously he was part of the scenario as his voice is on the CVR during the crash sequence. The question is what role did he play, if any. And to that you have to look at why he was on the FD in the first place.
He was a Flight Attendant, with electronic studies... nothing more, no other position in the company
Obviously it's entirely possible that the paper is twisting facts to create a sensation. It happens. Yet your answer, if true, raises more questions than it answers.
I cannot recall either via experience or study a case of a deadheading FA going to the FD, unprompted, and offering advice to the flight crew in areas outside of their expertise. Maybe this happens all the time at SpanAir; I find it odd. Should the cabin crew be allowed to come and complain about instrument clutter on the flight deck because it offends their sense of decor. Should they be allowed to tell the flight crew how to fly the plane. Where does this stop?
When press reports first came out the third person was identified as a "commander" with the airline. Now we are finding out that he was deadheading CC roaming about on the loose...
I'm not trying to suggest that CC should never be on the FD. I'm not trying to suggest that this person contributed to the accident. However, safety is a process. You look at where the holes lined up and where you could do better. The fact that CC was on the FD is not a problem. But the fact that the CC was on the FD making comments beyond his official position and his professional qualifications...maybe that is a problem. It certainly doesn't seem to me like something a company would want to encourage.