FE Hoppy;
I wasn't aware that there were "no-go" zones in this discussion. Are we under an informal rule or do we stay true to our craft?
The notion of "blame" is not in play in any discussion regarding the accident.
If people choose to read a discussion this way, that is beyond the control of the contributor who chooses to discuss all aspects of this accident.
Blame has no place in the discussion but examining the evidence available and positing notions and otherwise going where data and evidence and knowledge of the airplane etc lead, is a primary investigative principle, one which, I will add, is not honoured (despite their membership in ICAO), in many countries and in a number of accidents which have been discussed on PPRuNe.
The entire picture of course does not snap into focus - that's what "blame" does...attempts to snap things simply and leave it at that. Instead, bits and pieces are examined, placed aside for later consideration or placed on the table for closer examination or placed in what would be an extensive discussion of factors working in parallel.
That is the kind of discussion I would expect from those who want to "find out" rather than hand it off and "blame the ____".
As a pilot I am keenly aware of the dangers of "blame". I am a flight safety person, not some lawyer with an interest.