while not wishing to pre-empt the outcome of the investigation currently underway, are satisfied that neither a mechanical nor a design fault were to blame for the fatality
On the contrary, it seems pre-empting the outcome of the investigation is exactly the intention. Even then, the selective use of words suggests hedging of bets... Electrical fault? Related systems fault? Etc, etc. So basically it claims a lot and says little. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this.