CHC had started his review exercise with a promise to name names if he found blame. I think he felt bound by that position when push came to shove.
The point is, he was told the names and given the evidence in MoD's own hand. He changed the date to 11 years later, ignored MoD's own audit reports, praised the culprits and blamed Baber and others. There's a reason why they were not prosecuted. The CPS accepted the original evidence. But when asked why they didn't then prosecute the culprits, the CPS claimed (to families) that no witnesses would come forward. Yet they were sitting on formal witness statements. Hence, the decision not to prosecute was based on rank - a recurring theme.
To be fair, during the first few years of the MAA's existence, I found most members had a reasonable appreciation of airworthiness principles.
I find 1st year apprentices have a reasonable appreciation after about a week! The failure was implementation. Worse, issuing orders not to implement.