Maybe those who are critical of the AVH in this subject should ask a different question.
I don't think what triggered that article was the question of guilt, but the question whether there were things in this investigation which deserve scrutiny because they are either wrong or at least do not live up to the standards of a normal accident investigation.
I remember when the accident happened that I was taken very much aback when the French held a press conference before even the FDR was found and declared they knew what happened. That is just not how ANY accident investigation is done, nor are the police or state lawyers the people to communicate this.
Think about it. This fact alone put a undue and uncalled for bias on the whole thing and probably some of the questions asked in the AVH article are more than justified. AVH are not the only ones asking that either.
My own take of this whole thing is that I would want to know if this investigation went wrong and if it did why and for what purpose. And I am quite certain that this is the purpose why AVH decided to publish this article. I think they are well aware of the risk of voicing their concerns but they have not been known to shut up when they thought something needed to be investigated. The Windroe incident proves that I think.
Whether the final outcome is the same or not is not the issue at all. The issue is, that there appear to be quite a bit of questions which need answering as to the nature and content of the final report.