Is the blog post by Susan not evidence? It certainly seems reasonable enough evidence to suggest what the investor is suggesting, which is that a more thorough and unbiased investigation should be carried out.
Forms of evidence I'd be interested in seeing: slack chats, emails, internal HR files, etc. that should all in theory come to light if there was an independent investigation. If there is a systematic covering up of sexual harassment at Uber there will be hard evidence to support it, right?
What actual evidence (other than Susan's blog post) do we have that leads to a rational and unbiased conclusion that Uber is intentionally covering up sexual harassment?
In general, someone who makes a specific accusation that can be disproven if not true probably isn't making it up.
I know we can all recall specific times when this hasn't been true. But as a general rule it works, as long as we remember we are still in the "judgment" phase and not the "punishment" phase.
On what do you base this?
Honestly, i'd say that in court, the percent time people (be they cops, witnesses, you name it) make specific accusations that can be disproven, and are making it up, is in the 20-30% range, at least. These are on a witness stand, too. I'm just going by those things objectively disproven later (IE literally could not have occurred as the person says. Not "can't tell what really happened, video too fuzzy"). Outside of court situations with repercussions, i'd expect the number to be much higher not much lower.
"I know we can all recall specific times when this hasn't been true. But as a general rule it works, "
This is handwaving. Really. This is "well, you might think it's wrong, but i'm telling you it's not with no data to back me up".
There's a reason "eyewitness testimony" has it's credibility judged by a jury, is not taken as fact, and is pretty much the lowest form of evidence there is: it's because it's the most often wrong.
It seems like you may have failed to comprehend the point I was making, but from the other side of the spectrum, which is pretty interesting. My point is that no one knows the truth until we have the evidence. Until then, all we can rationally advocate for is a process that uncovers the evidence in an unbiased manner. The author of the letter seem to be making many conclusions without the support of public evidence. Maybe the author knows certain facts we don't.