Are you defending this guy?
The morale of the company was supposedly "killed" after that email and the evidence used was a drop in stock price, but a little investigation shows that the stock price is actually fine. Therefore, any accusation that the CEO is ineffective appears to be false and deserves to be defended against.
Your post seemed to excuse his actions as if its just his style.
Since no one has presented evidence showing that he hurt his company....
In my book, you don't get to complain about the quality of someone else's evidence unless your evidence is better. And no, "self-evident" doesn't count. YMMV.
Are you saying we should gloss over some facts just to make the guy look even worse than he already does?