So, as observers, what we're left with is two people accusing someone of something and the accused saying they're innocent.
This is the point though, isnt it. He's writing a retrospective about the impact of public condemnation and ostracization as a result of such proof-less, process-less accusations.
Neither the accusation nor the denial come with proof. This is not exactly about what should we do in this circumstance. Its about what peiple did fo in these circumstances.
You can doubt his innocence. But... and this is the crucial point... this post is not attempting to punish the accusers. So to me... normal rules apply. Assumption of good faith and honesty, to some extent, apply.
If I read the other side's story, then I'd probably read it from the same perspective.
That's ok... because we aren't hanging someone at the end of this conversation. If we are, different standards apply.
You don't need to prove accusations of criminal conduct false. The onus is on the accusers to prove the allegations true.
> It doesn't seem like the accusing parties were asked or agreed to take any action retracting their claims.
In theory there are punitive measures for false accusations, in practice no one ever bothers with them.
There's a difference between listening to someone's story and assuming truthfulness... and joining a mob going after someone.
He's not naming his accusers or asking the reader to go after them.
OK, now prove you didn’t.