Here is something I find curious: you are one of many commenters here literally ignoring the fact that Justine has witnesses to what happened and bringing up the hypothetical, irrelevant possibility that such an accusation could be made falsely. What gives?
Their stories also don't corroborate: "Fast forward to (from what I remember), around 1am. "[1]; "It was slightly before midnight..."[2]
I think it is good that there are witnesses but it is not as simple as saying that because there are, Justine's version of events is correct. We don't know exactly what they saw and heard, how much of their versions are based on actual events or the aftermath or their relationships with the involved. That is why it is still important to maintain innocence of the accused until proven guilty.
"Here is something I find curious: you are one of many commenters here...bringing up the hypothetical, irrelevant possibility that such an accusation could be made falsely"
It certainly isn't irrelevant to the accused. His reputation and in fact his entire life is at stake. A few blog posts do not constitute proof.
[1] - http://blog.matt-darby.com/essays/i-am-the-other-developer
Given the amount of alcohol consumed I expect that the more detailed an account one demanded of Justine or some of the others, the less accurate it would be. That doesn't lead to some kind of Rashomon outcome where we'll never know the nature of what happened. That 1am / midnight shit... really?
I guess what i am trying to say is that they are drawing conclusions of what they saw, not just stating the facts of what they saw.
"...this isn't a criminal trial"
This is my point, we have no right to judge his guilt or innocence without a proper investigation and a trial based on this investigation.
"That 1am / midnight shit... really?"
I think it just shows that witnesses aren't necessarily a reliable form of evidence.
My point is that presumed innocence until proven otherwise is important. These kind of blog posts can help create awareness and allow us to discuss such situations but with regards to the actual event, we should refrain from judgment, as difficult as that is, because anything could have happened or not happened. Trial by social media is not okay.
We have no real standing to judge, no need to judge, but I have the right to do whatever I want, thank you. :)
> because anything could have happened or not happened
This is a little silly if read literally. I think you can tease out a couple of things that very certainly happened by reading the three available accounts.
> Trial by social media is not okay.
So much could be said about that topic. It's fairly horrifying in some instances. On the other hand, if this was cathartic or necessary for this woman, good for her.
I won't comment on how much benefit of the doubt he deserves, but whether he defends himself on the internet or not should be totally irrelevant to that decision. 99.9% of us are by-standers who have no right to demand any justifications from any participants.