It’s not that there wasn’t a total lack of evidence, its that there was thin and ambiguous evidence that was interpreted as confirmation of pre-existing beliefs. This isn’t to say that it was OK, that there should be no oversight, or that redress is inappropriate, but it is to say that these types of incidents don’t mean that someone is monstrous or that they have necessarily been corrupted (especially early on in the process, and before they get into the cover-our-asses stage of things). The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
