That doesn't appear to involve the accusers at all - the consent order is against 4 signatories of the open letter, and merely states that they didn't have proof of the accusers claims?
Yes; that is correct. They are admitting they made an accusation without evidence or an investigation to support the claim. This is a civil matter and says absolutely nothing about the truth or otherwise of the claims made.
Arguably, the open letter was the most damaging (since it was the one who ostracize them from the scala community). And I guess he sued the signee who were in the same country (UK from what I understand). Suing people cross-country is a mightmare.
That doesn't appear to involve the accusers at all - the consent order is against 4 signatories of the open letter, and merely states that they didn't have proof of the accusers claims?
Yes; that is correct. They are admitting they made an accusation without evidence or an investigation to support the claim. This is a civil matter and says absolutely nothing about the truth or otherwise of the claims made.
Arguably, the open letter was the most damaging (since it was the one who ostracize them from the scala community). And I guess he sued the signee who were in the same country (UK from what I understand). Suing people cross-country is a mightmare.
The closing remarks by the defendants seem to be what the parent comment is looking for.
It's not.