The problem is that you can make a reasonably convincing case both ways and a layman doesn’t have the ability to assess the validity of many claims. I doubt that any outside observer without access to the side has enough data to make a conclusive assessment anyway. The problem is, that all primary evidence of these chemical weapon incidences are under the control of a party in the civil war. Additionally most of the secondary information comes from actors that are also involved (Turkey, the USA or Russia). These UN investigations are all nice and handy, but in the end they can only analyze what they are getting shown. They depend almost entirely on the good-will of actors who fancy one outcome over another. You can add another layer of media bias that will further obscure the whole thing.
For me these chemical attacks are a interesting litmus test about people’s biases, because the fairly objective answer is: We don’t and can’t really know. People, who claim to know what happened with high confidence, usually just want to validate their own narrative.
Not sure what your point is here?
Join the club....