I somewhat understand the evidence against the man...and I can admit it has never has looked good.
For myself though, I've been involved in a somewhat high profile lawsuit...and what struck me was how public perception was completely devoid of really an examination of the facts. Which in some ways makes sense, as to fully understand the case you needed to sift through mountains of evidence and understand very specific and unique details of business. The public's individual perception seemed more about personal beliefs and how those beliefs tied to what you wanted to think about the case. For example, when a few months of emails, which internally were known to have been harmlessly deleted to make room for an inbox at one point, were reported...it was assumed by the press and (seemingly the) public that they were deleted for nefarious reasons. If you take that mindset, then the entire case looks more nefarious. This type of thing continued to perpetuate until many likely had their minds made up, based on a lot of incorrect conclusions from incomplete information (or harmless information presented in a way to garner more press and interest).
This case is much different in its details of course, but I have a different opinion of forming an opinion on court cases based on my experience than before. There is a mountain of data points that lead to what an informed judgement should be here, which is hopefully what the club is sifting through. Evidence can seem one way when promoted publicly, but it's hard to make determinations without all of the facts supporting that evidence.
Thats not to say that he is innocent or guilty. I really have no idea. It would appear to me he is, but I lack a boatload of context. The very reason for trials is to hopefully solve this ambiguity, by proving the offense occurred. Because that will never happen at this point, I feel I will never really be able to form a final judgement on it.
So, for me personally...given my experience...this is an area I feel strongly about. Without a clear understanding of guilt, I think the lad should get a second chance. If the club has access to information that essentially proves this guilt...then he should never play for us again. So in some ways I think the club has handled this well, as it would seem they are conducting a through review and have not publicly spoken about anything of substance while doing it.
I've been in the position of having things said about me that were untrue...thought not to this level, but still publicly. The fear, paranoia, and anxiety it produced is something I have never experienced in my life and hope others never have to experience. In some ways this probably makes me bias, but I will personally always give people the benefit of the doubt and hope for second chances if they are truly innocent of their accused transgressions. I trust the club will accurately make that determination, and if they feel he's worthy of playing for us again it's the right call.