The only source that pertains to be anything close to a first hand account has been dismissed as biased and inaccurate. The reason? Apparently that a qualified captain could not possibly be so far off-beam in decision making for it to be true. This somewhat circular argument has then been used to pour increasing scorn and vitriol on the alleged eye witness account.
You are right about the seeming injustice of this but it is more or less what would happen in court in a legal system with an adversarial system.
Of course this thread is not a court nor does it purport to uphold justice or fairness. The forum deals in rumours and the contributors are anonymous. Nothing here is as it seems!