Defending him is just as much "jumping to a conclusion" as criticizing him. If anything, it is a more active decision because he hasn't even offered a defense yet to this latest round of accusations meaning a defender must create a defense for him. Meanwhile, a criticism of him requires nothing new since it can just be a summary of the existing allegations against him.
Being skeptical about various possibly biased stories from involved parties would mean not accepting any as true. Where is the conclusion? The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. In contrast, the assumption of guilt based on the statement of an ex-board member is a conclusion.
>Being skeptical about various possibly biased stories from involved parties would mean not accepting any as true.
Party A accused party B of being a liar. Party B did not respond. In order to defend party B, you need to accuse party A of lying. Do you not see the flaw in that response?
>The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.
Only in a criminal trial. There is no assumption of innocence in a civil trial. They are instead judged based on the "preponderance of evidence".
The neutral position when there is a dispute between to people is not to assume either the accuser or accused are lying. It is to assume everyone is telling the truth until they are shown to be lying. Right now the only evidence we have is the testimony of one witness. So until Altman offers a counternarrative, there is no reason to defend him.
