I actually feel that this last response is exactly how PR should work. It has placed responsibility for misconduct where it for the actual misconduct that actually happened and needs correcting and has done a pretty good job of invalidating the histrionic claims of gender discrimination.
This additional information (the identity and reputation of the investigator and the level of detail investigated including review of the commits) taken together with JAH's commits to her own public projects [0][1] and exaggerated and overly dramatic behavior, there is more than enough reasonable doubt to vindicate the male engineer being accused of misconduct. Absent a reliable witness to the claimed misconduct or other solid irrefutable evidence (not just perceptions of what happened), the principle of innocent until proven guilty should extend to this accused individual as well.
If you actually want a fair investigation where the goal is justice, the last thing you do is go to the media and kick off a trial by peanut gallery.
Going to the media first is the very definition of "exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention".
There's nothing wrong with going to the media first with a story of gender discrimination if you have the hard evidence to support your allegations. If you don't, taking that nuclear option without evidence will only discredit you because choosing the nuclear irrefutable evidence is careless and unjustified. If anything, JAH has actually damaged the ability for other women to use the nuclear option in the future. A hypothetical future situation in which a woman steps forward with gender discrimination claims like those made by JAH will be met with greater skepticism than in an alternate reality where she had stuck to only making claims about those things she could prove.
She should have only gone to the media with the story of misconduct by TPH and his wife (which near as I can tell was gender neutral with respect to the misconduct in question, since both men and women were impacted.)
This additional information (the identity and reputation of the investigator and the level of detail investigated including review of the commits) taken together with JAH's commits to her own public projects [0][1] and exaggerated and overly dramatic behavior, there is more than enough reasonable doubt to vindicate the male engineer being accused of misconduct. Absent a reliable witness to the claimed misconduct or other solid irrefutable evidence (not just perceptions of what happened), the principle of innocent until proven guilty should extend to this accused individual as well.
[0] https://hackertimes.com/item?id=7625258
[1] https://hackertimes.com/item?id=7629283