I find it, I don't know, mindboggling is perhaps the right word, that you sort of imply that Hans is lying based on what Hans says about what Amar is saying. I hope that made sense. In other words, if you think Hans might be lying, then how is he a reliable source for Amar? Also I think that is what lawyers call hearsay.
Again, my main point about is this. In the face of uncertainty, which the information you say you have seem to dictate, and considering the severity of the accusations, isn't it better to just remain neutral until you have more concrete information? Certainly not to defend the accused abuser? If the accusations turn out to be true, then that is going to be quite regrettable for you don't you think?
Once more I am reminded of Dylan Farrow. She just had an interview with Drew Barrymore, where the first thing Drew did was basically apologise or acknowledge that she made a mistake being in a Woody Allen picture after the allegations had first come out. Note she hadn't defended Allen, she just appeared in one of his pictures. She talks about how the incident helped her to grow and see the world differently.
Anyway, I don't think we need to continue this. I have nothing more to add at this point.
