I think maybe we should stop short of saying we know for a fact what did or didn't happen with her. An outside investigation does absolutely help, and hopefully if anything was wrong it has now been rectified.

But there are lots of ways that companies can clear their names, and bringing in a company to do an investigation could either be done in good faith, or be a very effective way of cleaning up an enormous PR mess.

I think we should be warry of making snap calls about who was factually in the right in these kinds of situations unless there's hard evidence available to us. Often these situations are about our gut feeling of what happened, and our gut feeling isn't objective. And getting it wrong in either direction has the potential to be enormously damaging (though in this case I believe there was no specific alleged perpetrator for the allegations like sexual harassment)

I feel this is one of those situations where nuance and being okay with not knowing exactly what happened is important. Though perhaps you know more facts about the situation than I do, and have more concrete reason to believe it was highly exaggerated