But you seem to imply that Contreras, not the PLC, might be the one possibly viewed as a "professional victim", because you said "a person" and not "an organization."
Doesn't your observation apply more strongly to the PLC?
If the PLC pointed to 100 emails, and Contreras responded to all of them, then is that worse for Contreras? Or worse for the PLC? (Clearly it depends on if you accept the presented information. But "right or wrong" means you're only looking at the length of the list.)
If the PLC pointed to 100 emails, and Contreras responded to 10 of them, then wouldn't the easy interpretation be that the other 90 were justified? (Ie, the 'Gish Gallop' mentioned twice.)
As to your second sentence, unfortunately an irrational or emotional tone also doesn't seem to help. I wouldn't put it past people to claim that's evidence of being a professional victim playing to readers' emotions.