Hackers, in my experience, have more shared experience in being naive enough socially to allow themselves to be baited into making statements which are later used against them, than in actually saying things (or even associating with others who would say things) which are intentionally malicious.

We all understand fixing someone's computer and then being blamed for any problems it has from then on; or for making a software estimate and being held to it as a requirement. In short, hackers are used to being scapegoats, so the first conclusion we jump to when one of us is accused of something is that they're being scapegoated too.

This can look like "victim-blaming", but it's really more-than-anything a yearning for people to keep their standards of evidence high, and to avoid jumping to conclusions. Counterarguments and counterfactuals ("what else could have happened") aren't presented as "this is obviously what happened instead", but just to decrease confidence that the evidence presented thusfar is strong enough to prove anything much. If evidence A fits alleged narrative X, but also random equally-likely stories Y or Z, then X is no longer implied directly by A.