There has already been evidence posted here that the woman involved in the project, like me, had some idea it was kind of risque but no idea just how negatively it would be viewed. So far, no one has posted any definitive evidence to the contrary -- it is all circumstantial. And I have repeatedly seen instances of this on HN and in every case, simply politely informing them of how negative it was got them to change it. I think it is far from "absurdly unlikely" that they vastly underestimated how negatively this would be viewed.

I think we are talking about two different things only I would frame it as "I'm talking about assumption of guilt (and how rampant and problematic that is) vs actual proof" and you seem to be talking about probability. Given how this conversation has gone so far, there is probably no point in trying to further clarify my intent or meaning on that point.

Peace.

I submit that evidence (I hesitate to use the word "proof" since it can have implications of certainty) is all about probability. You have to weigh the probabilities, always. With the native English speaker, I find that his words on the matter make it overwhelmingly likely that he knew exactly what he was doing. I'm not assuming guilt, I'm concluding guilt.