Quote from the article: "The professor went on to explain that the relationship of trust had already been strained, because Gerber had «lost his temper» during a conversation a year earlier, and had told her that he no longer wanted to continue his doctorate at St. Gallen in any form, and no longer needed her as a doctoral supervisor."

I'd trust an email record over he-said / she-said claims.

"Losing temper" is quite vague; and evidently, it didn't warrant terminating the relationship until the tweets happened.

Let's not pretend the timing was a coincidence. The relationship was clearly terminated because of the tweets, which has nothing to do with the professor.

Thats not evidence. That is just a claim made by the professor, which is denied by the former student and which, according the the article, is not reflected in the tone of the emails exchanged at this time, either.

Isn't eye-witness testimony considered evidence? Maybe the professor is lying, true. But also professional emails tend to be more cordial than in-person conversations. In terms of motives, the student has more motive to lie than the professor, since the professor has nothing at stake.

The student has factual evidence, the emails.

> Isn't eye-witness testimony considered evidence?

C'mon.

The nice tone of the professor’s emails (after the run-in) could be also proof of her goodwill. While student showed his lack of self control on twitter.

This is just a different aspect of the same facts.

> The nice tone of the professor’s emails (after the run-in) could be also proof of her goodwill.

What was nice about it?

> student showed his lack of self control on twitter

I don't see a lack of control on Twitter. The student wasn't talking to the professor, and there is nothing inappropriate about their Twitter comments as reported, beyond the cartoon which IIRC the advisor didn't cite.

That was after the fact, with no evidence, after Gerber had contested the separation. The emails contemporaneous with the events clearly show differently.