Aaron suffered from suicidal depression. We know that from his closest friends' own accounts that his depression long predated the JSTOR incident. So to lay all the blame for his depression and eventual suicide on MIT is just lazy and irresponsible.
The idea that Aaron did something illegal and the idea that Aaron was treated incredibly poorly are not mutually exclusive.
What definition of what term makes that case for you? You seem to basically be denying the concept of causality entirely, which, fine: causality is a brittle concept. But we can still use it to help us reason around things. There are proximate causes and distal causes and all kinds of causes in between and beyond. These are messy, flawed concepts that are useful for trying to analyze systems.
You act like you don't understand the distinction between the relationship between MIT and Aaron and the relationship between those negotiations and Aaron, but I am fairly certain you do.
MIT made its decisions with the knowledge that Aaron was being prosecuted, and therefore were in a position to consciously influence the outcome of the case.
JSTOR and the Royal Society in '99 did not, and therefore were not.
Besides, what would you do in situations where there was no clear 'smoking gun'? Let's say a child dies of anaphylatic shock after eating a cookie that had accidentally touched peanut products on the counter, and that the guy who made his PB&J sandwich hadn't know there was a kid running around with peanut allergies. Who do you shame and despise in that situation? "If X had only cleanup the counter Y would be alive today!"
It must be nice for the world to be so binary.
So how about we take the more obvious Xs and condemn THOSE?
It's not like anyone blames Lincoln for going to the theater that day instead of having a quit dinner at home.