How not to handle an abuse investigation, round 2

I mentioned some time ago an abuse investigation involving of fairly well-known pastors. It resulted in the following statement appearing on The Gospel's Coalition's website (though the case in question had been dismissed due to statute of limitations issues and a criminal investigation into one case was ungoing):

So the entire legal strategy was dependent on a conspiracy theory that was more hearsay than anything like reasonable demonstration of culpability. As to the specific matter of C. J. participating in some massive cover-up, the legal evidence was so paltry (more like non-existent) that the judge did not think a trial was even warranted.

Now a few days back the criminal trial returned a verdict of guilty on all counts and additional trials appear set to begin. Also noteworthy was the testimony (under oath) in the trial which seems to reveal that hiding the case from law enforcement was exactly what went on:

... during Morales’ trial this week, public defender Alan Drew drilled former pastor Grant Layman while on the stand.
Drew: “Did you have an obligation to report the alleged abuse?”
Layman: “I believe so.”
Drew: “And you didn’t?”
Layman: “No.”

Now it seems that The Gospel Coalition's webpage has quietly removed a couple of people from it's list of members though the organization seems to be refusing to make any statement while also actively blocking those mentioning this if Twitter is to be believed. The first statements from TGC already seemed like a terrible way to deal with cases of abuse, but this seems only to make things worse.

(I say this though, if you've read this blog for a while, you're probably aware that I'm skeptical of a lot of the claims in this area and still believe that the statute of limitations is worthwhile. Any justice system, whatever its policies are, is likely to in various instances fail to punish the guilty or punish the innocent. The question is about how to balance policies such that these are both minimized).