We should maintain caution in taking a strong position in this matter for now.
The Mendy situation could very well be an anomaly and not in any way normative, however, that an instance of collusion involving multiple parties happened in a case so similar to this, there is enough reason to let the process play out without taking a hard line on the matter. If there's even small percent chance of a repeat of the above, then we'd do well to say as little as possible. It's not about what is likeliest; it's about what is determined from rigorous and honest scrutiny of the evidence presented in a court of law.
If the Antony situation proves to have no common relationship to the Mendy one, and indeed he's proven to be a serial committer of that which the allegations assert that he is, then the relevant testimony will be upheld in court as evidence and the evidence found sufficient will condemn him, but, and I can't stress this enough; but, let the condemnation come from legal minds who will engage in their profession and not from X from Redcafe who prematurely will emotionally take positions on Antony both in support of him, or in condemnation of him.
We don't have anything other than public information and a gut feeling, whichever way you engage this issue, so, what's the point merry-go-rounding on a thread like this with countless points, counter-points and retorts.