I condemn Patterson's behavior (in my view the gorilla can't be held morally or legally responsible for it's actions, the handlers are responsible for them) but

I condemn Patterson's behavior (in my view the gorilla can't be held morally or legally responsible for it's actions, the handlers are responsible for them) but I don't see why that should change my mind that she probably knows better about what Koko meant? If they organized some kind of Weinsteninan cult of silence and abuse then I could see how we might view them as dishonest and refuse to take them at their word, but that's not what the article describes? Am I missing something? I read that section of Wikipedia and the Slate article it cites (though that was more about the hypothesis Koko couldn't speak and that it was a Clever Hans scenario - an argument I'm open to as a refutation of what I said) and I'm not seeing a suggestion of a cover up, I'm seeing someone behaving inappropriately and being a missing stair in the weirdest way, and then getting sued for it. I have to take care of some household stuff, so I don't have have to read more articles at this particular moment or I would try another source, but if I picked the wrong one let me know. None of this is an endorsement, if we take these statements as read (and I have no reason to doubt them), Patterson (and anyone else who behaved that way) is guilty of a serious crime and can't be trusted to supervise anyone or work with animals.