I don't think there's an answer to that. I don't think you can prevent the public from forming an instant judgment or listening to social media and coming to a conclusion.
In terms of the process, at the end of the day, the only thing we can do is ensure there is credibility in the process, to be as transparent as possible, as I mentioned several times, so that people understand what we are doing, why we are doing it and where we are going, and then, when it comes out, to explain it in terms that people understand. Don't hide it behind legalese and don't cite the act all the time, etc., but in effect put it in real terms so that people understand the situation the man was in and what he did. Then say that it seemed reasonable under the circumstances but it violated the rules, or, on the opposite side, that actually the person did seek advice and followed the advice and that, therefore, although it looks shady, it was actually perfectly permitted under the rules. That's the best you can do.