it sounds like they're accusing him of implicit approval of what happened. i think that if he wanted to be seen more sympathetically he should be stronger in denouncing it.
Maybe he would be better served by not being in the press. He is attacked for saying too little (by whose standards, I do not know.) He accused of supporting a vicious attack because he does not say, "X", even though he does not say "I think he deserved the attack." He would be attacked for protesting too much if he more strongly denounced it. He would draw attention. He is damned if he does or does not say anything, or for how much he does or does not say. That is the nature of the media, and how papers sell. Hypothetically, even if he did not know of the attack, he would be accused of not saying enough, I believe.
I do not say this as a fan (I am not), or a supporter of what I read about his conduct (the truth of which I have no way to verify). I just think it is wrong to speculate as to criminality or vilify the degree of reported stated outrage and relate it to criminality or morality.