I think the messenger shouldn't be killed. IN this case since the evidence is laid out publicly for everyone's eyes, an accusation in my eyes is just as valid coming from an anonymous source, as by a party harmed.
Yes, the manager in question has maintained a good record... But in my very humble opinion any claims made against them should still be taken seriously regardless of past records or the accuser's status.
In my view, this answer from he other thread is most reasonable.
He doesn't owe any funds to the campaign participants because it is not his fault since they didn't come online and no other communication that forum account.
But my humble suggestion for any campaign managers while self escrowing a campaign will be, put you campaign paused when you doesn't have enough funds to pay the participants for the next coming week so participants were aware of the situation and let the participants to wore signature on their own risk.
I often see this kind of announcement from yahoo when he doesn't get top-up for ongoing or next weeks.
If the manager was claiming to hold escrow, it should be disclosed that funds aren't sufficient for an ongoing term. The liability for paying lies with the advertised party if they didn't also inform the manager. In this case I would take the past record of the manager into account also as it is unlikely that there was anything planned with malintent. But caution should be exercised always when managing and escrowing to avoid such situations. Attacking the messenger doesn't help in my view.