My own (TWB) view, mirroring Ray's, is that such processes benefit from being carefully considered and planned by a skilled mediator or facilitator. A poorly considered or poorly led process can do more harm than good, reinforcing destructive preconceptions and entrenching differences, rather than reconciling them. Demands for "conciliation" mean little unless the parties have clarified their objectives and enter the process ready and willing to listen and to respect one another's fundamental humanity.
Now, back to Ray:
A couple of thoughts: This conflict has taken the form of 3 people feeling DEEPLY wounded/hurt/misunderstood. The suffering is great. The person accused of being the "wounder" feels forced into an embattled position of "I didn't do it!" The suffering is great. This is the ORIGINAL "FEELING" form of the conflict from which all else has flowed.
A win/lose situation will contribute to continued suffering on one side or the other OR both. A win/lose is guaranteed to perpetuate a trauma pattern at least unilaterally if not bilaterally. Real healing of both parties will occur only if each side feels an acknowledgement in some way by the OTHER SIDE DIRECTLY INVOLVED (as opposed to a third party acknowledgement, such as the public at large or the law school or the press).
If the goal of further interaction IS healing, a context of grudging respect for each side's humanity must develop despite the disagreements on behavior and words. Consciously committing to this goal would make it achievable. Continuing the current context of a battle for survival ON EITHER SIDE will inhibit resolution except in the form of a typical predator-prey relationship.
A conscious choice to choose the context IS available to the parties involved. What will be chosen ultimately remains to be seen.