I read it quite differently. It sounds to me that he is still accused but they have not confirmed the violation yet. The committee has recused themselves from that decision.
That seems correct based on their Twitter comments however their apology reference something (appeal) and a context (enforcement policy) which only applies (as written in the enforcement policy) if an action (read: penalty) was already decided upon. Given the original issues Jeremy had I would have assumed they'd take extra care to follow their own as written process and documents in the follow up. Clearly not.
Their own communication to him said that they were discussing the results of the investigation with him, without talking to him during the investigation. They're not being honest.
