I don't know why the organizer is misrepresenting the report, or why he organized the thing in the first place.
So your contention is that the organizer of the report is lying to us about what's in the report, and you're basing it on the fact that Nature's summary of it is written in the journalistic neutral tone? What evidence do you have of misrepresentation? There's a whole bunch of stuff going on here, and none of it is as arbitrary as you're trying to make it appear:
1) Independent scientist finds images in the papers suspicious and commissions an expert to investigate them. Expert says it appears images were reused and manipulated.
2) The author's university starts an investigation. The person coordinating that investigation leaks the results early and says they found manipulation. This is the part you're asserting is a lie. I have no idea why you think so.
3) Investigator from (1) posts his analysis online for people to look at. You're discounting his analysis and the posted images because... it's on the Internet or something like that. Presumably if the images weren't on the Internet, the claims would be untrustworthy because they weren't available for scrutiny.
On the second point, maybe it'll take more to convince me than a personal internet post from someone who claims he found evidence.
This isn't some random guy with no credentials claiming something on his own authority. This is somebody with real expertise posting his claim and the evidence that supports his claim. This isn't, "Trust me, they're manipulated." It's, "Look at this here!"
Notice Nature is being careful to not say they think the images have or not been manipulated.
That's not surprising. It's exactly what every publication writes about preliminary results of investigations of people doing bad things. The serial killer is always the "alleged" serial killer. That doesn't mean there's no evidence. It just means the findings are preliminary or that nothing has been proven in a court of law. You can still actually look at the evidence and make a decision rather than simply asserting that the evidence doesn't exist.
Question: If I asked you before this came out, "What's the probability that this journal article is fraudulent?" and you had to decide on a probability based on nothing, would your estimate have been the same as if I asked you today? Mine certainly would have changed, and that conclusion would be based on evidence.