I think I understand your argument, Albert. We should not treat Rich Johnson's book as "a scholarly treatise" or hold it up to "peer-review" standards. Rich was "a raconteur of anecdotes," not a biographer. He provided material for the likes of Phil Evans, Dick Sudhalter, and Jean Pierre Lion; he did not interpret it -- although you yourself have recommended that we look to "The Davenport Album" for its "thoughtful and perceptive commentaries and analyses."
Nevertheless, my argument is this: if you are going to air the claim (or, at the least, the strong implication) that Preston Ivens made up the charge against Bix, that he lied to the police out of a grudge against the Beiderbeckes or out of anti-German bigotry, then I think you owe your readers some evidence and some documentation. If you are not in the business of citing sources or providing commentaries or in any way analyzing the material you present -- if, in other words, you are merely a raconteur and by no stretch a scholar -- then such charges should remain out of print.
This argument is not the same as "examining microscopically all [of Rich's] contributions and hit[ting] them with a sledge hammer." It is simply suggesting that any fair evaluation of Rich's book requires an acknowledgment of this one, and I think significant, instance of poor scholarship.