How does the story of General Siha's Meal for the Buddha at Vaisali vindicate the Buddha?

I'm working on a radio history of vegetarianism and featuring a dramatisation of the story of General Siha in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka because it shows the difference between Jain (there called Niganthas - "tieless ones") and classical Theravada Buddhist attitudes to meat-eating. Here is a nineteenth century translation on archive.org. The story begins with the first sentence on the page: https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/324/mode/2up The story is told as if it vindicates the Buddha of the Jains angry accusations of himsa. But that seems flawed to me. General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for (in the Pali canon account) Gautama's influence. And grounds for suspicion had literally been shouted through the streets, albeit by a rival sect. I want to make sure that I accurately reflect the Theravada understanding of the story, but I can't find it anywhere. How is Gautama the wise sramana vindicated?