There is a strong temptation to close this case in one direction or the other, and both closures would be false.
It would be false to say the accused did what they were convicted of. No trial transcript survives. The confessions were beaten out of them, on the word of the prosecution's own foreign witness. The court proceeded in French before defendants whose language was Creole. The government had a diplomatic interest in a conviction, and the observers had arrived already persuaded of the charge.
It would be equally false to say the case was invented. Nobody has demonstrated that. A crime of some kind may well have occurred; a rural community may have been scapegoated for it; several other things are possible. What is missing is not an argument but a record, and no amount of reasoning replaces one.
So this is recorded as unknown rather than as debated. There are no scholarly camps holding rival reconstructions of the night in Bizoton, because there is nothing to reconstruct one from. What exists is a gap that the accusation has been growing in ever since.
The distinction matters beyond this case. A claim that a religion practises human sacrifice is one of the oldest instruments there is for arguing that its practitioners are not fully people, and it has been used against Jews, against Christians in the Roman Empire, against West African, Pacific and Indigenous American peoples, and against Haitians. Where such a claim rests on a single trial with no surviving record, the honest report is that nobody knows, and that somebody could still go and look.