Do I understand? You first asked for a source, and then again for a primary source. I gave you the former but not the latter.Read the entire article as online at JSTOR. Wow. In the publish or perish grind, this should have perished. A sieve would hold water longer than this article stands up. Whenever a writer fills his writing with "it is possible" or "it is plausible" it generally means that he has no actual evidence at all. And so here. Not a single manuscript, inscription or other hard evidence is cited. Just pure speculation.
Do you understand the difference between primary sources and secondary literature?
In any case, why would anyone erudite want to discuss the libels of the rabble? More so: if they had, why would it have been preserved? May be it was preserved, but so much has been lost in the burning of the Alexandrian library etc. Even many books of erudite philosophers have been lost this way.
A forensic investigation is alone possible where the primary sources are missing.
I reject your critique of this article for the simple reason you can't provide any alternative explanation, and the explanation is by its inherent nature, a very plausible one, against which no-one has yet raised a viable counter-argument.