To be honest, expecting a specific result from an open ended question is foolish at best, and hubris at worst. You can't expect random people to confirm your opinion, especially if you deny them the information you used to reach that conclusion.
A question like the one you asked is normally used to get an outside perspective, something that would help you get around your own biases and see things from a more objective standpoint.
If you wanted a specific answer, you should have asked a more specific question. I noticed that you edited the original comment to try to be more specific, and that's good. But it still lacks a lot of the details that you'd need to get the
response you want.
With everything that you've added on and Viator's comments that you seem to enjoy, the only conclusion I can come to is the entire scenario is too contrived to happen. B-F wouldn't get upset at A's actions, nor would they question A's decisions. They would have expected and welcomed it. They never would have saved the random, because it would have interfered with their goals.
If they truly misjudged A, and DO get upset, then they would most likely kill A as I outlined before. In a life or death situation, people become far more dangerous to one another, and A has lost the trust of C-E, and possibly B and F as well.
The thing you seem to have misinterpreted is that everyone is piling on A because they're a psychopath. That isn't the case. The scenario you've outlined would make
the other characters stop trusting A.
They are the ones whose thoughts are important. Even if A would never, ever harm the others,
they have no way of knowing that. They only have their own paranoia and insecurity to rely on. If there's no paranoia, then there's no conflict, and the whole thing is just... what, a misunderstanding?