This debate is (as so often seems to be the case these days) getting to the point where I no longer wish to take part.
My own interpretation is that Gollum was responsible for snatching babies from cradles. Despite the fact that Gandalf picked this up from Woodmen's tales, he clearly concluded that Gollum was responsible (or else why raise it). The Woodmen were not telling him that it was Gollum, as they had no idea who Gollum was. All they knew was that children were disappearing from their cradles and they attributed it to a mysterious ghost (rather than one of the other horrors of Mirkwood, with which they were no doubt familiar). I acknowledged before that Gandalf may not get everything right, but he is one of the most reliable sources of information that we have in LotR. In this case, I choose to accept his conclusion. And I believe, in light of all the circumstances, that Tolkien intended his readers to do so.
I also fully accept the influence of the Ring on Gollum's behaviour. But the fact that he, uniquely among all those who came into contact with it, committed murder almost immediately upon first catching sight of it leads me to conclude that he was not the purest of beings, even before it crossed his path.
These are my opinions. I have no problem if others interpret the relevant passages differently or reach a different conclusion from me concerning Tolkien's intentions in the way that he chose to portray these scenes. And I have no problem in debating these issues with those who hold an opposing view.
I do, however, resent the implication that my interpretation of these matters and my conclusions derived from it are somehow "unfair" or "overly-simplistic". And I also greatly resent the suggestion that my intepretation of a
fictional tale is somehow akin to the lynch mob mentality that leads to the victimisation of those who are suspected of being paedophiles or (in the past) of being witches on scant evidence.
It seems impossible to discuss anything here these days without some people questioning the character or literary nouse of those putting the opposing view.
And that is all that I have to say on the matter.