Anyway, back to the topic....if what I have read didn't happen at the "Robber Synod"...what did?
Flavian was condemned for semi-Nestorianism. He had previously said that it was heresy to speak of one nature after the union - which of course St Cyril had done. Almost definitely he was talking at cross purposes with those who meant only what Flavian would have agreed with as one hypostasis.
Chalcedon Re-Examined goes into great detail on all of this with over 800 footnotes.
After the session in which Flavian was condemned the council continued and condemned the heretics Ibas, Theodore and Theodoret and some of their followers. Many Chalcedonians, especially in the West believed that Chalcedon had rehabilitated the teachings as well as these persons and therefore in the West there was strenuous opposition to the condemnation of the Three Chapters. But in fact Ephesus II had already condemned them. I think there were 4 or 5 sessions which went through the documentary evidence which suggested these people were heretics. I have the Acts of these latter sessions and it goes on for a couple of hundred pages, of well organised reports from witnesses, reading of documents and then judgements from the bishops present.
Indeed the Acts recall Dioscorus several times interveening when things were getting excited and reminding people to remain calm and conduct themselves in good order.
Eutyches had been received back into the church only on the basis of having presented what was on the face of it an Orthodox confession - surely the same basis on which heretics like Ibas and Theodoret were allowed back into the Church at Chalcedon. God knows the hearts of people.
Again Chalcedon Re-Examined goes into this. There is criticism there of the condemnation of Flavian since some discretion could have been extended to him, although there was also a basis for his condemnation, but there is no evidence in the Acts that there was violence, more than just the shouting which took place at all councils and seems to have been the way in which bishops participated in that culture and time, nor that Eutyches was received on any other basis than through presenting an Orthodox confession - which is the manner in which any person may be received back into communion.
The council had been called by the Emperor because Eutyches, an important and respected Constantinopolitan aged and not theologically well equipped archimandrite had been deposed by the synod of Flavian and had then appealed against his sentence because he claimed that the minutes had been tampered with, and even that his deposition had been signed and sealed even before the synod took place.
Ephesus II found that there had been some tampering, and also found that Flavian had rejected the Cyrilline phraselogy and would not allow any mention of 'one nature' at all. Of course Ephesus II would not allow any use of 'two natures' and this shows clearly the two schools and terminologies which were active at the time. Later on Chalcedon appeared to swing back to the other extreme and use the 'two nature' terminology. The phrase 'one incarnate nature' had been in the draft Definitio, and might have been enough to draw both sides into agreement but it was taken out on Roman orders, and in fact since Theodoret who had been declared a heretic at Ephesus II was sitting on the committe drawing it up it would have probably always been compromised.
So we have at Ephesus II - the restoration of Eutyches based on his presenting an Orthodox confession, the condemnation of Flavian for rejecting Cyrilline terminology and thereby appearing to be a semi-Nestorian and for apparently unjustly condemning Eutyches, and the condemnation of several other figures after careful and documented consideration whose writings were indeed considered the worse blasphemy over 100 years later at the 5th EO council.
Why did it get such a bad press?
The Tome of Leo was not read - but Dioscorus is minuted as having asked for it to be read twice and other people and events having obstructed its reading, also everyone knew what it said and in fact it sounded quite Nestorian in places and therefore it must have seemed wise not to read it out to the council.
Flavian was condemned - probably a political mistake, but there is no evidence that he was beaten - this would definitely have come up at Chalcedon as a prize piece of evidence against Dioscorus - but NOT A WORD OF IT is heard.
Theodoret and others were condemned - and Theodoret was a close friend of Leo of Rome, but he would not anathematise Nestorius. He kept up a warm and friendly correspondence with Leo and Fr John Romanides says:
"Here we are faced with a Pope Leo who knowingly or willfully or unknowingly supported a heretical and yet unrepentant Theodoret of Cyrus. Theodoret was allowed by unknown means to quietly manifest his 'repentance' for the first time, even though attending the Council only as an accuser, by becoming a member of the committee which was appointed to examine the Tome of Leo to see if it indeed agrees with the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril. "
So there is no reference in the Acts of Chalcedon to Theodoret repudiating Nestorius. It seems certain not to have taken place in a public session, yet he formed part of the committee to draft a Definitio - here is the influence of Leo of Rome through his legates, and since Ephesus II he must have been annoyed that his friend had been deposed - yet all the while Theodoret would not anthematise Nestorius.
Finally - Leo of Rome had expected that the East would simply read his Tome and not need a council at all - he had spoken. Leo was certainly one of the first and most committed proponents of Papal Supremacy and even Universal Jurisidiction - this is at least what the RCC considers, as does the OO.
So there were plenty of reasons for Leo of Rome not to like Ephesus II and to promote the idea that it had been a place of violence. The violence he was most concerned with was the seeming failure to submit to his authority.
As I say, I have the Acts of all the sessions after the first. They are very interesting reading. Especially the very detailed consideration of the condemnation of Ibas and Theodoret. There was no haste, they must have taken a long time going through all the evidence.
I would really recommend getting Chalcedon Re-Examined it will help provide a framework for the whole period and looks at things from all sides. It was a PhD thesis rather than a work of polemics.