The trouble with most of the answers that I see here is that they don't appear neutral to the claim. To be neutral to the claim, the word has to be one of those that might be attributed to a politician, for example. Politicians want to avoid discussing some accusals, because no matter how they respond, they can regret it later.
A neutral word would describe a non-denial denial (Wikipedia)
a statement that seems direct, clearcut and unambiguous at first hearing, but when carefully parsed is revealed not to be a denial at all, and is thus not untruthful. It is a case in which words that are literally true are used to convey a false impression; analysis of whether or when such behavior constitutes lying is a long-standing issue in ethics. London's newspaper The Sunday Times has defined it as "an on-the-record statement, usually made by a politician, repudiating a journalist's story, but in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it is actually true."
The Times article states that the non-denial denial repudiates a story in such a way that it might be true. They are actually saying that the on-denial denial appears to repudiate, but in actual fact it does no such thing.
Now Smith have a lot of weasel words that amount to a non-denial denial, but with a single word describing Smith's reaction to the claim, one could say
Smith dismissed the claim that he had shot Jones.
Hillary Clinton dismissed claims at the hearing about her knowledge of the cause of the attack, theatrically answering "What difference at this point does it make?.