harmony wrote:No matter how it's spun, it's kinda hard to get around that guilty though, LoaP.
It's on the record.
It was a pretrial hearing. It seems really clear to me. Supposedly, "Guilty" can be used in a pretrial hearing to indicate enough evidence of guilt to stand for hearing.
If it wasn't a pretrial hearing, there wouldn't be mention of "bail" after the hearing.
harmony wrote:No matter how it's spun, it's kinda hard to get around that guilty though, LoaP.
It's on the record.
It was a pretrial hearing. It seems really clear to me. Supposedly, "Guilty" can be used in a pretrial hearing to indicate enough evidence of guilt to stand for hearing.
If it wasn't a pretrial hearing, there wouldn't be mention of "bail" after the hearing.
Why was there no trial?
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
There are probably 50 arraignments for every trial. Who can say why there was no trial?
An arraignment is not a conviction. It is so unlikely that the Bainbridge incident involved a trial, with references to bail, "leg bail" (which would not likely have been used had there just been a trial), and affidavits.
But, the evidence is really poor, with destroyed and mutilated court records and the like. So let's say I am not completely certain, but the pieces of evidence in the file sure point to an arraignment.