Yep, some are also glossing over the fact that many that were charged for being in “restricted areas” didn’t know it was restricted. Restricted signs were taken down( it’s on tape) by a provocateur who still hasn’t been arrested and people were waved into it by police.(it’s on tape) Doors were open by police and people were let into the building.( it’s on tape)
So far, none of that has exonerated anyone who has pleaded guilty or been convicted. I have not read or heard about any cases where charges were filed and then lifted because of what you mention above. While there may be some cases where charges were not filed because of what you mention above, I have not seen any such cases reported.
That leads me to believe there is more to the story than the story you tell. With 750 people charged with various crimes to date, 200 of those pleading guilty and one now convicted by a jury, it seems that actual crimes were actually committed; and is seems the developments you mention are either irrelevant in the cases charged, or they are only a small and meaningless part of the larger story that is resulting in 200 guilty pleas and yesterday's conviction by a jury.
I may be wrong about this. Muttly, maybe you can tell us. Are you aware of any case where the person charged or a defendant in court actually made one or more of the following arguments, and that point resulted in the person being not charged, or having charges previously laid later lifted?
- "I didn't know it was a restricted area."
- "The 'restricted area' signs were taken down."
- "I was waved in by the police"
- "The police opened the doors to let me in the building."