Given that, as you quoted, a shockingly high number of charges was applied to a small number of people, it's quite likely whatever charges they pled to were par

Given that, as you quoted, a shockingly high number of charges was applied to a small number of people, it's quite likely whatever charges they pled to were part of what they were originally charged with. I don't think your characterization captures what happened given people ended up serving reasonably long sentences. When I hear "no charges stuck" I think nobody got convicted - even a conviction later overturned isn't quite consistent with that. If you want to make the point that the charges were baseless, sure - but that's not the only thing you're saying and implying. I think the original post is misleading. Charitability is something to be applied to arguments where reasonable interpretations may be stronger. It's not something to be used to defend misleading factual claims, which are properly pushed back against.