Nobody is saying that they are. But if you're going to write a story about someone prosecuted (let alone convicted) of criminal offenses, it's incumbent on you to actually address the charges they face, rather than rhetorically posturing as if they faced some lesser charge your audience won't take seriously.

So Nolan could have written the story about the evidence Larkin and Lacey mustered in their defense against the actual indictment. But she didn't. Is it because she didn't know about the charges? Is it because Larkin and Lacey can't provide any such evidence?

You know, your preferred goals for the article, and author's goals might be different. I for one am glad for some backstory about the accused from their own mouths.