> Both interpretations are valid, you're just favoring the legalistic over the layman's.
100% agreed, unfortunately this will likely be decided in the legal arena, not in a public forum. The damage done to Ortiz' career is to some extent determined in the public eye and in that sense maybe Linus' statements help. At least he spoke out, he might have weighed his words better by pointing out that Ortiz has possibly technically spoken the truth but on a moral level is completely bankrupt.
> Judges don't have to respect plea agreements or prosecutor's promises to the defendant
This is only up to a certain point though. Plea bargains can be made conditional on the sentence not exceeding a certain limit.
http://www.legalinfo.com/legal-news/judge-exceeds-prosecutor...
http://www.cadillacnews.com/news_story/?story_id=1806284&...
Michael Vick experienced this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/michael_mccann...
Judges don't have to respect plea agreements or prosecutor's promises to the defendant:
http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Plea-Bargain...
Reading their words "fairly" is to read them as they appear on the page. If you want to give them the benefit of their vaguery, then we can equally reasonably interpret their words as if they describe the greatest risk at hand.
After all, you want one side of the vagueness fence to say "hey, technically they weren't saying anything," while the other side of that same fence is "wow, look at the sum-total of their words and the threat they describe." Both interpretations are valid, you're just favoring the legalistic over the layman's.