I understand what you are trying to say however, you are incorrect. The specific case cited being that the original article made the statement "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... ". This statement while presented as a fact is factually untrue. there is no uncertainty involved. One could argue the quality or value of said evidence but can not deny that said evidence was presented.
Regarding what I consider to be "trivially true" is true. The show trials article itself does not contain a single example of a U.S. court case where the prosecution has "gone to court with zero evidence to present".
