GUILTY - 2nd teen convicted in bomb plot

The 15-year-old boy whose secrecy-shrouded trial wrapped Tuesday afternoon has been found guilty of the same two counts pleaded to by his 16-year-old co-conspirator: conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to blow up a schoolhouse.The boy, a gun fan, according to various sources including his profile, was attending Albemarle High School until his February 1 arrest, which was heralded in a press conference two days later.
Since then, authorities have been tight-lipped about the case and its alleged evidence with the prosecutor, Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Camblos, cautioning reporters after the trial that anyone who talked about the case would be violating a "court order."
"There's no gag order," says a deputy clerk in the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, after allegedly conferring with Susan L. Whitlock, judge in the high-profile case. The deputy clerk declined to give her name, and the similarly reluctant clerk of the court, Alice Price Waddy, confirmed the facts for a reporter. Neither would utter anything about the two 13-year-olds authorities say they detained as part of the conspiracy case.
The unnamed deputy clerk says that sentencing for the 16-year-old is set for April 5, and April 12 for the 15-year-old, both of whom are still detained. The outcome of the 13-year-olds' cases, who were tried with the 15-year-old, has not be learned by the Hook.
–By Hawes Spencer



Let me try and get this right.... the Commonwealth Attorney says the outcome of the case can't be revealed without violating a court order, he has filed a motion to see how much he can release, and yet a deputy clerk says there is no gag order and releases the outcome.

What's wrong with this picture? What can't be revealed, the outcome of the 15-year-old juvenile or the outcome of the 13-year-old kids? /Steve

If there are facts in evidence, and these kids were convicted and sentanced. Then that evidence needs to be made public (minus the names of the kids).

When individuals are scooped up off the street, charged with a crime, then prosecuted and convicted away from the public eyes. Well you'll have to forgive me for saying that reminds me a little too much of how things are done in some of the countries we don't like.

In this instance I'm more inclined to believe that the information blackout from the court has less to do with protecting the identities of the minors, than with protecting the police and procecutors from bad P.R.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But Show me the evidence and prove me wrong.