An indictment, esp. in the U.S. system, is necessarily one-sided, even if endorsed by a grand jury. I don't disagree with reading source material, I just wanted to point out the usefulness of journalism, or whatever that ZDNet article was. Probably I came off too harshly.
As I understand it, in civil code countries (not the U.S.), charges are brought only after some deliberation by a magistrate, after which a trial before a judge results in a likely conviction. In the U.S. the prosecutor leads the grand jury to an indictment (supposedly "could indict a ham sandwich"), and makes a maximal case. At trial it's more likely the charges get denied by the judge or petit jury, compared to a trial in a civil code country. But things have changed over time. U.S. prosecutors once used more discretion rather than trying to rack up convictions even if unjust. Or that's what I've read.
So reading an indictment is roughly equivalent to reading a blog arguing one side of the case.