Can you really not see, Jim, that it is not the bloody lady's 'honour' I am defending ~~ I am quite prepared to believe she is a horrible bit of work ~~ but that it is the integrity of the language, concept of using it in relation to the law with a reasonable degree of precision with which I am engaged? To confuse an arrest warrant with a finding of guilt is a SEMANTIC, not a moral, solecism. The person who is the subject of the confusion thus provoked is of no relevance whatever. Horrible as she might be, she has not been "found guilty", in any viable or meaningful sense, of anything whatsoever, except in your wishful & fevered rantings and imaginings!
Sorry ~ but you really are in a mental mess with regard to this one. You can usually think more clearly than this. I am resisting the overwhelming temptation of reverting, in response to your most unworthy last conclusion, to the question of what closet this might indicate you are almost out of. We have had enough of that topic; please, I beg you, do not revert to it.