No, I didn't. I answered it. If you're suggesting I should have somehow read it before the one before it rather than reading them sequentially the way that most normal people do, means that it's somehow my fault for not reading it first just to make sure that you'd hadn't yet figured things out a little better, it explains a lot about the way you reason. Perhaps instead of stating that I missed something, maybe you could have said that YOU missed something, such as the hearing, and further stated that now that you've taken the time to read a transcript of the hearing, you have a better understanding of what was said.
What a novel idea.
seems I remember hearing the judge say that he was not ready to hear the bond reduction "at this time", don't remember him ever saying he never would. Of course I have not read the transcripts, just going by what I actually heard. I would have to agree that you didn't miss anything.