Please. A broken clock is right twice every day. You don't know Hernandez personally, and you were not there, unless you are presently one of the other two guys identified. Most of what I read in the 2000+ posts, that were not saying Hernandez was guilty because the media said it, seemed to suggest that facts were not out, so don't jump to convict the guy on scattered and inconsistent media reports. Try not to celebrate the fact that you fell on correct, if you actually are in the end, or possessed some great insight, when you rushed to judgment on limited facts that did not necessarily prove anything. Actual police officer, lawyers and judges tend to need the evidence that would not be available at the time of initial report, because the good versions of those professionals understand that one bit of information can change a theory for better or worse. But what do they know? You have the news and media theories, so you must know better than they do.
In the real world of investigations and criminal charges, the fact a person is a suspect or even charged does not mean that person did it. It is the basic jury charge given by virtually all courts to try to avoid the stupidity of people 'knowing' what really happened with little or no information and offering verdicts on that basis. If your mind cannot wrap around that statement, and it is easier to simplify your life by not waiting for the full story because you cannot process information, then do what makes you happy. Most intelligent people in this world will wait for more information because they can handle the concept of closing their mouth and waiting for the actual facts to come out before rushing to judgment, because that represents a much sounder decision. And yes, it is equally ignorant to claim Hernandez didn't commit a crime based on the same limited information gleaned from the same limited facts generating television reports.
