"I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems that most people consider this man "guilty" as charged. I strongly tend toward "innocent" until proven guilty, but perhaps there's incontrovertible evidence against this man, or he's already confessed? Can anyone show me the evidence against this man before we too-hastily judge him guilty?"
The suspect is presumed "innocent" (pleads "not guilty") when he is on trial. The police and the public do not have to consider the suspect "innocent." There is no such obligation.
Why don't young people understand the legal concept "presumption of innocence"?
While I'm not *legally* required to presume innocence, it's my preference.
Too many times people's emotions get so caught up in the hideousness of the crime itself, and *need* someone on whom to place their disgust and hatred. I've known several people falsely accused of crimes, and have learned to give the benefit of the doubt until they're proven guilty.
But like I said, if what is said about this man is true, the evidence against him is pretty strong.