I don't see why people find it so hard to understand that there might be more to this story than what is being presented. Think back to 12 Angry Men (everyone had to read that book or at least watch the movie). The Kid supposedly killed his father, and every last juror (but Henry Fonda's carachters) thought that it was a forgone conclusion that the kid was guilty. But it was mainly due to the fact that they had not studied the situation out, or simply just wanted to judge the kid and get it over with. Juror #8 was looking for more details and was analyzing the back story before he came to his conclusion.
I am trying to do no different. I want to come to the conclusion you guys have, but I just don't have enough evidence to do so.