Nitrogen. How often do you feel comfortable completely believing something you read on the Internet when it's from a single data source that is emotionally linked to the case and advocating an agenda as part of the story?

Jusben1369. As often as it takes to counteract the significant bias in favor of the overly powerful voice of the status quo.

Or, if you prefer a less hyperbolic response, there's a difference between healthy critical skepticism and skepticism biased in favor of a presupposed belief. I'm not accusing you of the latter, just pointing out that it is disappointingly common.

My objection was to the one sided nature of the content vs having something a little more balanced. Individuals and powerful organizations are both prone to that. It was coming from a default assumption that the State was right.

Assuming that you meant, "It wasn't coming," that sounds reasonable. Restated, my general complaint is that, in general (not necessarily on HN), people are more likely to say "there must be more to the story" if the accused is portrayed as even moderately sympathetic than if the accused is painted as scum. In other words, prosecutors and police are given the benefit of the doubt more frequently than those they target.