Some of the repliers even allude to this by using the justification that one discussion specifically involves murder, as if to imply (if that’s even the actual reason) that the allegations have to reach an oddly specific level to be treated with a certain level of rationale.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say, but allegations of murder must be substantiated with evidence, otherwise they can be libel.

I don’t think anybody on any Lemmy instance has evidence to prove things one way or another.

You can believe he is guilty, but please make it clear that is your belief. It would be a pretty widely shared belief as well. But to claim something so insignificant as concrete evidence of guilt during an active trial is idiotic.