I definitely think it is curious, and it obviously deserves to be thoroughly investigated (and by all accounts it is), but I just don't understand this need to immediately jump to conclusions in cases like this. The top comments on this article on the WaPo site are basically "It's not rocket science to know she did it."
Why is it so hard to just wait for more information? Yes, it definitely looks very suspicious, but there was no talk of motive in the article, and if someone wanted to murder people, inviting them all over for dinner and then poisoning everyone except you and your family seems like the dumbest way to do it (and I'm not saying that's exculpatory - plenty of murderers are very dumb).
I just wish more of us would say "We just don't know yet, and that's fine. Just give it a teeny bit of time to know more."
It's fine for people to suspect things before they're prove. She isn't being denied a trial. In fact, suspecting something before it's proven is a prerequisite for that person being brought to trial.
Why is it so hard to just wait for more information? Yes, it definitely looks very suspicious, but there was no talk of motive in the article, and if someone wanted to murder people, inviting them all over for dinner and then poisoning everyone except you and your family seems like the dumbest way to do it (and I'm not saying that's exculpatory - plenty of murderers are very dumb).
I just wish more of us would say "We just don't know yet, and that's fine. Just give it a teeny bit of time to know more."