If your argument is that people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, nobody will disagree with you, there is no reason why you should latch onto this particular incident to illustrate your point. I have said before that you are seeing much more importance to this incident than it actually is, the way black people had an unhealthy obsession with the OJ simpson trial because in their view it was some litmus test on race; I feel you are doing the same.
There is good reason to pay attention to this particular incident, but you're just making me repeat what I've already said in previous posts. If you don't think this incident is all that important, you're not watching much news. There is
perpetual reference to this incident as a terrorist attack by those debating the rights of white nationalists (and other unpopular/undesirable groups) to conduct protests and demonstrations (recently, of course, in connection with the return of the white nationalists to Charlottesville only a week ago). It's as simple as this, if the public can be convinced that some groups are too vile/socially dangerous to be allowed to protest/demonstrate, even peacefully, you can expect local authorities to start denying permits for demonstrations, instructing crackdowns by police, and co-ordinating violent counter protests to justify their positions. This approach weakens, not strengthens democracy. That's why the ACLU supported white nationalists against the City of Charlottesville. I'm very interested to see whether this debate will take place on the footing of accurate facts, or on the emotional wave of an unsubstantiated (at this point) narrative.
On a technical legal level, it is extremely rare in a case involving a high profile (from a media perspective) death in a public place where there was an abundance of video evidence gathered by citizens that the police would release absolutely no information establishing the causation of death relative to the person charged. Don't think so? Find me another recent example. Las Vegas - we've been told who the shooter was, where he was, where he shot from, what the firing trajectory was, what guns and other equipment he used, who he killed, etc. Same thing at the Pulse nightclub. When I see something unusual in the way the police are releasing their information, and how the media are reporting on an incident, that gets my attention. There is absolutely no reason I can think of for the police/DA not to release that information, except for the very practical reason that they feel that they haven't figured it out themselves yet. There are other technical concerns here, but I don't think you're that interested. It's also extraordinarily rare for a terrorist (or the group he represents) to make no statement about his objectives before, during, or after his act of terror. Failing to do so undermines the primary objective of terrorism - to terrorize on the basis of an identifiable enemy. In Charlottesville, the only group alleged to be associated with Fields has denied that he is a member or that he represents them. Nor have any of the KKK or white nationalist groups asserted that anyone would be justified in intentionally killing counter protesters. This same analysis is the very reason that no one is calling the Las Vegas shootings an act of terrorism at this point.
If none of this interests you, so be it. No doubt we have other respective interests that are not common. I'm a big fan of the Flaming Lips. Are you?
However, your "feelings" about my motivations for being interested in this subject matters as much to me probably as much as my "feeling" that you are just projecting your own motivations onto me matters to you.