Well, to be honest, we don't really know, do we? The article - if I read it correctly - said that the police weren't commenting on specifics but that evidence at the scene pointed to Hill. Probably it's unambiguous that he's guilty, but that doesn't seem certain at this point. And add in the fact that we truly don't know, if he did it, there were circumstances that made it self-defense or if Hill is legally insane . . . I hate to rush to the assumption that he's guilty of murder just on the basis of a short newspaper article.