For those of you who haven't seen the movie 12 Angry Men, a young man is accused of murder and there is a mountain of evidence against him. The movie begins as the 12 members of the jury convene to determine the fate of the young man, and every single man in the jury is thoroughly convinced of the kid's guilt because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that has been stockpiled against him -- except for Henry Fonda. Fonda is unwilling to accept everything presented and instead questions the evidence. He begins without really knowing for sure; he doesn't know clearly one way or the other and he doesn't have any evidence to prove the kids innocence, but he feels unsure enough to at least wonder "Supposin' this kid didn't do it." Initially his views are met with consternation and unbelief -- "How can you deny the FACTS??" But as the movie progresses, we begin to see the prejudice of the other jurors and that they reached their conclusions because of the filters through which they viewed the evidence. They wanted to see justice served, they wanted to see a kid from the slums receive what they thought was due him, and they wanted to feel like they had made society a better place; so they looked at evidence that seemed to support their desires and declared the boy guilty.
I reference this movie for one reason: supposin' Rodriguez isn't to blame. I know a large majority of the evidence points to Rodriguez as the one to be blamed for all of this, and maybe he is. But what if, in our desire to pin the blame on someone, in our quest to seek justice for Michigan football and right the wrongs of the past 3 years, we are looking at the evidence and declaring Rodriguez guilty because it supports our desires? I don't know. Maybe he is the one to blame.
But supposin' he's not?