I would agree with you if we knew nothing about who committed the crime and also nothing about him. However, that is not the case, we already have the beginnings of a general description of him, his religion, some of his history, and preliminary description of what he may have done or shouted as he began the carnage. So it turns out it is not prejudiced, we do in fact have some information already. To try to explain it to you, if a bank was robbed in your hometown, and it was well documented that the robber drove a white 2000 model Taurus, and we just learned that another bank had been robbed and the preliminary information indicated the robber drove a white Taurus, I suppose you would accuse the police of prejudice if they suggested the robbery could have been committed by the same criminal as the prior one?
Prejudice might be an accurate term if you knew nothing at all about the crime at all and no description of the guilty party, but in this case we do have some information to start forming some ideas. Those ideas are therefore not prejudice, they are better defined as suspicions, and pretty sound ones at that, cyclops. Do you wish to bet a large amount that I am totally and absolutely wrong in my suspicions about the guy that did it? Remember, I made no iron clad guarantees, all I did was lay out some suspicions or theories. Am I prohibited from doing that?
Cyclops, you might make a good lawyer, but I think you would make a lousy investigator or detective.