The difference is that there was hard proof that a crime was committed.
In the Vick case, you could walk on the crime scene, see the kennels, dig up the dog bones, etc. This was all right as the story was breaking. Those are facts. A heinous crime was committed there and it's obvious that it was.
In the Hardy case, it was all he said-she said. There was no "crime scene" unless you consider the backyard where there wasn't any evidence to even bring charges. There was no gun for the cops to see, no bodies, no wreckage from a fight.
With Lynch, again, the crime scene isn't where the story lies, it's between the driver/passengers and the victim.
It's alot easier form a hypothesis when you have a real crime scene and you're not going off of what people are saying, victim or driver. When it's a case like Hardy or Lynch, it's going to be alot harder to get to the truth because you have the human element to deal with. Right now, Lynch and the woman who was hit both have about 10 lawyers standing around them telling them what happened that night. You can't do that with the Vick case because the facts are right there in front of your face.