Because it's actually meaningless unless those games are the cause of his insanity, and I'm pretty sure they are not.  What if it turned out that he was performing a scene from the bible?  What if it was a scene from a novel?  What would that mean, exactly?  What would the reactions be then?  Are they checking for those scenarios as well?  Is there a reason why they're checking for a video game link beyond complete speculation?  How are they going to be able to separate it from the influence of films, which have far, far more material to draw from?

Really, for me, this whole situation is simple:  don't let people with serious mental problems have access to violent media and, more importantly, don't give them access to guns.

I would actually wager that it was none of those things that were the direct root of his actions. If he had Asperger's then his crime would be somewhat of an anomoly becaues Asperger's , like many forms of Autism aren't associated with violent behavior. 

Also I stand behind the argument that you can't blame guns for violence for the same reason that you can't blame video games, movies, books, or any other medium of entertainment or information. 

Doensn't matter if video games were the reason anyway.

Millions of people play video games. Are we going to ban them because ONE person in that million went postal

Millions of people listen to rock music, shoudl we ban it because one person went postal because of a song

Millions of people watch a 'genre' of movies, should we ban them because one person went postal because of movie (example The Dark Knight rises)

and so on with basically anything. Hell the Bible or other religions cause more murders in their name than anything ANYONE could ever think of.

His crime would be an anomoly how so?  How many people have asberger's?  How many people play violent video games (look at COD #'s)  Isn't a person killing because of a violent video game also then an anomoly?

It's not meaningless at all. If somebody has a predisposition to violent behavior, then violent media of any kind can certainly exacerbate the problem by feeding the violent mindset with fantasy, which then becomes 'reality' for the disturbed individual. You also need to understand the difference between a movie (where you just watch the violence) and a game (where you actually cause the violence to happen on screen), this is a huge difference to the mind of an individual who has difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. This type of media has a substantially different effect on a disturbed mind than it does on your mind.

Even if it is not the cause of the problem in this case, it could be one of the pieces of the puzzle. The reason they're looking specifically at the violent games is, he had a whole lot of them. If he had a massive library of violent movies and few or no games, I'm assuming they would be looking for a link to the movies.

There is no case to be made for banning violent games, but more research and awareness might lead parents of similar children to keep them away from such media, be it games, movies, books, whatever.

A whole lot of them.  What is $1000 worth of video games?

Did they count the systems cost?  

Lets say they didn't, that is still only 20 games.  Is 20 games an insane amount of games to have at your house?  I feel most people with a video game system has 20 games.  Or actually with a $60 price tag its only 17 games.

If it were 20 video games, all of them violent, then it is an important piece of the case. For a psychological profile, this would certainly be an important piece of information, not because the games 'caused' the violence, but because they are a piece of the psychological puzzle. Gamers get so defensive about violent games, but we have to recognize that they should not be played by people who cannot handle them. Plain and simple, if your kid can't separate fantasy from reality, don't let them engage in fantasy where they're killing people!

It's not about video games.

They just want to shift the focus of the gun discussion.

I wouldn't deny that, since people with an interest in something are always quick to shift focus. That can be said about gamers on this side of the debate as well.

What you can't do though is dismiss the psychological dimension of the case. And video games play a very important part in the psychology of a good portion of the youth in 1st world countries.

IMO, games are rated for appropriate ages, and those should be used to guide people in the usage of video games. i know people will say its easy for me because i can play what ever i want (32 years old, no limits here) but i am a gamer for almost 20 years now and when i was a young gamer i did not need FPS to be a happy gamer, and 12 year old children shouldn't be playing 18+ or 16+ rated games. what we play does not define what we are, but could certainly shape some part of us...
totally against game censorship, but the rates are there for something... Parents and game stores should implement them...