I completely understand. But as in the Scott Peterson case, we saw some of his family and even himself (prior to arrest but long after retaining a criminal defense attorney) give media interviews in his defense. I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, when the public perception is overwhelmingly against their client, it is in the best interest of their client for a strong defense to want to mitigate that public perception (and future jury pool) and create a more sympathetic or neutral view of said client. Family/friends could even say, "I wish I could speak on this because I believe him to be innocent, but we cannot at this time due to counsel's advice. But please reserve judgment until trial when many more facts will come to light." I am not hearing any of that. My guess is because it would be too difficult to answer questions about CW because what he has already admitted to is so heinous and illegal, IMO. CW's actions and confessions have made a clean defense of innocence exceedingly difficult (also IMO).