I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.
Perfect time to say... WHY NOT have a problem?
Tactics can be turned around, that is why I find it so interesting seeing other post by some here and their points of view in other cases. Amazing some of the time.
*OT, but related in a way.
In Joran's 'case' for instance the exact same arguments that are used here could apply. No witnesses, 'false' confession, forced confession, changing stories and behavior used against him regarding guilt, rumors/stories of past behavior used against him regarding guilt, somebody else did it... it's just ALL THESE COINCIDENCES :innocent: . He is just a young boy in a foreign land, he didn't have an interpretor and admitted something he didn't really do. It's was a mistake because he couldn't understand the questions. They were yelling at him to confess so he did. He wouldn't hurt a fly, and his odd and annoying behaviors are just Joran being Joran. Anything he admitted on video is because he was deprived of food, drink and bathroom. When he said he didn't do it they did not tape it, or destroyed/hid those videos.
The police are lying to protect their image... and the prosecutors are all crooked and controled by the 'system' of guilt. The collection of the evidence at the crime scene was not appropriate for the US, and probably contaminated or planted. Any evidence of him in the room is because he lived there and not related to the murder. He was not there when the murder took place... but he can't remember what he was doing. Heck, he went to get her some coffee... why would he kill her? Someone else did it, any evidence that he might have is just another coincidence. His parent says he is a good boy and wouldn't murder anybody, much less two people.
CM didn't have anything to do with the Tate murders... he wasn't there.
The witnesses are mistaken or lying regarding testimony. The 'girls' false confessed about the murders due to police intimidation... we know this because there is no videos of the interrogations. Their strange behaviors and ways of life were used against them regarding guilt. No evidence of CM at the crime scene. He couldn't make others do these unbelievable and terrible things, he is just a small homeless man. Previous bad behavior and criminal background were used against him... every bit of evidence is circumstancial. He was living and having a happy life in the desert community, why would he want to murder anybody? They decided to murder those people on their own. Anything showing or someone saying that he might have is mistaken, misled or outright lying. Evidence showing he 'might' have given them weapons, the car or directions is just another one of those pesky circumstancial coincidences.
He was railroaded. The crooked system had to find someone responsible for this gruesome high profile murders... so everyone in the justice system either contaminated, lied, ignored, were mistaken, were misled, worked around, or were just plain wrong regarding his guilt. Even though he is in jail for committing this murder... he says he is innocent.
How about Scott Peterson... these tactics should have got him off too? No direct evidence, all circumstancial. Lying, bad behavior, cheat, and alot of circumstancial evidence put him away. A hair in a boat, Lacy could have been in the boat at some point. He was a sorry husband and person... so what, didn't mean he murdered anybody. No witnesses, no dna regarding murder, cleaning products were around kitchen because Scott liked to clean or Lacy was doing it while pregnant. A serial cheater but still loved his wife and was excited about the upcoming baby... and change of lifestyle. Only his wife and baby washed up at the precise area he was fishing at... surely just another COINCIDENCE right? Everyone wanted someone to pay for this terrible tragedy so he was the most likely suspect. The prosecutor and the Judges had it out for him, and they convinced the jury to convict. The defence did everything they could to debate the evidence, but the jury was blind, misled and given false information. The Judges at trial and appeals all just 'went with the flow' because they did not want to disrupt the system. His family says he is a super good guy and wouldn't murder his wife and child. He hasn't ever shown violence in the past, why would he start? Poor unlucky, misunderstood fellow... right?
How about OJ, that seems more the direction of the AK group argument? Did he get off on a technicality? Should he have? Was there contamination or mishandling of evidence... sure everyone can make a mistake but does that mean he didn't do it? Can all of his evidence of blood and mixed dna be explained/excused away? Yes. Was alot of the evidence circumstancial and past behavior looked at? Yes
Any of that kind of excuses and twisting seen here??? They didn't even have a PR firm behind their 'cause'. Would they have gotten off if they had? Are there people that believe/hope they are innocent, sure but it doesn't mean they are right.
Based on the evidence both circumstancial and direct AK and RS have been found guilty of being co-responsible and contributing to the murder of Meredith. They have been held since day 1 of their changing story and accusation of that night... IMO the many Judges that have looked over the evidence SINCE that point saw a reason(s) to do so and take them to trial. Since RG's case has already reached it's end by the confirmation of the Supreme Court, it doesn't bode well for the AK/RS defense at appeals IMO.