I’m not a MM fan. But you saying He is 100% guilty based on a woman who has given numerous interviews AFTER their breakup stating he was a great guy, peaceful soul, they just didn’t work out, has to hold some water. She has had dating partners come out and say she was crazy, and she has had tons of partners guys and girls.
Pick up a book or a journal and read anything about cycles of abuse and how victims hide their trauma.
Also, she says he threatened her with violence and death if she spoke out. The man himself is on record talking about how he wants to bash her skull in.
It's pretty basic math.
All this "innocent until proven guilty" talk is nonsense.
Nobody's convicting anybody of anything.
It's as simple as this:
Everybody in the world now has the same access to all the same "evidence." We have the statements of many purported victims. We have Manson's past public actions and statements. We have Manson's response. Everybody is now drawing from the same wealth of knowledge regarding the situation.
From this data that's available, we're going to see two groups form. I'm not just referring to Manson fans but also the public at large.
The first group is going to assess all the information and come to the conclusion that these women are telling the truth. The people in this group see this as pretty cut and dry. There's no notable fishiness, there's no claims that most people would find shocking or unrealistic. Given the information available, none of the claims seem far-fetched and none of the accusers seem to have an agenda or ax to grind.
The vast majority of people are going to fall into this group.
The second group is going to assess all of the information and immediately go on the defensive. They're going to immediately set off on conspiratorial thinking and start making claims that are incredibly outlandish to anybody not in this group.
Things like "why didn't she go public earlier" or "this is clearly just a PR campaign designed to hurt Manson's career" or "people used to say Manson got a rib removed so, therefore, any statement made about him is automatically just as nonsensical." The common thread between these knee-jerk defenses is that they aren't the sort of ideas one arrives at when assessing the situation on its face.
They're the sort of ideas one arrives at when starting with a conclusion ("Manson is innocent") and then working backward in an attempt to craft a defense. So they seem logical to the people in this second group, but to everybody else, these ideas are far more outlandish than just accepting the facts at face value.
So while the vast majority of people fall into the first group, the second group contains only people inherently primed to accept the far more outlandish scenarios - specifically Manson fans and anti-cancel-culture warriors.
TL;DR - There's no innocent or guilty here. There's two types of people looking at a situation. One type presumes the most likely explanation is true. The other type offers up far less likely explanations. Sure, the far less likely explanation
could be true. But to accept this unlikely explanation by default is completely illogical to anybody who isn't emotionally attached to the discussion.
