I deplore obviously innocent people being attacked by those who refuse to move beyond their biases.
What is completely tiresome is the use of the word "vested". My own "vested" interest in this case is as you say.
There are some who wish to make strawman arguments about assumptions they make - assumptions built on assumptions - about PR-frims, and people in the employ of middle-level firms like Gogerty-Marriott, implying that anyone, anywhere who posts facts related to innocence....
..... well they must somehow have their faculties eroded, or at least compromised.
My view? People go down this "vested" interest them because they've run out of arguments. Indeed, this last time there's a poster here who wants to vilify a recently released, wrongfully imprisoned person for attending.... what was it?
Oh yes, a Hallowe'en party.
The claim was that she dressed as a cat burglar.... the claim being she was thumbing her nose at the victim by dressing that way on the anniversary of the victim's death.
What the "vested interest" in posting out, as Grinder did, that it was as a soccer player, Roger Levesque, and that Hallowe'en really is not an anniversary of anything in relation to any of this?
Oh, but,
"I am sure Amanda will be very grateful your explaining away her cat burglar gear. Definitely cat whiskers. How ingenious of you to convert it into = beard." That's quite the ad hominem, Vixen, too bad none of it is true. It's what qualifies it also as a strawman.
Which is what happens when the arguer has nothing else. Impugn a motive to the other side.
Let me impugn a motive to you: what is your vested interest in being this way?