Yesterday, 06:22 PM
Definitional fiat is every discussant's prerogative. Thus, if you like, you (and Ayn Rand) are free to use the word "elephant" to denote "a small furry animal that purrs and uses a litter box" - but this will not turn cats into elephants or elephants into cats.
If one is not unconditionally entitled to a thing (that is, if it can be "taken away because "), then it is not a right; it is at best a revocable privilege (regardless of what particular labels you might prefer to use in place of any of those terms).
No, you did not give three scenarios where it is the case that "there is no possib the person is innocent." You gave three highly generalized examples of things that might provide some amount of evidence that a person may be guilty. The former and the latter are not even remotely the same things. There are far, far too many possibilities for (not to mention documented cases of) false confessions, doctored evidence (including video), and erroneous "eye" witness testimony to take seriously any claim that they are even commensurable, let alone the same.