Let's create a fictitious public figure in the middle ages who gets accused of witchcraft. Let's call him Bussel Rand. So one of Bussel's neighbors testify that they saw him making a pact with the devil and another neighbor said they saw him riding on a broomstick. As a consequence of these accusations, Bussel has been fired from his job fixing the roof of the local church. Nobody has yet taken these accusations to the royal magistrate.

A witchcraft apologist would be somebody who says "so what, dealing with the devil in order to make our crops fail is totally fine. The royal justice should just not pursue Bussel Rand and the people who starve because of the grain shortage should have worn different clothing and planted a wider variety of crops". Yeah, pretty vile people, you don't want to be associated with them.

An advocate for due process would say "These are serious accusations, so let's see the evidence before we form an opinion about Bussel Rand". You like the sound of that.

Now for the medieval townfolk there exists a confusing middle ground: "I support Bussel Rand".... Uh.. OK, so do they assume you "supports witchcraft" or "supports due process"? Or both. But if you support both, you still end up getting burned at the stake for supporting witchcraft. Therefor, it's not enough to simply be against witchcraft, you also have to APPEAR to be against witchcraft. I know, it's silly, but we're in medieval times and the people who accuse you of being on the side of witchcraft are simply not very smart, so you have to talk at their level.

So, in the times that we live in, when we talk about somebody being "innocent until proven guilty", we unfortunately ALSO should include an obligatory statement about how terrible the accusations would be if they should turn out to be true.