Legalistics

[Bill Palmer]

Dave, he confessed, which I don't believe Jewell or Hatfill ever did, in
fact I know they didn't.

No media report that I know of suggests that his guilt is a law enforcement
construct.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Wilton" <dave at WILTON.NET>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Legalistics


> ---------------------- Information from the mail
> header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Legalistics
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Journalists will drop the qualifications when he has been convicted in a
> court--whether via jury verdict or plea agreement (i.e., confession in
> open
> court). The qualifications are simply a protection against libel, as well
> as
> being technically true. Just think back to Richard Jewel and the Atlanta
> Olympics bombing or Steven Hatfill and the Anthrax mailer as to why the
> qualifications are necessary.
>
>>There is no reason to believe he is falsely confessing.
>
> Really? There are lots of nuts who confess to crimes they had nothing to
> do
> with. It's not that I doubt the confession in this case, but professional
> journalists at respected media outlets get the basic facts of stories
> wrong
> on a daily basis (e.g., Judith Miller of the NYT or any news article on
> linguistics you've ever read), and it's not beyond law enforcement to
> crucify a person in the media whom they "know" to be guilty. Judging guilt
> or innocence through the filter of the media is not a reliable way to
> work.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Bill Palmer
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 5:14 AM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Legalistics
>
> Is there a lawyer in the house? Or a journalist?
>
> Faisal Shahzad has reportedly confessed to being the Times Square (almost)
> bomber.  There is no reason to believe he is falsely confessing. Yet every
> media source refers to him as either the Times Square bombing "suspect",
> or
> the "alleged" Times Square bomber.
>
> At what point can we drop the qualifications, and call him what he has
> confessed to being?
>
> Bill Palmer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2883 - Release Date: 05/19/10
06:26:00

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org