Legalistics

Wed May 19 17:21:14 UTC 2010

I don't think I'm confused, just not taken by wordsmithing designed to imply
some possibility of innocence, when none exists.

I do like Garson's cite of the qualifiers "confessed" and  "self-confessed"
, altho I wonder what the difference is between the two..  Is there any?

BP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Wilton" <dave at WILTON.NET>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:54 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not confused. Perhaps you meant Bill.
>
> Bill is right in that neither Jewell nor Hatfill confessed, but they are
> both cases where it was widely assumed that and reported as if they were
> in
> fact guilty (in the actual, not legal sense), when in fact they both were
> innocent (both actually and legally). It is the professional reportorial
> discipline of not making assumptions that is important, and even more so
> in
> high-profile cases where there is incredible pressure on both law
> enforcement and journalists to get the culprit.
>
> And no confession should be assumed to be valid until it has been proven
> in
> a court. Confessions are retracted all the time and false confessions
> under
> the pressure of interrogation are a well-known phenomenon.
>
> Also, there are several layers of filters between you and the facts in
> this
> case. There is the filter of the media. And the reporters' sources are
> probably not the actual investigating officers, but rather supervisors and
> public affairs officials (who have an agenda, usually benign, but an
> agenda
> nonetheless) or others involved peripherally with the case who may or may
> not have now the actual facts and situation. These filters contribute to
> misreporting of facts. (Go back and read about what actually happened at
> Columbine, for example, and you will be shocked at how badly the reporters
> mangled--and continue to mangle to this day--the basic facts of the case;
> e.g., Harris and Klebold were not members of the "trench coat mafia,"
> their
> main plan was to plant bombs (which did not detonate) and not shoot
> people,
> etc.)
>
> Again, I have no reason to doubt this confession in particular, it's just
> that false confessions and falsely assumed guilt are common enough that no
> professional journalist should ever report a person's guilt until it has
> been established in court. As Ron says, it's not the journalist's role to
> "guess as to the outcome."
>
> Now that I've got the off-topic rant off my chest, I'm going to drop it.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> ronbutters at AOL.COM
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 7:46 AM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Legalistics
>
> Dave, you are confusing two senses of "guilt." Legally, he has been
> accused
> of a crime. Legally, he is not guilty until a court says so. Newspapers
> report on the legal status, not the reporter's guess as to the outcome.
> Consistency is necessary.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at BELLSOUTH.NET>
> Date:         Wed, 19 May 2010 10:26:56
> To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: [ADS-L] Legalistics
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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