Legalistics (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Baker, John M.]

        I often think that reporters overuse "alleged," but I don't
think this is an instance of it.  It's true that Attorney General Holder
said that Shadzad has confessed involvement with the bombing, but there
is a big difference between involvement (which could even mean
involvement that is innocent or nearly so) and actually being the
bomber.  The criminal complaint,
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/333/333.pdf, lays out a plausible
but circumstantial case against him.  The most I think you can say is
that Shahzad is the alleged or reported bomber.  To go beyond that
really requires either leaps of faith or putting a probably unjustified
confidence in anonymous leaks, even putting aside the well-known issues
of reliability of confessions.

        This does not mean that truth is in some sort of suspended state
until there is a definitive legal ruling.  What it does mean is that,
when a news report is based on something less than established fact,
there should at the least be some warning to that effect.


John Baker


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Dave Wilton
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:59 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Legalistics (UNCLASSIFIED)

That's too tentative, casting doubt on facts that have been clearly
established. (And yes, I realize that the original was done in fun.) The
point being that you can clearly lay out the facts without being
excessively
tentative. This would be better (and you can even avoid "alleged bomber"
if
that phrasing is objectionable to you for whatever reason):

"Law enforcement officials state that Mr. Shahzad has confessed his
involvement in the Times Square bombing plot. They have also tentatively
identified him in surveillance videos of the bombing attempt. Mr.
Shahzad is
under arrest, and his interrogation has resulted in raids at several
locations and the arrests of several individuals who may have been
involved,
perhaps unwittingly, in the transfer of funds used to carry out the
attempted attack."

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of
Victor Steinbok
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:51 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Legalistics (UNCLASSIFIED)

If published accounts of unverified leaks from officials who may or may
not be involved in the investigation are to be believed, Mr. Shahzad is
the alleged non-suicidal New York would-be bomber who supposedly has
confessed to his involvement in the reputed plot. He has been
tentatively identified by law enforcement personnel as one of the fuzzy
images in surveillance videos from location. There can be no doubt,
however, that Mr. Shahzad--if that is indeed his name--is under arrest
and that his interrogation has resulted in a number of raids at several
locations and other arrests of several individuals on unrelated, at this
time, charges, but who might have been involved, perhaps unwittingly, in
the transfer of funds that may have been used to carry out the plan of
the purported attack.

Did I miss anything?

     VS-)

On 5/20/2010 12:03 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC wrote:
>> I don't understand it either.  Because he confessed, he's not a
suspect
>>
>> nor the "alleged" bomber.  He's the bomber.  Enough with the
>> legalistics.
>>
>>
> But the only way we know that he confessed is by leaks from people
with
> an agenda. I've never seen or heard Faisal Shahzad say he did
anything.
> Trusting statements like this was how the media got into trouble with
> Hatfield and Jewell.  Thus the equivocation.

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

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

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