Hacker News Reader

Comment by gcampbell | Hacker News Reader

I submitted this article (a little warily because I know the front page has been inundated with this story) because it appears to contain the new-to-me information that an arrest in the case was made on June 28 and that the SFPD verified this on July 29.

(edit: Whoops, misread the date - sorry. This story does still seem to have more info from the SFPD than others I've read.)

View on HN

Yes, new to me as well...as now we have an actual name for a suspect. And according to the SFChronicle, the SFPD is characterizing it as being connected to EJ's case, which is more or less what Brian Chesky said:

>The SFPD said Friday that on June 28 officers arrested Faith Clifton, a 19-year-old in San Francisco, in connection the case. She was booked into San Francisco County Jail on possession of stolen property, methamphetamine, fraud charges and an outstanding warrant in Milpitas.

They also detained two individuals in Belmont earlier that day, but released them pending further investigation. A search of the premises produced some items taken in the alleged theft. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/29/...

> "produced some items taken in the alleged theft"

I really dislike the word "alleged" in this sentence.

A person is innocent until proven guilty, so you could say "the alleged thief". But to say "the alleged theft" casts doubt on the victim's complaint, and on a crime having happened at all. Saying "alleged theft" conveys the possibility that the theft itself didn't happen.

We don't have a "presumption of no crime", and the word "alleged" is, at present, inappropriate referencing the fact this woman's possessions were stolen.

EJ is presumed innocent of lying about the theft until proven otherwise, therefore the fact of theft must be stated as though the crime did happen unless proven otherwise.

My understanding is that if journalists don't say that things are alleged then they open themselves up to lawsuits - or at least that's the rationale I've seen presented for things like this in the past. It fits the meaning of the word, too: "asserted to be true or to exist".

Today's journalists overuse this word. It's only relevant when speaking of the "alleged" suspect or the suspect's "alleged" actions when the person's participation or their actions are not yet proven. Once proven, the word alleged or allegedly is inappropriate, and it's also inappropriate to describe a crime or characteristics of a crime as it wrongly casts doubt on the victim.

See this for a clear explanation of how this term is often used in error:

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/alleged.html

Thank you for the clarification (and especially that link; it's an amazing clear and concise description of the issue).

June 28.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com