Okay, I get that it is often necessary to use the word "allegedly" when referring to the acts of a suspect who actually hasn't been convicted yet. But it's become maddening in recent events. First, it was Adam Lanza who "allegedly" killed those kids in Connecticut. And yesterday we got this gem from the Tribune, regarding the recently-apprehended bank robber escapee Kenneth Conley:

"Conley, 38, allegedly escaped from the jail at 71 W. Van Buren St." Allegedly? What the fuck?

Going back to the Lanza murders, since there will never be a conviction (thanks to his suicide), does that change the guideline? Can the media now dispense with the "alleged" bullshit regarding Lanza?

_________________

Would you rather they say something definitively and then allow both those pieces of shit the opportunity to win a libel lawsuit?

_________________
That's my purse! I don't know you!

_________________
"I honestly don't see a good bet on the board here."

Re: Lanza: They are supposed to use "alleged" until someone is legally found guilty. The guy killed himself after he killed all those people, so I don't know why they would still use it.

IDK why they say anyone "allegedly" re: the prison escapees. It's not as if the cops let them go. Either they escaped or they didn't.

Maybe the warden put a gun to their head, and told them to start climbing out the window.

_________________

Allegedly.