How much is being alleged?

In the Letters to the Public Editor in today's NYT, a reader makes this point:

Even in simple matters like the order of words, an assumption of guilt is frequently conveyed. Any reporter or editor should know that there is a great difference between "Prosecutors allege that Jones shot Smith because of a dispute over money," and "Jones shot Smith over a dispute about money, prosecutors charge." Nonetheless, the fact that this is only an allegation is routinely buried at the end of a sentence describing charges.

The editor responds:

I am leery of claims that The Times “routinely” does this or that, but Mr. Margolis has a point in this case. In fact, headlines, which carry an especially large punch, are often structured the way he describes. Journalistic convention says to give readers the information first, followed by the attribution. But I think Mr. Margolis makes a good case for reversing that when it comes to unproven accusations of criminal conduct.

Both of them are concerned with the placement of the attribution. In that concern, they miss another point about the sort of sentence they're discussing. These aren't simple sentences; they contain several assertions, and the problem is how the verb "alleged" is applied - all of them, or only to one.

"Prosecutors allege that Jones shot Smith because of a dispute over money" contains a premise which is accepted by the reader as he moves on. You can rewrite this as "Prosecutors allege that the reason Jones shot Smith was a dispute over money", and this more obviously brands only the reason as the allegation. That Jones did indeed shoot Smith is assumed - only the reason is open to doubt. It's a more subtle version of the old "when did Jones stop beating his wife" ploy.

There's a material (or informal) fallacy called "begging the question" or circular reasoning, or in Latin petitio principi. The Latin means "assuming the initial point" (and "begging the question" isn't a good translation, as it leads people to think it means "leading to another question") and it involves an argument in which the conclusion is actually part of its own support. An example would be a lawyer arguing that since the defendants show no remorse, they should be punished: Claiming that they should show remorse assumes their guilt; if they are innocent, why should they be remorseful?

But petitio principi can be found in many other guises. One that is extremely common is hiding a premise in one clause of a complex sentence. Clauses create separate assertions in a sentence which can be true or false independent of each other. For instance, it may be true that Jones and Smith had a dispute over money with it being true that Jones shot Smith for that - or any - reason.

This statement is composed of not one, but two clauses: Jones shot Smith - the reason was money. Thus there is a matrix of four ways to break it down by truth and falsity:

a - Jones shot Smith / Jones' reason for shooting him was money
b - Jones shot Smith / Jones' reason for shooting him was not money
c - Jones did not shoot Smith / Jones' reason for shooting him was money
d - Jones did not shoot Smith / Jones' reason for shooting him was not money

As you can see, statements c and d are actually meaningless. They aren't right or wrong, true or false: they have no meaning. There can be no reason (or motive) for a shooting if the shooting never occurred. The statements are nonsense.

The real problem with "Jones shot Smith over a dispute about money, prosecutors charge" is not the placement of the attributive clause. It's that hidden presumption: that of guilt.