Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2004

OK.  

G. were

Please!

"Pesky pendants."

Actually - I wasn't being entirely facetious.  The cynicism I have as
to the ability of the average court or jury to understand the
difference between appearance and fact is only outweighed by my
boundless contempt for the ability of the media to report the same
accurately.  So  - coming more or less back on group - a couple of
related observations on language.

Firstly - ever noticed how the language used by the media changes as
soon as a verdict is delivered?  10am: "Smith is accused of murdering
his wife....".  11am: "Smith murdered his wife...".  Two years later,
"Mr Smith was released after new evidence came to light..."  This
isn't shared by the public at large  - most of them started using the
first form as soon as Smith was arrested, of course, and will carry on
doing so even after his release.

Secondly - levels of politeness (although the precise detail could be
a UK thing).  An old friend of mine (a local councillor who had
previously held the office of mayor) spent several months in prison
over here before being released on appeal.  Ignoring the details of
the case (which where appallingly petty), I was struck by the presence
or absence of the use of an honorific title in reports as his
circumstances changed.  Before and after, he was always reported very
politely as "Mr Smith" (not his name, of course).  From the point at
which he was charged to the point of his acquittal, he was always and
only "Smith".

Cheers - Ian

My goodness! What have those nuns been doing with the candles to
get DNA evidence on them?

Let's skip around "Is that right?" since I am not a chemist and have
only vague ideas of what can be done in chemical analysis.  However,
it is my understanding that a chemical analysis of candle wax would
show particular properties of the formula used, and that chemical
analysis of the wax used by the nuns could be shown to be identical.
Wax made in different batches by the same people in the same place can
be slightly different in composition, so an identical match would be
pretty good proof of origin.

This - as we like to say - is not rocket science.  For example, paint
chips taken from a hit-and-run victim can be analyzed and proven to be
from a specific make and model of an automobile.  The chips can be
matched with the paint on a suspect's automobile and proven to be from
that automobile.  That type of evidence is routinely offered in court.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.  If the wax is proven to be
from a candle of the type used in the church, and from a batch of
candles delivered to that church, then it does indicate that person
was in the church.  Isn't that what the example was all about?

It does not prove the person was in the church.  We all know about
trace evidence and how things can be transferred from one object to
another.  The defendant may have bumped into someone that bumped into
someone that was in the church and thus acquired some candlewax on his
person.

However, if the defendant had several large globs of wax on his
person, the prosecution would be safe to offer this.  As a jury
member, it would convince me.  There would certainly be other evidence
or testimony presented.  Absent an alibi, present any other supporting
evidence, and the wax evidence would be convincing.

A few non-related points to clear up:

There are no Catholic bees.  They tend to drown when baptized and find
it difficult to grasp a rosary.  I think that the bee's knees exist,
but I don't think the knees are designed for all the bobbing and
ducking required of a Catholic.

More conclusive evidence that bees are not Catholic is that the
beehive is a common symbol in Masonic lodges.  Anyone can tell you
that Masons are all dirty Protestants and have a secret agenda to
eradicate Catholicism.

If bees have a religion, it is probably the Church of the Latter Day
Saints.  The beehive is also a symbol frequently associated with the
Mormons.  Also, the queen bee is known for her polygamy.

I don't know if there is such a thing as "nun-substance".  I'm not in
the habit of taking scrapings from nuns.  It is my experience that
some of them do exude evil, but they are restricted to teaching
positions in the lower grades.  They are not assigned to candle
making.  

It depends.  There are votive candles available from many sources.
The sick call sets are made commercially.  Ours was made in Italy.

There are Catholic churches that do not use the commercial candles.
Some churches prefer to support a particular order of nuns like the
Poor Clares.  

There is no such thing as no such thing.

I've kind of lost track of the original example.  If it's
hypothetical, then I'm using a church that buys handmade beeswax
candles that's only available from one group of nuns.  You are free to
use a hypothetical church that buys Martha Stewart designer candles
from Target.

http://www.zieglers.com/categories.asp have pages and pages of
candles. They do gift certificates, too.

[snip]

It means that the test question presupposes the existence of something
that you believe to not actually exist.  This does not make it
incorrect.  In the world being described, it might well be true, and
the test taker is to assume that it is.  Even in this world, as you
describe it, if the defense attorney didn't have any good explanation
for how the defendent came across such a candle outside of the church
(or if they thought they had a good story about how the defendent came
in contact with such a candle in church), they might well be willing
to stipulate that such candles are only used in churches, which, I
believe, makes it true with respect to the case.