English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Normally to frame somebody means

3 informal produce false evidence against (an innocent person) so that they appear guilty

Now what in case of a cautious criminal who took care to hide/remove the evidence of their crimes, and now someone in the know returns the evidence to its place, replaces false records with real ones, restores removed clues etc., so that the authorities can find the criminal rightfully guilty?

Does that still count as framing?

If not, is there a name for this kind of activity?

share|improve this question
I'd call that being exposed – Jim Dec 11 '12 at 3:10
Yeah, that's not being framed. 'Framing' means someone intentionally having an innocent (of a given crome) mistaken for the real criminal. – Mitch Dec 11 '12 at 3:26
It's probably too rare an activity to be assigned a label. Anyone concerned to see justice prevail would probably just denounce our "cautious criminal" (he'd presumably have discovered the evidence, records and other clues in what must be "incriminating circumstances"). Either Too Localised, or NARQ – FumbleFingers Dec 11 '12 at 5:01
I would call this to set up rather than to frame. (Although dictionaries like here don't really make that distinction, so I'm not sure.) – Mr Lister Dec 11 '12 at 7:17
That guy was re-framed! – GEdgar Dec 11 '12 at 15:05
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The name for the activity is planting evidence.

That's an interesting distinction you draw in your question. By the way, it's only not framing if law enforcement is correct in their assumption about who the real purpetrator is. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

Another word for planting evidence on someone innocent is frameup.

Here's an interesting discussion on framing the guilty (although it's written from the perspective of television plot lines, not law enforcement, so I can't attest to its accuracy from a legal standpoint).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.