Timeline for A term for someone denying an accusation but appearing guilty as a result
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2015 at 18:43 | comment | added | Chris Subagio | Yes, exactly. The OP implied that by saying anything at all, the speaker was exposing themselves to an accusation. I think self-incrimination isn't limited to the act of providing proof, instead it is any action that leads to the accusation. | |
| Jun 28, 2015 at 18:29 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence and Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself ( generally, by making a statement ) "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another person in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof. | |
| Jun 28, 2015 at 18:25 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | It's my understanding that a statement that is self-incriminating, provides some proof or evidence that you might have had a motive in committing the offence or crime. It could also indicate that your alibi is flimsy. The OP's example, "Why would I do that? He just gave me a raise!" doesn't incriminate the speaker at all. If the statement had been " "Why would I do that? Yes, we had arguments in the past but nothing serious" that might induce people to believe there was some substance behind the accusation. | |
| Jun 28, 2015 at 17:38 | comment | added | Chris Subagio | "Putting your foot in your mouth" only implies that you've done something detrimental to yourself, which could definitely include becoming someone who appears to be guilty. Whether you're actually guilty or not is beside the statement's point. I'm reasonably certain that becoming apparently guilty is as self-incriminating as actually proving that you're guilty. For all intents and purposes directly following the event described, you are incriminated in the eyes of anyone present. Whether you stay incriminated is again beside the point. | |
| Jun 28, 2015 at 7:26 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | The first solution has already been suggested by @Oldbag. The second suggests that the speaker is guilty, while the third, self-incriminating, is a statement made by the speaker which incriminates him/her as a result. Not quite the same as "appearing" guilty because you have given a logical or plausible alibi/explanation. | |
| Jun 28, 2015 at 1:24 | history | answered | Chris Subagio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |