Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I was recently watching a British police drama by the name of New Tricks and a question was asked in it.
So. What's the opposite of an alibi?
Now I had never really thought of this and when the question came up I was quite stumped by it and neither dictionaries nor web search could provide an answer for me. False alibi showed up a few times, but that would be lying or leading someone on with incorrect data about where you were, not the inability to prove where someone was or was not.
So I ask you kind linguists. What is the opposite of an alibi?
tromboniator said:
What's the opposite of a car?
Just about choked on my coffee laughing when I read that. Brought to mind that old nonsense riddle "What's the difference between a duck?"
But seriously folks, I read that alibi question yesterday and couldn't think of anything either. Today it occurred to me that, since an alibi is evidence of innocence, the opposite would be evidence of guilt. Or, more simply, "evidence." But if you go down that road, wouldn't "confession" also be the opposite? Not sure that "no alibi" works for me, but I do see Tromboniator's point.
McAster said:
What is the opposite of an alibi?
I would go with incrimination. It is something you can do to yourself, or others can do it for you, just like an alibi, but with opposite effect.
I also like Heimhenge's confession, if you are focusing on the suspect himself supplying the information.
But an alibi is more than just "proof of innocence", it's "proof you were elsewhere". I'm reminded of some notes on Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark" where a character is cleared of a charge of desertion by proving his alibi; i.e., he's not guilty of being away from his post because it can be proved he wasn't there.
If an alibi is proof you were elsewhere, is the opposite proof you were not elsewhere, or lack of proof that you were there?Does an alibi have to be proof, or can it be evidence?
A confession may be pretty conclusive, given supporting evidence, but it may be a lie. Incrimination, unless I misunderstand its use, is an indication of possible guilt (or, I suppose, presence), but not necessarily proof. A person may be charged on incriminating evidence that falls short of proof. I think lack of an alibi can be incriminating, given other evidence, but it's not proof you were not elsewhere.
This is a wonderful question.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)