The Language Game of Framing: The Strawman Account Case

A student posted an excerpt from a summary of a criminal investigator's interrogation transcript and a court ruling in a petition for a retrial concerning a strawman bank account. It is well worth analyzing. Let us copy it below, with the focus placed on the underlined and bolded sections.

A (Criminal Investigator): Do you have work experience?
B: Working part-time at a gas station, and doing plumbing work at home.
B: Anyone who has your ATM card and also knows the PIN can withdraw money from your account right away. Why weren't you worried about the money in your account being taken away by the other party?
B: Because there was no money.
B: Did you think that since the account had almost no balance left, handing it over to a stranger would cause no loss to you regardless of how others used it?
B: Yes.
G: Since the applicant is a person of sound mind and deliberation, he can hardly excuse himself from knowing. Even if the applicant did not explicitly know that the financial account he provided would be used as an instrument for fraud, the applicant clearly possessed at least oblique intent of potentially aiding others in committing fraud. This is hereby stated.

The criminal investigator asked: "Did you think that since the account had almost no balance left, handing it over to a stranger would cause no loss to you regardless of how others used it?" The defendant answered: "Yes."

This is laying a linguistic trap for the defendant to fall into.

Simply put, by using the phrase "regardless of how others used it," the investigator's semantic logic encompasses an infinitely broad scope. Naturally, this also encompasses illegal fraudulent activities. Therefore, when the defendant answered "yes," it "logically" included illegal fraud as well. Based on this, the investigator "successfully" established that the defendant "had considered at the time that 'it wouldn't matter even if it were used for illegal purposes.'"

In particular, the prior question asked why he wasn't worried, and the defendant answered because there was no money. Based on this, it can be proven "logically" that the defendant's attitude was "as long as I am not harmed, it doesn't matter if others are harmed." This is not only the investigator's method of establishment, but also the judge's.

However, when the defendant listened to the investigator's question, did he truly comprehend the investigator's phrase "regardless of how others used it" as a logically rigorous term carrying an infinitely broad meaning? When he recalled the past and answered "yes" to the investigator, did he really mean to tell the investigator that "he had considered at the time that there were 'various possibilities of how people might take and use it'"?

Is it possible that what a person was thinking at that exact moment was simply, "At worst, they just won't return it; what else could they possibly do with it?" Is it possible that, under his limited focus, his statement of "regardless of how others used it" was merely a reflection of his "limited imagination" (being unable to think of any other uses), and he assumed the investigator was (so sympathetically) grasping his state of mind?

Just imagine: when our own minds are somewhat inadequate without us realizing it, how would you respond if someone asked you "regardless of how"? I suppose yes? Probably yes? (To add a supplementary point, writing "yes" on the transcript is the standardized format for official documents. Even if the defendant answered, 'I suppose so,' 'maybe so,' or 'probably so,' the transcript would mostly just record it as 'yes'.)

In short, one phrase of "regardless of how others used it" with two different interpretations—in my view, this is likely much closer to the truth. Just think: if a "not guilty" defendant truly realized that "regardless of how others used it" referred to an infinitely broad scope, would he have answered "yes"?

Unfortunately, investigators, prosecutors, and judges are the ones holding the power of interpretation in this language game, not the defendant.

Well then, let the judges, prosecutors, and investigators take that power of interpretation.

Following this "legal reasoning," if in the case at hand, the person who took the account did not commit fraud, but instead used it as a designated payment account for kidnapping for ransom, then the defendant should also constitute an accomplice to kidnapping for ransom.

Guess what? Do investigators, prosecutors, and judges truly dare to operate the strict logical meaning of "regardless of how others used it" in this manner? At this point, do investigators, prosecutors, and judges really not need to step out of the language game and earnestly return to reality?

Finally, we can do one more thing: construct a parallel sentence pattern, weaving the phrase "regardless of how," the answer of "yes," and the conversational model of inferring based on that "yes" into a cross-talk routine, and see how the audience reacts upon hearing it.