Which are verified to meet a specific standard through a conviction in this case, which is the exact opposite of the scenario that generated the quote above.
Is an accused murderer still considered a murderer if they are not convicted of the crime?
This idea that something can't be confirmed as true unless a court says it is bizarre and totally antithetical to the idea of journalism. Journalists are not court stenographers.
Sometimes it is entirely reasonable to call someone a murderer even if they lack a conviction. I have no problem saying John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln. I have no problem saying Hitler committed war crimes. These are simply facts of history and your policing of language is implicitly arguing against those facts. So I'm going to ask you directly and I won't reply if you don't directly answer this question, do you believe that Hitler committed war crimes?
The idea that a criminal conviction needs to occur for someone to be called a criminal in the media should not be remotely controversial. Journalists certainly can and do perform research that can lead to arrests and/or convictions, but are effectively a mouthpiece for the court stenographer once a trial is underway.
An unbiased reporter would (and nearly all journalist actually do) say something like "accused <insert criminal charge here> <insert name here> <insert rest of sentence here>" at any point in a criminal proceeding prior to the jury handing down a guilty verdict.
The fact that you only seem to be able to generate examples of extremely high profile situations where the alleged perpetrator was killed while evading capture (by themselves or law enforcement) only strengthens my argument.
