Legal Definitions - praevaricator

A praevaricator is an individual who deliberately avoids the truth, often by using ambiguous language, misleading statements, or evasive actions, particularly in a formal or legal setting. Instead of directly lying, a praevaricator attempts to obscure or distort the facts to avoid full disclosure or accountability.

• Example 1: Courtroom Witness

  During a cross-examination in a civil lawsuit, a witness repeatedly answered questions about their involvement in a business deal with vague statements like, "I recall discussions, but the specifics are hazy," or "My understanding was different at the time." They avoided giving direct "yes" or "no" answers, instead offering circuitous explanations that did not fully address the questions posed by the attorney.

  Explanation: This witness is acting as a praevaricator because they are not directly lying, but they are deliberately using evasive and ambiguous language to avoid providing clear, truthful answers that could be detrimental to their position or that of a party they are protecting.

• Example 2: Corporate Executive

  A CEO testifying before a regulatory body regarding a data breach at their company was asked if they were aware of specific security vulnerabilities prior to the incident. Instead of a direct answer, the CEO stated, "Our team continuously monitors for potential threats, and we always strive to implement industry best practices to safeguard customer information." While technically true that monitoring occurs, the statement did not directly address whether they knew about specific vulnerabilities before the breach, thereby sidestepping the core question.

  Explanation: The CEO is a praevaricator because they are using general, non-committal language to avoid directly confirming or denying knowledge of specific vulnerabilities. They are creating an impression of diligence without actually providing a straightforward answer to the critical question, thus misleading the regulatory body.

• Example 3: Public Official

  A city council member was questioned by local journalists about allegations of conflicts of interest related to a recent zoning decision. The council member responded by saying, "My decisions are always made with the best interests of the community at heart, and I follow all ethical guidelines." They then pivoted to discussing unrelated community initiatives, never directly addressing the specific conflict of interest allegations or providing details about their financial ties to the developers involved in the zoning change.

  Explanation: Here, the council member is a praevaricator because they are deflecting from the specific allegations by offering general assurances of good intent and shifting the topic. They are not directly lying, but they are deliberately avoiding a direct response to the accusations, thereby obscuring the truth and attempting to mislead the public about their potential conflict of interest.