I'd recommend maybe getting a book on classic rethoric, and pick one that contains a lot about the master himself, Cicero.
Cicero would probably have considered it crude and inefficient to call anyone a "criminal".
If Cicero wanted to make the point you're trying to, he might try letting the listener make his own conclussion. Without knowing the facts here, I'd guess it might go something like this:
"if we call it 'bad' to neglect a child, if we call it 'against the law' to abandon it, and 'criminal' to attack it, then what should we call this systematic bahaviour of Mahoney, followed by the blatant calculated attempt to cover it up after???"
This accomplishes two things, first you havent actually called him anything flat out (yet you havent backed out of it either), and second, you made the listener understand that this isn't just criminal, this is way beyond it, so much that words aren't enough to describe it...
If anyone now tries to attack you for calling him a criminal, you can repeat it, and ask them what they would call that behaviour. That takes the focus away from the word, and on the bahaviour.
Most accomplished politicians in a system that elects persons (and not parties) study classical rethoric.
Learning this isn't necessarily "being a politician", it's just a tool to say what you want in a effective way. Like going to the range with your gun... 
Commenting by HaloScan
