My Lord, here endeth the case for the defence. My client is guilty of nothing more than cleaning up the marine environment, as any socially responsible ocean dweller ought to do. Besides, in the absence of a body, or rather, 95 percent of it, the whole matter of the alleged "death" is open to question.AleisterCrowley wrote:he could have drowned I guess, and the shark ate him later
Going back to the pedantry, the Scottish tourist was reported missing by his wife (so reported The Times this morning) They thought he might have drowned but then what is probably his hand was found inside a shark and so it was then suspected that he may have died in a shark attack. Still only 'may have died in a shark' attack because the report says he may have drowned first and his body was then attacked by a shark.bungeejumper wrote:Sad story, but.....
"A Scottish tourist has died in a suspected shark attack after his dismembered hand and wedding ring were found inside the animal."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50331677
"After"? Go on, let me guess when he died. A week later? A month? Or maybe he was still paddling back to shore, one-handed, at the time they found the shark?
And what's this "suspected shark attack" anyway?
Precisely. Although, on reflection, we should probably let the second suspect go.AleisterCrowley wrote:It is now suspected that Scottish tourist died in a suspected shark attack, after his dismembered hand and wedding ring were found inside the animal
or something
as opposed to the shark's rather neater cut and paste job!AleisterCrowley wrote:sloppy cut and paste on my part
Maybe, but let's remember that this suspect had been caught red-handed.UncleEbenezer wrote:In a criminal case you can usually[1] only speak of a suspected crime or an alleged perpetrator until you have the Guilty verdict. Does this late tourist's prospective inquest inherit that kind of hedged language?