Hey LJ, I didn't mean to offend. Sorry about that. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Well maybe Radar.

that's alright....


still, change your use title to 'horrible sonofabitch'

Just another in a list of possibilities. All possible because mostly provided is hearsay and speculation. From what is posted here - she is missing and presumed lost overboard. What fact says she went overboard or was trying to cross balconies?

Witnesses, as quoted in multiple news articles via the authorities investigating.

I only thumbed through links provided here. Where is the testimony that says they saw here climbing and saw her fall? Did not see that.

It there tw. I saw it in one of the links (possibly even the one in the OP).

I think what makes everyone sort of look at this sideways is the part where the woman's mother says that Jorge told her he was just going to go on to Bermuda. Of course, we have no way of knowing if that's what he said, or if he did, how he said it, but the way it comes across in print makes him sound callous.

I'm sure he isn't.

he has no choice, but to go on. they're going to question him in bermuda. he's probably detained in a room.

That only says the husband said it happened. Or says that a few people saw it happened and did nothing to cause an immediate ship response. Or said that was the speculation from an initial crew investigation. Or says the ship immediately attempted a rescue. Or says she was sucked under into the propellers. Or says the husband killed her and threw her overboard.

When I am so critical of those who know without first learning facts, this is a perfect example. If many people saw her fall overboard, then the report continues on to describe how fast the alarm was sounded and how the ship immediately attempted a rescue. Nothing.

That 'nothing stated' is more damning evidence. Of what? Reports that are woefully insufficient - have too few words - will only be a source for those who routinely don't ask why.

When the article says so&so saw her fall. And says what that person did next (also essential to have a fact). And when that source says why she fell (which hand or foot slipped first), then we have a fact with supporting reasons why. Anything less is only hearsay. I don't even read how many feet she fell - which is also a necessary supporting fact.

Why do we know that article is embarrassingly useless? Too few words - but sufficient from some to convert hearsay into fact.

Well maybe some saw her fall as climbing from one balcony to another. But that MSNBC report obviously is not sufficient for anyone to know that necessary fact. That one sentence says we have assumed using speculation. Why could this poster also say there was no evidence that Saddam had WMDs? Unlike others, this poster does not convert statement (without supporting facts) into knowledge. I first need facts - not speculation from a vague sentence. No wonder it was so easy for others to say OJ was innocent.

Maybe she did fall while climbing between balconies. No longer relevant. More important are those who speculated conclusions only from a vague sentence. The word credibility aslo applies. What can we say based upon information provided? She is missing and presumed to have fallen overboard.

kick him in the cunt, LJ.

Now that was funny.

It doesn't say who said it happened. It said 'initial reports'. The fact that report is represented in plural form suggests that there was more than one 'report', so even if one report was from the husband, there must have been at least one more from someone else. If you want to be pedantic tw, at least do it properly or you start making yourself look stupid.

What do they expect him to do, jump off the ship and tread water in the middle of the ocean?