9InchNails
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 83
Then why the use of the word MAY HAVE, why not say POLICE HAVE CONFIRMED LUKA ATE BODY PARTS?
Is there some question as to whether parts were eaten and if so then why even bring that up, IF THEY DONT SEE SOMEONE EATING THE BODY PARTS why suggest that body parts are being eaten, what I am reading says to me YES WE SEE BODY PARTS BEING EATEN that IS CONFIRMED and it MAY HAVE BEEN LUKA but since we cant see his face in the video we arent certain it was him.
If they weren't sure it was Luka I believe they would have said someting like: "someone we suspect might be Luka has eaten body parts". And the "may have eaten body parts" could mean that it looked like he did eat them but they couldn't be sure because the video wasn't clear enough or because they couldn't determine whether it was staged... Well, that's how I understood it.
Edit: could also be that the journalist misquoted LE (?)