I am also not saying the conclusion isnt correct. I am saying there are too many unexplained odd circumstances to just leave the report as "he drowned"

He did not "tell them what to do". He did what any responsible lawyer does when their client suggests theyve been negatively impacted by another party *and* they believe the police have not done a thorough job. He "*questioned*"

"*When one looks at the press release that was done by the Royal Bahamas Police Force, it seems very inconclusive and very unprofessional*"

You did arrive yesterday apparently. Lawyers review and question police reports all over the world every single day

"*But mr seymour has no right to say*"

Did you arrive on the planet yesterday?

Mr Seymour is the family's attorney. He has every right to question everything.

"*still waiting for forensic toxicology results*"

What about the bruising on the body. It is possible to beat someone up, throw them in the water unconscious or even hold their head under water and they then die from "drowning", which would be consistent with cause of death. The reference to toxicology is also fine but neither explains the state of the body. Was the body bruised or not and if so did the bruising occur before or after death?

*Sometime earlier, between 2am and 3am, officers reportedly visited the family’s hotel room, alleging Dinari had "spat on staff"—a claim the family vehemently denies*

*When one looks at the press release that was done by the Royal Bahamas Police Force, it seems very inconclusive and very unprofessional,*

*Dinari does not go to the beach. We just came from Punta Cana in January. He did not go to the beach. He is not a beach person*

This entire saga has been bungled from the start.

1. I have never ever ever heard of a scenario where the police can refuse to let a family view their loved ones body. They can certainly warn you if the body is in a bad state and leave it as your choice. But offering a head shot photo as basis for identification this is beyond weird.

2.In a previous article there was some reference to Danari possibly spitting on hotel staff but it was some inconclusive hearsay on who said it and how they knew of the incident. This story implies it was **officers** who **came to the hotel room** to deliver this storyline. Does "officers" mean RBPF or hotel security guards? If police, did they have on cameras? Does the hotel cctv show the "officers" at the room?

3.I agree with the attorney, the way that the report was delivered to the public via the crime report, it made it seem as if the autopsy results were conclusive. I was shocked to read the mothers account of bruising on the body and being prevented from viewing the body.

4.This young man was missing maybe from 10pm to 5AM. I'm told that 24hr hours submerged in water is not sufficient time for water related physical distortions. The timeline was 7hours max and he wasnt even found in the water. Somebody needs to be responsible and give a believable explanation. Examiners can determine if bruises occur before or after death so its not some we cant determine what happened situation.

5.In the other story the mother said Dinari *went to get a jacket* and never returned. In this story she says he was *not a beach person* and cites a recent vacation example to back it up. Put together, its beyond weird from him to have been found "drowned" on the beach. The police need to clear all of this up.

The story is all over the US news.

To make clear apparently what they did was remove sex with an underage child from "*statutory **rape***" to "*illegal sexual intercourse*", it seems innocuous but the subtle difference says alot. Iys a move a defence attorney would advocate for to protect his revenue or an individual who routinely preys on underage girls would love, it's not rape if they're "willing", right? A 10 year old?. But the reason it's called rape is because everybody understands children can be manipulated and theres no grosser vile manipulation than for the sexual pleasure of a hard back old man.

But our parliament of 32 majority party old men thought, great idea.

"*it’d be interesting if ships would go, let’s say to Freeport, and that way you avoid the tariffs from the US,”*"

I've heard this argument from others of ways in which the Bahamas can benefit from the global trade war. Said before it literally reminds of the statement from the former Minister of Tourism who said we could benefit from the COVID spread in Europe with the reports of thousands of deaths by bringing more tourists here. A failure to understand the environment and a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of and causes of virus spread.

Apparently in the last Trump administration, a number of US manufacturers shifted their production to Vietnam and other Asian countries to avoid the US China trade war. Well this time Trump included those countries too. Because his stated goal is to have the manufacturing in the US, not just *out of China*.

So if Trump wants to hurt Chinese exports, I dont think it would go past anyone's notice that countries are avoiding intended punishment by going to the Bahamas. You can still do it, just dont believe the reaction will be "*dagnabmit, foiled again!*".

It really shocked me to hear that someone thought to it was a good idea to change sex with a 10,11,12,13,14,15 year old as statutory **rape**. Then I realized, well if you want to protect people who you want to protect, it makes perfect sense.

Lol @pic

Large scale farming is heavily subsidized everywhere. Without subsidies even US farmers couldnt afford to run farms. I think its impossible for the Bahamas to feed itself during normal times. Fertilizers, equipment, water, energy the prices could triple what we import. A combination of subsistence farming, quality products to supply hotels during normal times and planning to provide food during periods of scarcity is a more realistic approach