0
Kimagi Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
"Could have been" confuses me
Hi there,
Can someone explain the logic in this sentence? This is a police interview with a person who run over someone and claimed his car was stolen before the accident but he can't prove it. And "they" are the witnesses who saw the car accident.
Police: "For all they know, the car could’ve been stolen. They have no evidence to prove otherwise."
Does it mean that the witnesses believe the car wasn't stolen or was stolen?
Thanks heaps!
Can someone explain the logic in this sentence? This is a police interview with a person who run over someone and claimed his car was stolen before the accident but he can't prove it. And "they" are the witnesses who saw the car accident.
Police: "For all they know, the car could’ve been stolen. They have no evidence to prove otherwise."
Does it mean that the witnesses believe the car wasn't stolen or was stolen?
Thanks heaps!
Top answer
The only thing the witnesses saw was a car being involved in an accident. They can't identify the driver - in particular, they can't identify the owner of the car as the driver. Thus, it is possible that the car was stolen.
- The only thing the witnesses saw was a car being involved in an accident.
- They can't identify the driver - in particular, they can't identify the owner of the car as the driver.
- Thus, it is possible that the car was stolen.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
The only thing the witnesses saw was a car being involved in an accident. They can't identify the driver - in particular, they can't identify the owner of the car as the driver. Thus, it is possible that the car was stolen.
0
Related Questions