Not so, Utopian. This is from you: "I think it’s questionable...

Not so, Utopian. This is from you:

"I think it’s questionable that David may have overheard a phone call, seen a screen with info on it whilst visiting his Son the CEO, if he did overhear or see something that is no one’s fault not Chris’s or David’s."

....you are clearly stating that you think it's possible that David Reed committed a crime, because you state that he might have "overheard a phone call" or "seen a screen" and THEN used this market sensitive information to sell shares in the company. It doesn't matter if you Utopian think "it's no one's fault", the law explicitly forbids him from doing so. And, you have already said 30 times that David Reed's selling behaviour is "Suss a.f.". These are your words Utopian.

Suggesting it's possible that David Reed may have walked past someone's computer even by accident, accidentally seen inside information and THEN sold down some of his holding is suggesting without any ambiguity that you think it's possible that David Reed committed a crime.

I'm not sure why you are shying away from acknowledging that you are suggesting that David Reed may have committed a crime because the timing of his last sale and the poor announcement is, in your own words, "suss a.f.". It IS what you are saying, why aren't you happy to own it?