That's really the stupidest headline and article I've ever read. There's so few interesting details in the article, I think I know less about the situation than when I knew nothing. And what the hell is a "sex claim." That makes no sense. How about, "assault claim"--that is more accurate if you can't fit "sexual assault claim" in the headline.

Poor woman, so was it an accident, a suicide?

I agree, there's hardly any solid information in this article. I just hate this kind of soft, neutral reporting. And what really gets me, is if this were any other kind of tragic incident, the language would be a lot stronger, and there would be more details. I'm seething right now.

I really don't get what the heck it is that's yanking your chain here. Okay, the wording of the headline could be better--as in more specific, because 'sex claim' makes it sound like she claimed she had sex with someone, not that she claimed (or more, filed a complaint) that she had suffered an assault of a sexual nature.

I think the real juicy piece here isn't the way the _news service_ put the headline. It's the way you, Nettle Syrup, summed up the piece. By saying that the poor gal "fell to her death ... after being sexually assaulted" you make it sound like she got jumped, then she jumped--within minutes or hours. That in turn would imply that the being jumped on was a cause of the jumping, for which you have simply no clue, much less proof, especially as the complaint for the ALLEGED sexual assault (nothing came of it, chiefly because she 'refused to cooperate further' with the investigation that was duly opened following her complaint), happened months ago--far too long for a cause-consequence link to make any degree of sense.

So now I gotta wonder, why would you do that? Are you too clumsy to see the blooper, or are you just indulging in a spot of fact-twisting?