You just said that it is quite subjective.
Now let me tell you what exactly happened and why I'm so worried that if we are not clear about the distinctions or the definitions, we can create problems. What actually happened was that this person's neighbour is a chiropractor, so when he saw his neighbour kneeling down to work on the ground, he was concerned. That's why he came to the fence and yelled at the person and said, “Come on, get up. You know it hurts your back”, and things like that.
When that person went back to the house, he was so happy, and later it was discovered that the phone call that this person received at night was an overseas call, an international call from another country, and because of a difference in the time zones, he received a call at night from a person who was mistaken and made a phone call to a wrong number from a time zone where it was daytime. All of these things could be reasonable. All these things could be misunderstood. That's why I'm so concerned about the—for lack of a better word—failure to make a clear definition.
Now let me ask you about another concrete example. Again you receive a call or a complaint saying that something has happened, and the person gives you a description of five features of the suspect—five things. Then the police are able to locate a person that fits all five features. Are there grounds to believe or grounds to suspect that this person is involved?