...and that's the part where I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. He didn't keep the frogs ultimately, so it sounds like what is being said is that because the frogs were recovered there was no crime. Correct me if I am misunderstanding, please.
But he didn't return them until considerable pressure was applied, in fact lied about having them. Doesn't that imply dishonesty at the very least?
Not debating, just trying to understand.
The point I was making is that he kept the frogs, and it was not until the inquires started that he returned them.