No worries, TW, I did the reading for you. I did some searching this morning and found a number of things. most of which are summed up in this
Christian Science Monitor article.
Of particular interest is this excerpt:
"According to Lion Aid, a charity that focuses on lion preservation, Cecil’s death was for the most part legal and standard practice. And usually, if a killing takes place in an area without a lion quota, the hunter would just lie and say it happened in an area with a lion quota, according to Lion Aid’s website.
But thanks to Cecil’s tracking collar, which traced his movements for an Oxford University research project, the hunters couldn’t cover up their whereabouts."
It sounds entirely possible that Palmer did not know that the guide and landowner did not have permits or a quota for a lion. One article stated that they were actually hunting leopard and when the lion showed up the guide told Palmer to shoot it. Sounds like they were fairly upset when they saw the collar.