London: elderly man charged on suspicion of murder for defending home against thieves
by Jon Rappoport
April 5, 2018
In the midst of London’s rising crime wave, a 78-year-old man, Richard Osborn-Brooks, has been arrested on suspicion of murder, after defending his home against two thieves.
The Daily Mail offers this statement from Scotland Yard: “At 00:45hrs on Wednesday, 4 April, police were called by a homeowner to reports of a burglary in progress at an address in South Park Crescent, Hither Green SE6, and a man injured.”
“The 78-year-old resident found two males inside the address. A struggle ensued between one of the males and the homeowner. The man, aged 38, sustained a stab wound to the upper body.”
“London Ambulance Service took the injured male, who was found collapsed in Further Green Road, SE8, to a central London hospital. He was pronounced dead at 03:37hrs.”
The Telegraph states: “Police arrested him [the homeowner, Osborn-Brooks] on suspicion of grievous bodily harm before then arresting him on suspicion of murder.”
Arresting Osborn-Brooks on what grounds? Defending his home? Defending his life? Defending his wife, who was sleeping upstairs?
Since when is it murder, when a person fights off a thief? Was Osborn-Brooks supposed to sit quietly in a chair, tell the thieves (one of whom ran away) to take everything they wanted, and ask them not to harm him or his wife? Is that proper behavior? Is that what the government demands of its citizens?
If the facts of the story are what Scotland Yard reports to the press, for what possible reason is Osborn-Brooks sitting in a jail cell?
Why aren’t the police thanking him for defending his home and family?
The Daily Mail: “British law allows homeowners to use ‘reasonable force’ against intruders to protect themselves or others in their home.”
“Guidelines introduced in 2005 allow people to protect themselves ‘in the heat of the moment’ – including using an object as a weapon. They can also stop an intruder running off, for example by tackling them to the ground.”
“There is no specific definition of ‘reasonable force’ and it is said to depend on the circumstances.”
So a person is permitted to defend his home with force “in the heat of the moment.” But not if he uses force in a calm, cool, and rational state of mind?
The government presumption is biased against a citizen’s right to self-defense. Thieves’ motives are clear and easily understood, but targets of thieves have ambiguous motives that must be sorted out before a decision is made about whether to prosecute them or release them. In the meantime, lock them up.
This is backwards.
But many people would call it “progressive.”
You see, the thief is really the victim, and the victim is the perpetrator. Once you digest that formula, you’re ready to enter the New Society.
Any person who owns property is automatically suspected of having committed a crime. Property IS theft. A thief would never steal unless he had been “oppressed.”
Congratulations. You’re now a card-carrying liberal.
A word of caution: when you see some of your liberal LEADERS moving about with armed security teams, don’t fret or ask questions. They have special rights. Because they’re in the vanguard, flying the banner of new revolutionary values. They need whatever they say they need. It’s all in The Memo.
Which you didn’t receive.
Because you’re an unknowing dupe. The rich and privileged people you think you’re fighting against are the rich and privileged people who are leading you.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
This is the way it works. The homeowner is arrested on suspicion of murder, and there is a trial. You’re jumping the gun assuming that the system is automatically on the side of the thief. But there are other alternatives, such as calling the police. If the homeowner had the opportunity to call the police and chose instead to kill the robber, then it is murder. Time will tell.
You Mr. David CROWE , are WHAT is wrong in the world today. My family had a home invasion, and the perpetrator was slugged with a baseball bat and continues the rest of his life in a wheelchair to this very day. Home invasion(s), burglary etc all result with the offender assaulting the home owner / occupant(s). Thus having been there myself , lethal force is a necessary evil WHEN defending yourself , and a home with small children, and or innocent aging adult family members. The mere fact the charge IS ‘Suspicion of Murder’ illustrates at best the Crown’s case is extremely weak, and thus is an acid test to see if the Crown can create new Case Law, by roping up another innocent law abiding citizen. Seriously WAKE UP, and see WHAT is going on worldwide. This is just another example of the CABAL’s agenda. This is NOT some random incident. None of them are !
A good analysis, Peter. It was put on. and I agree that lethal force is essential and merited.But I’d hate to have to prove it in a court of false law.
The Daily Fail is a well known deep state/intel disinformation site. Pictures are photo-shopped, stories are fabrications.
The Crown (courts) are a private business out of the City of London. If you do not surrender your WILL (www.yourstrawman.com) and play their game, then you do not CON-tract = no case to answer. All is deception = Contract makes the law = Free Will also.
Charges = (+/-) = electrical energy potential = one goes into polarity = out of heart centre (heart = neutral = no energy loss). Hence Energy words used by banks/police/courts etc = All is Energy.
Heart Centre is your power point = master
The Divide & Conquer strategy is deeply rooted in the crooks psyche.
Going by how Beings (not “people” = persona = a fake being) are taking the bait and replying here, there is much work to do on one’s own psyche.
Avoid them like the plague and work on raising self = “get thee wisdom and in all thy getting get understanding”.
By the very act of breaking and entering, the person doing this act, has evil in mind. To believe that it is ok to break and enter and steal or kill or rape or destroy, is what these people that do these acts have in their mind. Self Defense ( resulting in killing the perpetrators) is the correct and just act. It meets all criteria of Justice and Fair Play. If you cannot see this, then you have a mental disorder.
Right. Wait for the police to arrive whilst your putting your family in potential danger. That’s a special kind of retard logic. My house. My responsibility. It’s not murder if you kill someone who enters your home uninvited. its self defence.
No idiot ,if you break into my house at 12:45 and are a stranger, you die by gun shot here in Texas. PERIOD
From your perspective, if the homeowner “had the opportunity to call the police” while there was a thief or possible murderer in his home during the wee hours of the morning, he should hope and pray that the police arrive there within a FEW SECONDS before anything is taken or anyone in his home is hurt or murdered by this person. He should just sit and wait patiently until the police arrive while he is being robbed or even murdered. LMAO!!!
Yes, it is insane to wait for police. And that is the very evidence that the government and laws are wicked and up to no good at all. What they ask is insane. In his own home, he should have an absolute unrestrained right to self defense of his home, family and possession. Any thief that comes in for that purpose should get this: Leave this property immediately, or I will fill you body with lead. I call it Justifiable execution. The bible gives us a standard that assumed a somewhat normal society, Its prescription is not for a society gone completely mad. My solution is for a society gone mad, which it has. But do be aware that the government will not take too kindly to that. they want you to bow to martial law.
When seconds count the police are only minutes away. I guess the victim could have kindly asked the criminals to wait for the police and have a spot of tea and discuss the rugby match that day. Too bad he didn’t have a firearm so he could have dropped both of the criminals in their tracks whether they were armed or not that way they wouldn’t have to waste the ambulance fuel and manpower.
As long as time permits. If I had an intruder in my house — I’d put a bullet in him and tell the police it looked like he was about to attack me with a weapon! I’m tired of the liberal b.s. that no property is worth a human life. That might work for you, but would never work for me.
Shame on you, David! Because of people like you the UK will implode and disappear…
We could only hope Alan.
Agreed..David. Totally agree with you. You stand alone here — I think…a couple of idiots with anger against you for you individual opinion. Your sensible head, is what’s wrong with the world — don’t ya know — from Peter G’s POV. And Truth, well he’s just afflicted David.
Some are looking for an opportunity to kill David. They haven’t had that experience in their lives yet, and so they see a weaker opponent and strike, like a cobra. The picture of the dead man — he looked troubled. He didn’t look like a killer. He looked like he was the weaker man, than that (tongue in cheek) ” poor ole seventy-eight year old fella”
And one is left with the question. If attacked by another — then using personal power to defend oneself is well justified, I’d say.
But is burglary a justified reason to kill someone. If someone is attempting to steal something from your house — some object/s that belongs to you. Some of that Wal-Mart crap you own — is that a justified reason to kill someone. Kill them because they are attempting to steal your $69 blue-ray player.
Some of the mob in here think so…
Starting with the two victims who threw the first rocks at you.
The picture I saw was not what everyone else saw — a frail 78-year-old — a poor old man. No, I saw a man quite capable and in good health. He had two pints of Guinness in his hands David, in the picture I saw. No this guy was not frail by any sense. He could have beat the snot out of them for being in his house — he could have thrown them out of his house — but kill, no, there was no reason.
And out here in God’s country. We have eighty year olds still working large farms. One fellow I know run a business selling seed. And farms ten sections of Saskatchewan farmland. He, fixes he own rigs when he can. And he will work any city forty-year old man, into the dirt. He doesn’t look that strong. But I am talking about fierce individuals. They have a look, they are not frail.
Long story short — another old friend of mind and I went with another younger friend for a long ride on horses back into my older friends (Marcel) property — up into the hills. It was a tough ride, bush, rocks, always climbing. It’s hard on the horses. And hard riding, its a tough ride actually. We spent all day up there David, we ate and drank a few beers up there, by a fire — Marcel, my old friend, lol ( he’d knock ya on your ass in ten seconds if you got out of line) got of his horse, when we got back to his place, and went to work.
Me and my younger friend were a bit bagged out, we were not used to such hard riding — well not completely bagged out — but Marcel said ”Well I got work to do, time for chores boys, and went to the task of feeding his hundred head of cattle.
He is seventy-eight years old — runs a coyote trap-line, fixes his own fence line. Mows an acre of lawn on a beautiful homestead, once a week. And farms wheat on a couple of sections of land. And holds the world record for the largest buck brought down with a long-bow. And the really big bucks David — get that way for a reason, it’s because they are smart and quick and take a long time tracking.
Marcel, is maybe, 165 lbs soakin wet with a rock in each hand. But he is tough as nails. An individual.
So this poor old man stuff, doesn’t cut it with me. I think you would had a tough time putting that ole bastard in the news photo down in fist fight. He looks more than capable to go three rounds with an intruder — with his two pints of Guinness in his hands. And I’ll bet, he wouldn’t spill a drop.
I bet the thrives were black. A polical show trial I would say.
Once they’re inside the house its too late to call the police.
The thief has already committed the crime of trespassing. If the homeowner had picked up a phone and had begun to dial ANY number, no thief is going to think perhaps the man is calling his niece Audrey to ask her over for tea—he’s going to assume the man who house he has broken into is calling the police, and he will stop the call before it can happen by whatever means necessary. If you are face to fave with an intruder in your house, it is too late to call the police. I don’t know by what illogic or naivete you came up with this one—just sayin’.
The elderly gentleman is charged with SUSPICION OF MURDER. Hence , its a necessary process the POLICE must abide by as procedure. I highly doubt the 78 year old man will be found guilty. I expect that the case will NOT even make it to trial. If it does go to trial, then those reading this must realise that the Westminster System that is the nexus of our Commonwealth Criminal Code is under siege by the KHAZARIAN Mafia (i.e. ROTHSCHILDS, and other elites) as so well documented in thousands of criminal trials across the UK, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, and NEW ZEALAND; including other Commonwealth States.
The point is the man should not have even been arrested. Someone enters another persons house in the middle of the night and gets killed doing so… too fucking bad.
Yes, but you are assuming good will on the part of law ans government. Ah ha ha ha ha ! government does not want you to be able to defend yourself but have to depend on them for protection and if they do not like you, they can send some criminals to your home and not come to help you when you call. And they will blame it on the criminals. clever, no?
wesirvine — Yes!! It’s basic common sense and a very basic human (and all other mammal’s) right to protect yourself and your family from a predator who enters your territory with obvious harmful intentions.
It’s hardly surprising that an Establishment that is preoccupied with finding new ways of robbing the population of property and rights is increasingly sympathetic to all who attack same.
Excellent point. But Robert, the left knows so much more what is good for us that we should never question their brilliance and grasp of the problems at hand. And don’t pay attention to past commie failures. This time will be different. We can truth them this time. Oh, this is not the comedy blog? Damn I am in the wrong place. Boy, do I feel stupid now. Which way to DC? Anyone?
But lets not kid ourselves. it is taking a great risk to defend yourself, even though it is perfectly justified. Especially in the UK, the worst country in the world. I have it on good word that Mao is beside himself looking down at the UK. He really thought he had secured his place in history as the biggest blood spiller of all time, as qualifying him for Despot of the Millennium and all time best depot. but now he is sure that he has lost his title to the UK. They have him on suicide watch. The UK does nothing without the most sinister motives every known to a nation. Show me a time when England was ever a nice nation! Be afraid, good citizens of the UK. Be very afraid.the bell tolls for thee, one and all.
Wait…seriously? He is 78 and successfully defended himself and his wife?
Where were the police again? Oh that’s right they only show up AFTER the crime has been committed when the homeowner could have been murdered instead of the criminal..
Many of us in the US would consider Mr. Osborn Brooks a HERO.
If it was my household, i probably would have chased the man into the street and beaten him to a bloody pulp with my baseball bat..
In this case, the cops are criminals and if the old man stabbed them with the screwdriver, and I was on the jury, I would vote for the verdict of justifiable homicide.
Should have KILLED THEM BOTH and never called the cops, they only want to write tickets
You know, in the bible, if someone entered into you home at night, you had the RIGHT to assume the very worst,, given the difficult situation of darkness and no lights back then. You had a right to kill and be completely exonerated. That does no happen often in the Bible.
What an opinionated asshole you are…have you read that Bible?
No one has the right to kill — not even the people that do all the killing for God and country have the right to kill.
There is no right reason to kill — its just killing — it is taking someone’s life. It is taking the only thing they will ever have.
Thinking about killing — killing — is what is pure evil SFB.
If you kill someone in self defense — you have survived, yes — you are alive –but you know you have killed someone, you know that forever, it never goes a way.
You, you afflicted asshole, have no idea about what I am talking about.
Take that bible you christian asshole an shove were the sun don’t shine.
Another nasty hateful reply. Business as usual, eh, Mike? You are quite the example. I will quote from the bible: He who is wicked in little is wicked in much. I stand by the bible’s law as being good and right. I do not advocate breaking US laws but do heavily insist their laws are corrupt and wicked, like you Mike. Mike burns again.
Yes Mike, I have read the Bible many times and translations. I have website on it all, The Best Bible Chronologist in the world, and best interpreter of prophecy ever. and i am so modest, too.
This is pure stupidity.
At least in this country you can always apply the three “S” rule.
Here’s a lesson for all… If you kill some person who enters your home in the night… leave the body on the verge. Don’t call the police from home. best not to complicate your life dealing with retarded criminal systems
That would be murder, hillbilly. Did you finish school?
Mike, I notice you are starting to sound like a sanctimonious Leftist. How about that! And a lunatic, too.
People are only “citizens” of government by consent or presumption . WE the people are the sovereigns, the right to self defense is a natural right, not something “granted”.
Try telling that to soldiers dressed in fall armor gear and automatic weapons. They will laugh and then beat you senseless. That is what we have become.
I just saw that the missing CDC worker was found dead. Is there a story there, Jon?
Reblogged this on John Barleycorn and commented:
UK is circling the drain
back in the 80s there begun a mindset where i.m from .nothing to do with politics ..when people threw trash out their car window they would get flipped off and ridiculed..it eventually worked ..they stopped..we need another mindset in the same fashion -?- mock and ridicule mature individuals that have no critical thinking skills .the hypnotized progressive left are throwing toxic caustic trash out their windows of their minds..the gift that keep on giving.
This is not so much about a property owner vs thief bias one way or the other as it is about the state asserting its monopoly on violence.
Everybody knows (or should know) that you cannot rationally assess and apply exactly as much force as is reasonable in a situation like that. There are too many unknowns, too many things that can go wrong, even if you’re a trained fighter in good shape. You have to go all out until the threat appears to be thoroughly subdued, and you have to be in that frame of mind to be most effective in the fight.
If the assailant or invader is lying senseless on the ground and you then stab him, it might be excessive, but nothing short of that is. This principle is well understood and applied in abundance to police officers, because they represent the state monopoly on violence. There are thousands of videos on Youtube of police executing people for making one wrong move or gesture, often when several feet from the officer and obviously unarmed, sometimes with their backs turned, sometimes when crawling on their belly, often in bad physical shape, often in 10 police to 1 suspect situations.
In those cases, police can claim “resisting arrest”, even if the suspect is just curling up and trying to ward off blows from the police officers piling on. Police can claim “fear for life” even in 10 officers vs 1 unarmed obese suspect situations. Or they can claim belief that the suspect might have been armed or possibly reaching for something – all of which are almost impossible to disprove.
In all those cases, the theoretical requirement for a “rational” response or “proportional force” are in effect void, and you are allowed to go all out – if you are a representative of the state monopoly on violence, that is. Nor do police officers get arrested or have to languish in jail while the case is investigated (ending almost invariably with acquittal). They get to go on holiday, in most cases fully paid.
This is the state asserting its absolute monopoly, its absolute power, its absolute privilege, over the individual citizen, regardless of whether the state calls itself liberal, conservative, socialist, fascist, democratic or blue cheese.
Well stated Claus.
I have come to realize that everything in the political realm boils down to violence and force. Even the seemingly non-violent aspects such as discourse and voting: they are just a means of one faction to wield the force apparatus of the majority over the rest by amassing hearts and minds.
Perfectly stated, Claus. great job!
I remember when someone attempted to rob a very elderly Ezra Pound (the American fascist poet) and Pound pounded the robber, because he had trained as a boxer. But even the evil Pound didn’t kill the intruder. At least I think I remember, it was a long time ago.
Well, something most do not think of. if night robbers typically get killed, you ‘ll see night robberies become rare. its called Deterrence.Its also called law and order, I think Vladamir Dracoula had the right idea. Even then, He was surprised he had to be as severe as he was. Jupiter/Zeus who was a real person, was said to be severe in order to keep law and order. He lived on Crete, and had quite the empire and his rival was his father, Saturn on main land Europe.
this online version of Paul Yves Pezron, a french monk and historian relates the facts of the so called gods. searchable text! http://www.truth1.info/pezron.htm
Lol…these people think like slaves…waiting for someone to free them David.
And so…dun-dun dun.
“The real trouble with war is that it gives no one a chance to kill the right people.”
― Ezra Pound
Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all were fascists.
David Crowe, I agree with you and Peter Griffin (I think) that there is a procedure that has to be followed in a case like this. It needs to be investigated, since nobody can know exactly what happened. The old man could be lying, the media could have gotten it wrong (very likely), there could have been much less danger than we think. And the police might just have wanted to share donuts and pizza with the guy and sent him home the next day. In fact, this was reported soon after: “Mr Osborn-Brooks has now been released from a police station near his home in Hither Green, south-east London pending an investigation by murder detectives. Police have ordered him to return on a date in early May.”
But note, the guy had to put up bail, and as far as the law is concerned is getting the suspect treatment. As many here have pointed out, if the story is correctly reported it is hard to see how a single stab could have been unreasonable force in this case. It is hard to see how a “reasonable” requirement even applies here. You’re supposed to be scared and highly unreasonable in a situation like that. Just because the guy Ezra Pound punched didn’t hit his head and cracked it open when he fell doesn’t mean that we should all be capable of controlling the amount of damage in a fight at all times.
Let me again compare with the street cop vs suspect dynamic here, because it is really the crux of the matter. The trained, paid cop is allowed to be scared of everything and go off at the drop of a pin. He is allowed to escalate situations way beyond what they were when he arrived at the scene. There is in effect no reasonable or proportional requirement, because we look at the stress of the situation and allow or excuse almost any behaviour by the officer. The citizen on the other hand is required to be 100 % submissive, follow all instructions without fail, and always remain calm and rational, no matter circumstances and stress factor – an impossible requirement and a blatant double standard.
But there is a very simple explanation for this dynamic. The police officer represents state power, and the citizen is taught complete submissiveness in the face of state power, no matter how unjust or humiliating the treatment, because state power is total. It’s hard to pick between all the examples, but I think most people have seen this recent one where a police officer executes an unarmed pest exterminator with five bullets crawling on all fours, begging for his life.
Yes, he guy was reaching for his pants (to pull them up as he was crawling), but that’s not the point. The point is that the officer after seeing that the guy is not armed with a rifle as had been reported, does not just tell him to lie down and not move and cuff him, but starts an unnecessary game of Simon Says or First Day With The Drill Sergeant, stressing the guy with threats and rapid fire conflicting instructions, until he citizen makes the inevitable mistake.
I wrote “unnecessary game”, but not really because the core function of police is to discipline the population, teach them obedience and submission in the face of state power.
So, tell me, what do you think will happen if a tape turns up showing the 78 year old homeowner, citizen not backed by the state monopoly on violence, and a group of his friends, acting in the way the police do here? Note that the threats and conflicting instructions (like “hands straight in the air”, and also “on the floor in front of you”) go on for a deal longer than the video shows.
A few more details from Joe Rogan, who isn’t exactly the typical bleeding heart liberal (2:35-5:50).
Shoot from the hip in that kind of situation. It is the only solution: It is ether Him or you.
I say: BRAVO to this 78-year-old man,
WHERE did this happen? In Oceania?
NOTE TO THE WISE
Whenever you see an outrageous news story like this, remember that you are probably not being told the full story. Corporate news outlets tell you only enough to get you worked up. This is how the news outlets “sell copy,” so to speak.
Here’s the deal: if you kill someone, no matter how justified your action, the cops will probably arrest you while the cops investigate the incident. Since the cops cannot arrest you without some charge, they will charge you with murder. When the cops finish their investigation, they will drop all charges and let you go. That is what happened in this case. The homeowner claimed that burglars invaded his home, and that they threatened him with bodily harm. The homeowner fatally stabbed one of burglars with a screwdriver. The cops arrived, took the homeowner’s statement, and took the homeowner into custody while they checked out his statement. This is routine when there is a fatality. When the cops were satisfied, they quickly let the homeowner go, apologized for having had to arrest him, and congratulated him for having defended himself. (The burglars were known scumbags that the police had been hunting.)
BELOW IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THE NEWS OUTLETS REVEAL ONLY ENOUGH TO GET YOU WORKED UP…
On 3 March 2018, Ivan Zamarripa-Castaneda, 26, an undocumented immigrant, was driving drunk on Interstate 70 near Denver CO. Mr. Castaneda lost control of his vehicle, and hit a truck, which burst into flame and killed the truck driver. Castaneda fled from the scene, but was quickly caught and jailed. A week later (10 March 2018) Castaneda bonded out of jail and escaped, free as a bird.
Huh? He killed a man while he was drunk driving? Clearly an illegal alien’s life is worth more than a U.S. citizen’s life! OUTRAGEOUS!
But wait. The news outlets only revealed part of the story. The city and county of Denver are merged into one entity. The Denver PD and Denver sheriff know where Castaneda lives, and they will throw Castaneda into jail if he doesn’t come back for his court dates. While the sheriff had Castaneda in jail the first time, ICE arrived and demanded Castaneda, intending to deport him. The sheriff said fine, show me a federal order of criminal detainer signed by a judge. ICE responded (falsely) that they didn’t need the proper paperwork. The sheriff stood his ground, demanding that ICE follow the federal laws that ICE claimed to represent. The sheriff was tired of ICE pushing him around, and flagrantly violating federal laws. Worse, ICE wanted to deport Castaneda so he would face no charges. The sheriff wanted Castaneda to answer for his myriad crimes, including homicide. And that is exactly what happened. But the news outlets didn’t reveal any of this.
TO REPEAT: Whenever you see an absurdly outrageous news story, you should immediately suspect that the news outlets are only revealing enough to get you worked up.
In other words, if a news story is outrageous, you might want to do some extra digging. There is often more to the story than what the news outlets reveal.
Did they leave the house of the arrested person open after they arrested him? This part of these stories is usually omitted. The authorities left the condo of the San Bernardino terrorists open to anyone who wanted to wander in after the cops left, they did the same thing to the house owned by the Vegas shooter. Kind of strange considering these sites were crime scenes from potential terrorist incidents–where was the DHS?
This is a difficult one.
Too many symptoms facilitating prejudgement cloud the potential for justice. The harshest order for killing someone “in defence of life” is manslaughter. That still stands in UK law – believe it not.
It seem to me there is more to this “story” than the Daily Mail is prepared to reveal if the police are “considering” (what does that mean?) murder charges? Was the aged man a crook and his “burglaring” visitors were there to reclaim old spoils? I don’t know. The Mail failed to cover that – the MOTIVES, relationships parties may or may not have had. Many questions and a far more detailed profile need to be appended before apt final judgement is made on this and any mainstream “news” item is my view.
To Michael Burns: I haven’t seen the 78-year-old man’s picture, but you say he had several pints of Guinness in his hands. Just going on the assumption that he wasn’t offered this at the police station, I’ve got a question. Was the photograph date-stamped? If it wasn’t and no date was provided, there’s no way WE have of knowing whether it was taken last month or twenty years ago.