Two More Charged Over Leicester House Fire Murders.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Leicester-house-charged-murder/story-19861486-detail/story.html#axzz2gGm6jrPf

Two more charged with 4 counts of murder, making a total of seven persons altogether.

What are we not being told over this ghastly murder, this seemed to be a
wholesale gang attack on this house, surely it was spotted by a number of people?

[sp1814]

Gromit

Indeed - I wonder if Beyoncé will be interviewed as to Shaun's whereabouts at the time?

[sp1814]

So AOG - is this the theory that you think we're not being told?

At what point during the investigation do you feel the police and CPS should be updating us?

[sandyRoe]

AOG, we don't need a magnifying glass to read between the lines where some posters are concerned.

[bazwillrun]

so youre happy to afford yourself the privilege of reading between the lines and jump to conclusions yet others on here arent !?

Priceless

[sandyRoe]

No. Not at all. I'm not claiming something for myself that I would deny to others. If there's a subscript there, it's there for all to read.

[Gromit]

I'm sure AOG will be along soon to clear up any misunderstandings baz.

[bazwillrun]

I dont care if he does or doesnt, i'm sure hes got more important things to do than keep on replying to some of the peurile aspersions etc that the same old carpers on here keep on churning out

[sp1814]

Gromit

AOG will no doubt get back on this - seeing as he raised the question in the first place, he will have interest in responses.

Anyone who doesn't get that must be simple.

[FredPuli43]

AOG, it does not follow that there was a 'wholesale gang attack on this house' It might have been just one man outside the house . If 7 people agree that a house be burnt down with the intent of killing the occupants and that one of them is to do the deed, and does, with the result that the occupants die, they will all be charged as principals to murder, as these 7 have been. Six of them may only have played a minor part in pursuance of the agreement and never visited the house, but they would all be murderers in the eyes of the law.

[FredPuli43]

What sort of further information on the facts of this case would you like to have, AOG? The link reads as a perfectly normal press report, subject to the usual rules about not prejudicing the proceedings. What else were you expecting?

[THECORBYLOON]

ANOTHEOLDGIT is not telling us what it is HE thinks is not being telt, it would be helpful if he could give the odd clue.

[FredPuli43]

AOG, is your point that we are not told that it was a wholesale attack, which you think it seems to have been? We (or I ) have dealt with that. It doesn't follow that it was. Would you like the report to have said one way or the other? We are at a loss to fathom what we are to say in terms, suggest, or speculate. Remember that the press is somewhat constrained in what can be said when someone is charged. Perhaps you should wait until the prosecution opens its case? Then your curiosity might be assuaged.

It couldn't be that you think there is some racial motive for this attack and that is being hidden from us, could it? And that is being kept secret for fear of causing disquiet or even riots? (You see, I can speculate wildly, too !) I can't otherwise guess why you would be so curious about it.

[Peter Pedant]

The Asians in Manch are certain that it is Asian on Asian drug gang mistake and there is no other racial dimension - except it was all Asian

The names are not particularly Asian but so what ?

In the video's attacks in Manc, such as the grenade attack or the fight on Briscoe Lane (see U Tube) the crowds dont gather, saying look at us, we are having a hoolie !

[THECORBYLOON]

FRED, I am shocked that you have suggested that ANOTHEOLDGIT may think there is a racial element involved...

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// I can't otherwise guess why you would be so curious about it. ///

Then cease guessing, and while you are at it, cease assuming what is not there.

[sp1814]

AOG

Am I reading this thread correctly?

You wanted to open a debate about this case...but then decided that you didn't want to engage in a debate by indicating what you thought may be being held back from us.

Is that right?