Monday, 9 April 2018

Something Doesn't Add Up....

A 78-year-old Suffolk man killed a neighbour’s dog with a shotgun and then threatened to shoot its owner, it has been alleged.
Rolfe, of Undley Road, Lakenheath, has denied affray and destroying a dog belonging to Mr Conway-Lusted on September 13 last year.
I must have missed this one!
Giving evidence, Max Kettley, Mr Conway-Lusted’s stepson, said he had been at home when he saw Coco jump through a fence into Rolph’s garden.
He said that when his stepfather had run towards Rolph and asked him if he had shot his dog, Rolph had pointed a shotgun at him and said: “I did shoot the dog and I’ll shoot you, too.
He said that during the incident Mr Conway-Lusted, who had suffered a number of heart attacks, had become unwell and an ambulance was called.
Mr Kettley found Coco’s dead body by a perimeter fence the following day.
Wait, he found the dog's body? Weren't the police called - armed police, at that?

Well, yes, they were. And he didn't have a licence for the ammo.

So, why didn't they look for - and find - the evidence that proves their case?

6 comments:

Bucko said...

You don't need a licence for shotgun ammo, so it must have been bullets for a rifle, he had. Which just poses more questions...

Anonymous said...

No licence is required to possess shotgun cartridges, so that's a bit odd, and must mean he was also in possession of ammunition for a rifle (the article says 'firearm' which supports that, as shotguns are treated differently from 'firearms', but it's a local newspaper so who knows whether that means anything at all). But presumably not in possession of an actual rifle, which would be a far graver offence.

jack ketch said...

Surely Rolfe can proved that his dog, Ted, was attacked? Did he not take him to the vets to have his ripped throat treated?

That said it reads like a fairly typical Norfolk style (remember Suffolkers are Norfolkers who haven't yet moved north) neighbour dispute with a family member for one party being the star witness for the prosecution.

Andrew Scarborough said...

Ah, the English shire-folk. Freeborn and independent in thoughts and actions. I love 'em. Left alone this would all sort itself out.

Anonymous said...

Mel and Rob are good friends of mine. They spent months living in fear of this lunatic. His own dog would make holes in the fence, Mel and Rob would chase him out, oddly enough without either a) Coco attacking him or b) them shooting him, block them and then they would blame Coco when he found new ones they hadn't spotted yet and went through. They didn't take the supposedly horribly injured dog to the vets for hours afterwards. He shot Coco right in front of Rob, who spent weeks in hospital afterwards due to the coronary it induced. The two of them run an animal sanctuary for everything from dogs to cats to geese to chickens, they would *never* take on a dangerous animal. This verdict's a joke.

DSD

JuliaM said...

"You don't need a licence for shotgun ammo, so it must have been bullets for a rifle..."

Not for the first time, inaccurate and sloppy reporting poses more questions than answers...

"...it's a local newspaper so who knows whether that means anything at all..."

Never a truer word!

"Surely Rolfe can proved that his dog, Ted, was attacked?"

There's a follow up story, which you've probably read by now. But do we know which dog attacked first?

"This verdict's a joke."

I tend to agree. What ghastly neighbours, and knowing he's armed chills the blood.