Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezzy
It all seemed pretty premeditated to me, surely if he was in such a blind rage he wouldn't have thought to drown the dog? If he had snapped surely he would have just strangled it or kill it in a more direct (and quick) fashion? Filling up a bucket to drown a dog when you've 'snapped' doesn't sound right.
Just because he was incompetent when it came to the cover up doesn't mean it wasn't premeditated. Everything about this case is cut and dry, there is no defending this man.
|
Absolutely 1,000% correct.
True loss of reason, temper - call it what T.S will - would mean -- as you say -- that he battered/strangled/killed the poor defencless dog EXACTLY where it was --- over the garden fence.
No WAY would he have gone to all those coldly calculated lengths to covertly abduct it and carry it to his shed etc. sordid etc.
I admit that I have lost my temper in packed nightclubs when I was constantly hassled by dickheads wanting to fight me, but I did not coolly entice them outside in some dark alley where they were no CCTV cameras or witnesses - I let go there and then in an admitted rage.
Not 'pre-meditated' my arse.