Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:10 hours 54 min ago
Cops’ brother suspected in gun heist
Published: 28 Oct 2009
A Couva man, whose two brothers are police officers, has been identified as one of two men involved in last Sunday’s heist at Mi5 Security company, in which 13 guns were stolen.
Surveillance images revealed the suspect was dressed in one of his siblings’ official police uniform, during the robbery. Up to late yesterday, only one of the weapons had been recovered. Police said during a search of a bar on Monday, two handguns were found. One of the firearms belonged to Mi5. Initial police reports indicated a police officer was seen on the footage.
“Because of the resemblance, we thought it was one of them (officers). But, after careful examination (of the video), we are satisfied the that it was the officers’ brother,” a senior source close to the investigation said yesterday. The source also added it was not the first time the suspect used the uniforms belonging to his brothers to commit robberies, without their knowledge.
Please Sir
Please Sir
The source also added it was not the first time the suspect used the uniforms belonging to his brothers to commit robberies, without their knowledge.
What action was not the first time that the suspect did, without his brothers' knowledge?
a) used the uniforms, without their knowledge, and committed the robberies (also without their knowledge)?
b) borrowed the uniforms (with their knowledge) to commit the robberies, without their knowledge?
By inference, b) (per the article) tells me the rogue brother borrowed the uniforms WITH his brothers knowledge, then went on to commit the robberies without their knowledge.
So, which is it please?
A third option, for me, exists in that he borrowed the uniforms without his brothers knowledge, but committed robberies with their knowledge. But, this is not how the article reads to me, therefore will not really put it forward as part of my comprehension exercise.
La Diva
I think we'll have to
I think we'll have to appoint La Diva as lead prosecutor when those charges are eventually preferred against Udecott. What with her forensic accountancy and her eagle-eyed cross-examination no jury would find those shareholders in the Treasury not guilty.
Prince
Prince
Thanks for your 'faith' in me, to be lead prosecutor, but no thanks. I dress up enough, as it is. (^_~)
So, I will have to say, in the infamous way, "I have no interest in the position" AND... neither am I "like a chicken, drawn to corn". (Corn gets into your teeth, not good for photos/smiling... (^*^))
Thanks again though. (^_~)
Truly
La Diva