A crime scene consultant concluded Sawyer Robison did not kill his uncle during a standoff with RCMP in February in which two officers were wounded, Robison's father told CBC News.
In the original thread, above, we were suspecting that something was not right.
The report also concludes: - Clarke had already sustained two gunshot wounds - Clarke was found in a semi-seated laying position - He held a 40-calibre Glock in his right hand - He discharged the firearm into the right side of his head - The DNA on the grip was Clarke's, not Robison's
I have to now wonder, why he already had 2 holes in him when he shot himself, and then who shot the Mounties.
alberta-f31/mounties-shot-robison-arrested-t99685.html
- Clarke had already sustained two gunshot wounds
- Clarke was found in a semi-seated laying position
- He held a 40-calibre Glock in his right hand
- He discharged the firearm into the right side of his head
- The DNA on the grip was Clarke's, not Robison's
I have to now wonder, why he already had 2 holes in him when he shot himself, and then who shot the Mounties.
He did, I always thought. And he sustained wounds 'cause the Mounties returned fire, no?
Clark is Robison's dead Uncle. Robison is charged with his Uncle's death, and shooting 2 RCMP officers.
So, who shot the Uncle twice, before the Uncle killed himself? And why is Robison charged with shooting the RCMP officers?
So, who shot the Uncle twice, before the Uncle killed himself? And why is Robison charged with shooting the RCMP officers?
Because the CP wants a conviction and could care less about the truth?