BIG ERN
New member
When his actions came to light, Osborne said, "Frankly, ifYou are absolutely correct. He didn't hide it.Documented based on a zealous prosecutor is not proof of what in fact happened, let alone why it happened (i.e., it doesn't prove motive or intent to hide).It's well documented that this did in fact happen, so what are you on about?The mischaracterizations and revisionisms continue. All to defend what?Osborne and Steele hid a gun for Tyrone Williams for piss sakes. Get real people #WIN
What is undisputed Is that it was held for two days and given to police when asked for (and after the staff had notified police of its existence).
Hiding a gun is not done that way. Or do you think they are stupid?
Also, what was the end result of that investigation?
Osborne was just holding the gun for the police. But since the police didn't ask for it, he didn't think it was necessary to offer it up.
Again, this is the version supplied by a single prosecutor (Lacey).
Other versions (also from police) include that Osborne notified police of the gun and gave it to them once they sent a person to retrieve it.
(A) does anyone honestly believe that a person who intends to hide a gun (a serious offense) would notify police and keep it at his offices?
(B) was Osborne or anyone else charged based on Lacey's rendition of the "facts"? Was it all a vast conspiracy of cover up?
Of course none of this has anything to do with Keith Williams, but it does continue a trend of trashing our past to justify our present.
anybody had asked, we would have given it to them sooner. No
charges had been filed, so we didn't think anybody was anxious
about it."