Dear Editor,

I refer to a letter by P. H. Michael captioned "A bullet in the mouth would have killed Brian King' [ please note: link provided by LOSP web site ] (l9.l.2002), I can only offer praise for a very good attempt at further distortion of the facts.

I did not claim that the policeman had placed a gun in the mouth of Brian King. The language I used was quite clear and my narrative reflected the actual sequence of events.

It is unfortunate that Michael should have raised the question of pre meditation to a more epicentral focus than I had, since it's a known fact that while words express our thoughts, our deeds are what we are judged by. The constable did express his intention to stop King from ever again going on the Sharma show to speak about anything. His deed gave conclusive form and substance to his thoughts. Is it possible to find a firmer case of premeditation?

P. H Michael lays no claim to knowing the culpable cop in this affair. He makes no assertion to having had first hand knowledge of the events in question. Yet he expresses himself as being satisfied as to the competence of this policeman.

How competent and professional would one expect a mere recruit to be? Who but a contriving opportunist would venture to vouch for the symmetry and regularity of the blatant misconduct which that person evinced on the occasion in question?

As for bullets possibly ricocheting and such other visionary excursions, it may be good material for publication as adventure fiction. But the gunpowder burns on the facial skin of the deceased were a tragic and ultimately fatal reminder of the vengeful malevolence of a delinquent in official dress.