There are a number of things that I would like to know prior to making any judgements on either's innocence or guilt:

1. Does either have a criminal record that may give us a better insight into the intent of either?
2. Is there any evidence(witnesses, correspondence, etc.) of the relationship that existed between the 67 year old and the 20 something guy that would indicate that the 67 year old may have had homicidal intent?
3. Are there any witnesses to this incident who can provide clarity?

I don't know what happened. We appear to have only one alive witness to the incident. What I am saying is that under the circumstances that we currently have in front of us, it is difficult and irresponsible to hold the 67 year old up as a hero. I'm not saying he is a villian, only that none of us know what is the truth.

And even though Aunty can't find the citation, it really doesn't matter. Two things are paramount:

1. Before someone can be judged as using justifiable homicide, homicide must be indicated as the means of death.

2. Just because the death is ruled as homicide, nothing is really changed. I had questions about this before the Coroner's ruling came out. Everybody seemed to be so interested in exalting the 67 year old that my suspicions were instantly aroused. Maybe that makes me a contrarian, non-violent peacenik!