A careful reading (because they don't state it right out) seems to imply that the dead guy, Ronald Opus, was the son of the old man and old lady.
The old man fired the shotgun, thinking it was unloaded. Ronald Opus just 'happened' to be falling past the window at the time (in the process of committing suicide, the story goes) and was hit in the head by the shotgun blast.
Note that 6-weeks earlier, the "son" (apparently Ronald) had been the one to actually load the shotgun, knowing his father used it to threaten his mother.
Funny, I would think a fall from a more than 9-story building would be the more immediate cause of death. He hit the ground so soon after the shot that it wouldn't have much time to kill him.
My "bogus!" alarm is going off. Mostly because of the way the article is written.
Err.. they do state it right out. Quite plainly, near the end.
Good God, Allan.
January 10th, 2006
"The room on the ninth floor whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing and he was threatening her with the shotgun. He was so upset that, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking Opus."
Now, wouldn't you think, if this was responsible journalism, that they would say "went through the window, striking his son."?
The way it's written carefully keeps the factoid that Ronald Opus and "the son" are the same person, until the end, and even THEN it's in a "the son (Ronald Opus)" sentence.
It's written that way so you can get the 'Oh Wow' experience of realizing that the person who killed Ronald Opus was in fact Ronald Opus -- but merely by loading a shotgun 6 weeks earlier. Bogus, seriously bogus.
It's obviously not a mainstream news outlet, there, Allan. The guy is telling a STORY. The twist in the STORY relies on not revealing the identity of the jumper until the end.
January 10th, 2006