I'm trying to show a more balanced view Mikey- they didn't murder her- at no point have they been accused of that even. I'm not sure why there is an assumption being made that they 'couldn't control their kids' either- the kids kicked a ball over the fence- big deal to be honest- did you never do that when a child? And do you think it a level and appropriate response by an adult to destroy someone else's property when that happens, or do you perhaps on balance thibnk that adult might be somewhat of a law unto themselves? I don't it's appropriate, and I think, in fact I know, because it is stated, that this is a long running feud, so clearly there have been other issues because you can't argue on your own. Put into context you might well have a horrible troublesome neighbour who made the family's life a misery, the mother and grandfather snapped after one particularly nasty act and things went from bad to worse. You don't know that wasn't the way around it was, just because someone is dead does not make them the good guy, as I said I have sympathy for all concerned, the woman who died because I'm sure she didn't deserve that, the assailants who stuck up for their kids and especially the children themselves tbh, who are likely to be deprived of their mother and have to live with the idea that they might have started the sequence of events that lead to her imprisonment because of it. No-one has won here, but there is a lot of supposition going on.