Moment killer thief returns to steal pal's TV & wear his clothes hours after brutal knife murder at seaside hotel
Adam Saunders returned to the scene of the crime, outrageously wearing a yellow gilet he stole from the hotel owner he killed.
4
The 51-year-old was caught on camera returning to the Garfield Hotel in Lancashire to plunder Kevin Price's possessions as he lay dead.
On October 31, the kind-hearted hotel owner had cooked a meal for Saunders but the criminal repaid him by stealing his bag and bank card.
He then messaged Kevin on November 7, asking if he wanted company.
The callous thug then launched into a frenzied knife attack - stabbing him 56 times in his neck, heart, lungs and torso.
As Kevin lay murdered in his bedroom, Saunders returned to raid his home.
While wearing his victim's clothes, Saunders stole his TV, used his bank card to buy mobile phones and to withdraw cash.
Kevin was discovered by police after his concerned friends reported him missing after becoming worried.
Saunders was arrested on suspicion of murder the following week and was subsequently charged.
He pleaded guilty to the theft and fraud offences, and, after an eight-day trial, was unanimously found guilty of Kevin's murder and the burglary.
He was sentenced to life in prison, where he will have to serve a minimum of 32 years before he can apply for parole.
Kevin's sister Diane said: 'Kevin was the most thoughtful, kind, warm and loving person anybody could wish to meet. I loved him so dearly and still do.
"I hold him in my heart, and I always will. He was always in my thoughts when he was alive as he is in death.
'Kevin used to ask me to place flowers on our mum and dad's grave for him, which I did every time, however I now have to do it for us both and not separately. This breaks my heart.'
Speaking of the trial, she said: 'Having to sit and listen to that man give evidence is hard to describe. It sickened me hearing all his lies, knowing full well what disgusting and inhumane things he did to our Kevin.
'He took Kevin's life and then treated his property like his own. If he'd have respected Kevin like a father as he said in court this would never have happened, and he wouldn't have put all of us through the trial like he has.
"I now feel so relieved that we have finally got justice for our Kevin.
'I am truly devastated by what's happened, and I will always love my brother dearly. He will never be forgotten by all those that loved him. RIP Kevin.'
DCI Simon Pritchard, of the Force Major Investigation Team, said: 'My thoughts today are with Kevin's family and friends.
"Hopefully, they can now get some form of closure knowing the man responsible for Kevin's horrific and inhumane death is now starting a considerable sentence.
'Saunders made them sit through a trial, hearing about Kevin's final moments, and how he stole his life.
'Saunders invited himself round to Kevin's home, where he frenziedly attacked him, in the place that Kevin was entitled to feel the safest.
"He abused the friendship that Kevin gave him. After taking Kevin's life, he then took his belongings – stealing his money, clothes and other items all while Kevin lay lifeless in the home.
'No sentence will bring Kevin back to the people who loved him. They will go through the rest of their lives without him, because of Saunders' brutality, however Saunders will now have a significant amount of time in custody to reflect on his actions that stole Kevin from his family.'
4
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
6 minutes ago
- BBC News
Anita Rose murder: Fears prevail one year on from Brantham attack
When a mother-of-six was murdered while walking her dog exactly one year ago, it left many people in a small Suffolk community living in fear. Earlier this month, the killer of Anita Rose was found guilty following a trial, but how do the residents of Brantham now feel?Fifty-seven-year-old Anita was walking in the early morning of 24 July 2024 before she was discovered with severe injuries near Rectory Lane in Brantham, about eight miles (13km) south of died in hospital four days later, leaving her family distraught and villagers event sparked a murder inquiry, and three months later police announced they had charged Roy Barclay - a 55-year-old man already wanted by officers - over her death. Marti Mower, 77, has lived in Brantham for more than 40 years and said she would never have imagined an attack like this to happen."It was scary... my daughter has a dog and we used to walk him in the same place," she recalled."We don't walk down there any more - you just never know what's going to happen."Ms Mower said she believed the community had pulled together, but felt many people were aware "these things can happen even in a small village". Simon Barrett, 51, had moved to the village just months before the attack, which he said had led to a lot of "unease"."When I went out I was turning around, looking if I heard something behind me, because we didn't know what had happened and what the outcome was going to be," he Barrett said tensions had since relaxed, with "a lot more going on" in the village."It's a quiet area anyway with country lanes and there's always people dog walking, jogging, whereas before there was nothing for quite a while," he said. Jane Frame, 59, is from nearby East Bergholt, but comes to Brantham weekly to walk her dog."A place like Brantham, it's quiet around here so you just don't expect it," she said."I didn't walk around here for a while. I didn't want to come around here."Mrs Frame said she would not walk in the village early in the morning any more."It does make you think twice about the whole area and who's here," she added. Jane Carrington, 69, said she had previously interacted with Ms Rose."I used to see her out with her dog quite often when I had a dog as well," she said."I have seen her [Ms Rose's] partner out with the dog and had a chat with him, they seem to be doing OK."I think it took a lot out of him, especially the court case."She felt the community was pleased to have seen Barclay found guilty of her murder. Roy Plowright, 73, is from East End, but regularly comes into Brantham."It was terrible, attacking a poor lady and just leaving her there, it's disgusting," he said."I've only been here six years... where we live there is no street lighting, it's so quiet, there's no police or fire engines every night, it's a lovely place to live."[Everyone] was relieved that they got him [Barclay] and he had been charged." Barclay was on the run from police for two years, living in a makeshift camp in Brantham when he attacked Ms Rose. He had also been jailed in 2015 for the violent, unprovoked assault on an elderly man in an Essex seaside town, and was released on parole in was arrested and charged three months after the Brantham attack, with his DNA discovered on a jacket and headphones she was wearing at the time. Barclay is due to be sentenced on 6 August at Ipswich Crown Court. Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
BBC News
6 minutes ago
- BBC News
Brackley's Magdalen College given government warning over report
A secondary school which was placed in special measures after it was rated as inadequate by an education watchdog has been given a government Department for Education (DfE) issued Magdalen College School (MCS) in Brackley, Northamptonshire, with a warning notice following an Ofsted report which ranked it as "inadequate"It means the secondary risks losing its funding if urgent changes are not a letter to the school's trustees, Carol Grey, the DfE's regional director for the East Midlands, wrote that "rapid and sustainable improvement at the academy" was required. MCS declined to comment on the warning notice. Ms Gray wrote: "If I am not satisfied that this can be achieved, I will consider whether to terminate the funding agreement in order to transfer the academy to an alternative academy trust."While she did "acknowledge the verbal and written assurances the trust has already provided", she called for "longer-term plans" to ensure improvements to safeguarding June, Ofsted's report found pupils at the school had "failed to provide pupils with an acceptable standard of education".The school was downgraded from a previous rating of good, with inspectors finding it failed to ensure "pupils' physical safety".At the time of the report, the school said it "acknowledged" the outcome of the inspection and said it would take the judgement "seriously" as it committed to "urgent" improvements through a "rapid action plan". What did the Ofsted report find? The report, which followed an inspection in April this year, found "staff do not have high enough expectations of what pupils can achieve or how they should behave", with pupil outcomes at the end of key stage four "too low".Inspectors found that "too often" pupils did not engage well or meaningfully with learning activities, with unacceptable levels of lateness or "most pupils feel safe in school", the report also said they "frequently hear other pupils using discriminatory and derogatory language" but did not report it as "they feel the school will not do anything about it."But the report found the school had "developed a clear programme to support pupils' broader development", including online safety and adopting healthy lifestyles. It also found staff had "higher expectations" of its sixth-form said that 1,348 pupils aged 11 to 18 attend the mixed gender school, of which 195 are enrolled in its sixth-form. Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's golfing weekend in Scotland is an even bigger headache than his state visit
Donald Trump's golfing trip to Scotland this weekend has started to look like a few days of welcome relief for the US president. From Downing Street's perspective, however, it may all look a bit different. At home, Trump is embroiled in linked controversies that seem to have come out of the blue. Having seen off most of the legal challenges to the orders he issued in his first days back in office, he now faces a quasi-rebellion from his hitherto loyal and largely unquestioning base over a case that has little obvious bearing on high politics at all. These die-hard Trumpists were disappointed by official findings that the accused child-trafficker and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, did indeed die by suicide in prison and that there is, and was, no secret client list. They had shared a conspiracy theory that Epstein was part of a shadowy elite, that he had been killed to keep him quiet, and that after Trump came to power, the truth would emerge. Now, Trump is himself being accused of an establishment cover-up, and is confronting a social media storm that even this master of the medium is struggling to control. Trump has also launched lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal, its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, and two journalists, denying a report of links between Trump and Epstein, including a bawdy birthday greeting allegedly sent by Trump. The prospect of a court confrontation between the two titans is tantalising. Trump has also ordered files relating to the Epstein case to be published, and both his attorney general and Congress want to question Ghislaine Maxwell – the only person convicted in connection with the case so far. It may be surmised that they hope to tempt Maxwell with a reduction in her 20-year sentence and persuade her to offer some 'helpful' evidence. With only a year until the start of the midterm congressional election campaign, Trump needs to keep his base intact. No wonder four days in the wilds of Scotland – the homeland of his late mother and two Trump-owned golf courses, including a new resort on the Menie Estate, outside Aberdeen – might look like a welcome distraction. His foes on this side of the Atlantic are already tuning up – wags have put up a spoof sign at his golf course near Aberdeen that says 'twinned with Epstein Island' – and elaborate police and security operations are in train. When Trump last visited his Scottish businesses two years ago, he was not president. Now, even on a private visit, he requires presidential-level security, at least some of which must be supplied and paid for by the host country. The timing of this trip, less than one month before Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK, adds risk. Any infelicities, real or perceived, on either side now are in danger of negatively colouring the later visit, the invitation for which was conveyed by Keir Starmer during his trip to the White House soon after Trump's inauguration. Since then, content, timing and tone have all been in contention. The recent state visit by France's President Macron, with its especially high pageantry, address to parliament, and prominent deployment of the Prince and Princess of Wales, seemed top-of-the-line. Like the Macrons, the Trumps will stay at Windsor Castle, but this occasion has been timed to exclude the possibility of a parliamentary address and the visit to Balmoral that Trump angled for. Nor, the Palace has made clear, will the King be meeting Trump during his golfing weekend. The private and state visits are wisely being kept distinct. At government level, in contrast, a different choice has been made. The prime minister is expected to hold talks with Trump, potentially on every current issue, from trade tariffs to Ukraine, in or near Aberdeen, and possibly at Trump's golf course. There will also be a meeting with Scotland's first minister, John Swinney, who has decided that it is his duty 'to engage, to protect and to promote the interests of the people of Scotland', despite vocal opposition from other groups. Now, it could be said that Starmer, in particular, was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Given that the decision has been taken, however, the aim must be to limit any damage. Anything that smacks of paying tribute must be avoided, and that includes meeting Trump at his golf course and any announcement about awarding the 2028 British Open to the now Trump-owned Turnberry, as the president would reportedly like. By meeting Trump in Scotland, Starmer risks not only becoming the focus of protests himself but also party to the negative blowback from British public opinion. As much can go wrong as go right. The prime minister should have followed the Palace and left all official encounters for the main event, where the protocol is clear and risks of all kinds are minimised. After all, there are fewer than four weeks to wait.
