Parcel bomb injures U.K. office worker
A parcel bomb exploded at Britain's driver and vehicle licensing agency Wednesday, injuring one woman, according to an AP report (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/07/ap/world/mainD8N51B280.shtml).
The letter bomb was the third in as many days that have exploded at office buildings associated with vehicle and traffic regulation. Seven devices similar to this have been detonated in the last three weeks, officials say. Police have not revealed any motives, nor made any connections between the bombings.
The woman's injuries, as well as those of all involved in the other letter bombings, have only caused minor injuries.
In another incident Monday, a woman was injured by a letter bomb at the head office of Capital Group PLC in London. Two people were injured Tuesday in an explosion at Vantis PLC in Wokingham.
According to a Reuters report, the police stressed that these devices were designed to shock, not to kill (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/07/uk.letterbomb.reut/). Last Saturday, a director of an unidentified company also recieved a bomb at his home. However, the man said that the bomb seemed to be intended for his company. These devices also don't appear to have conventional explosives, officials say.
The AP article very briefly touches on today's incident, while spending most of the article covering all the explosion incidents and relating them to the ongoing police investigation. I thought that the chronology was slightly skewed. It would have easier to follow if the article, after describing today's bombing, started with the first letter bomb and told the story chronologically until the last letter bombing. The Reuters article focuses even more on the police perspective. It looked at what the police think the bombs were intended for. I liked the Reuters article slightly more because it had two excellent quotes from victims describing the explosions.
One last point I found interesting was the fact that the articles listed different numbers of people injured in the lead. The AP article said a woman was injured, but the Reuters article said that six people were injured. Further analysis showed that six were actually injured, but one woman had to go to the hospital for treatment on cuts. The others injured had either hearing problems or they were treated on the scene. I thought the different numbers of injuries changed the tone and emphasis of each lead.