Saturday, 15 May 2010

OK, Where’s The ‘Mystery’..?

Mystery still surrounds the death of a teenage boy found dead in a town centre flat.
Oooh!

Was it Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick?

Oh:
A toxicology report showed the Gravesend Grammar School for Boys pupil had traces of the drugs methadone and diazepam in his system.
Guess not, then…

10 comments:

Curmudgeon said...

"Neighbours of the house where Edward’s body was found say he did not live there and was one of a number of teenagers who frequently came and went from the property."

Hmmm...

SpiteK said...

So another dead druggie? Good.

JuliaM said...

@Curmudgeon: Yes, odd that. Well known local druggie hangout, I suspect.

@SpiteK: Indeed. When I read about the police ibitiative to give drug addicts clean needles the other day to 'save lives', my first thought was 'Why??'...

TheBigYin said...

Oh you two (SpiteK and Julia) are so cruel, (wickedly so.) :¬)

ian said...

He was only 14 and does not in any way look like a thug.

Those two drugs are also legal. He was not injecting heroin.

How about you give it a rest for one second. Your beginning to sound like an unhinged, self-righteous bitch. Never a good thing.

JuliaM said...

@ian: What does the fact that he didn't 'look like a thug' possibly have to do with it?

He abused drugs & paid the price. If disapproving of a young boy making that choice and thereby wasting his potential, as well as bringing grief to his family, makes me 'a bitch', I have only one thing to say: Woof!

blueknight said...

..Those two drugs are also legal..

Only if they have been prescribed to the person who possesses them. Doesn't sound likely but you never know.

..He was not injecting heroin..

And you know this because..?

Anonymous said...

finding traces of two quite long lasting drugs proves what?
If he had died of an overdose of them surely there would be more than a trace?

banned said...

I think I may have spotted another valuable clue >
"Edward was being supported by Kent County Council’s children's social services department"

woman on a raft said...

He was not injecting heroin

If you know something about his child's death, I suggest you talk to the police, in particular if you know who was selling him the substances which preyed on his immaturity and killed him.

Edward appears to have been a popular and intelligent boy who simply got in to a situation he could not control. Unfortunately, choices do have consequences and
nobody can be protected entirely from that.

Without wishing to sound like a lavendar lace hanky, the general accounts are that Edward was a grammar school boy from a stable middle-class family who could normally expect to have him do well in his GCSEs, take a three or four A levels in arts and humanities, go to university and live a long and successful life.

Instead of which, he died as a year 9 pupil, had not even finalized his GCSE subject choices, not even begun his course. This has to be wrong, no matter what one thinks of the predictable outcomes of taking drugs. Edward was a child.

This is the point which challenges the persuasiveness of Mark Wadsworth's and DK's arguments for harm-limitiation by regulating the drug trade. I can live with 18 year olds making decisions of their own, however bad, but this was a child, a 14 year old, and there ought to be a way of getting between them and suppliers.