Nicola Edgington, 32, begged the operator: 'I need to go to a mental hospital. I need the police to come now. I done a murder five years ago'.
But with her cries for help ignored, later that day she attacked and killed Sally Hodkin, slashing her neck with a stolen 12in butcher’s knife with such force that the 58-year-old was almost beheaded.
The psychiatric patient dailled (sic) 999 from the waiting room of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich, south-east London, but after sitting alone for several hours having also warned nurses she was dangerous, she just walked out and murdered an innocent woman.The BBC seems to think it's the former boyfriend and the brother:
Following the previous case, she was ordered to be detained indefinitely under the Mental Health Act for killing her mother Marion, 60, the previous year. However, she was released and allowed to live in the community in 2009 where she had been monitored by a doctor, nurse and social worker.
The court heard that in the weeks leading up to the attack, Edgington had a miscarriage and had received abusive messages from a former boyfriend. She also tried to reconcile with her brother who she had not seen since their mother's death, however in response, he told her to kill herself.The Guardian, curiously, doesn't seem to have decided who was to blame yet:
Edgington, of Greenwich, south-east London, was found guilty of murder and attempted murder by a jury at the Old Bailey.
The prosecution said she was suffering from a borderline personality disorder and her actions were deliberate.
But the defence argued that she was mentally ill with schizophrenia and her responsibility was diminished.No-one (other than the family) is pointing the finger at the 'Care in the Community' concept itself. Strange, that...
H/T: Robert Hale via email
10 comments:
I expect it is Thatcher's fault, somewhere and somehow.
All goof lefties repeat that mantra all the time, though it does save them from looking at things as they really are and facing an uncomfortable truth.
She was 'detained indefinitely' for the murder of her mother. Therefore, someone at some point made the conscious decision to let her out of prison. That person needs to explain, in public, why that decision was taken. But we will never know who or why, because that would conveniently be confidential information. I suggest that anyone charged with reviewing these cases has to have the person living in their street for at least a year after release. That might focus their minds somewhat on the potential downsides of that decision for real people.
I blame fluoride in the water...
Ok, probably not. But I'll wager it's nearer the truth than the eventual excuses offered by those we're paying to prevent these tragedies.
What about the two west african nurses sacked over claims they tried to stop her from leaving and gave chase etc? WHy the police have to be responsible for everything in the world is unbelievable! They had delivered her to her 'place of safety' as required but, as is usual, the NHS simply weren't up to their end of the responsibility bargain. most 'secure' mental health units may as well have revolving doors fitted as 'secure' simply has a different meaning to these places.
bring back enormous asylums and pay people proper wages to staff them and provide proper care.
This story certainly indicates that if you pay people peanuts - you get monkeys....and people, innocent people, killed or maimed.
We shoot crazed animals yet Humans we allow to run free.
Would you trust a pitbull on Prozac.
Richard T 13:21 said...
"She was 'detained indefinitely' for the murder of her mother. Therefore, someone at some point made the conscious decision to let her out of prison. .... I suggest that anyone charged with reviewing these cases has to have the person living in their street for at least a year after release. That might focus their minds somewhat on the potential downsides of that decision for real people".
W-e-l-l if we really want to apply some sort of acid test to that decision how about "has to live with them as a house-guest for the first 3 months after release, and then on the same street for at least a further year" .. Might help the people charged with providing the "expert advice" apply a slightly more rigid, definitely leaning towards "if there is the slightest whatever doubt, then NO" approach, n'est pas?
It's the fault of the police it always is. Shame the police didn't operate out of banks they could have carried the can for that as well. No definitely the fault of the police got their dabs all over it.
A while ago I saw an idea proposed: start a charity that buys property neighboring judges, politicians and high ranking civil servants. Use the property to house "care in the community" people, early release murderers and other violent criminals.
It was put pithily by a friend of mine after an encounter with a loony in the pub:
"Oh yeah, 'Care In The Community' aka 'Let the people down the pub look after them"
" I suggest that anyone charged with reviewing these cases has to have the person living in their street for at least a year after release. That might focus their minds somewhat on the potential downsides of that decision for real people."
I fully support that!
"What about the two west african nurses sacked over claims they tried to stop her from leaving and gave chase etc?"
Oh? I didn't hear that one!
"A while ago I saw an idea proposed: start a charity that buys property neighboring judges, politicians and high ranking civil servants. Use the property to house "care in the community" people, early release murderers and other violent criminals."
Yes!
"It was put pithily by a friend of mine after an encounter with a loony in the pub:
"Oh yeah, 'Care In The Community' aka 'Let the people down the pub look after them""
So very sadly true.
Post a Comment