Wife killed for 'single' Facebook status

[Turborama]

Source: Nine MSN (Australia)

A British man who murdered his wife after becoming enraged when she changed her relationship status on Facebook to "single" has been jailed for at least 18 years.

Edward Richardson, 41, stabbed wife Sarah, 26, to death in a "frenzied and brutal" attack at her parents' home in Biddulph, central England, last May after she altered her profile on the Internet social networking site.

The couple had been living apart since the previous month, said Fiona Cortese, a spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is responsible for prosecuting cases in England and Wales.

"Richardson became enraged when Sarah changed her marital status on Facebook to single and decided to go and see her as she was not responding to his (text) messages," Cortese said.

"He gained entry by breaking the front door window and made his way into the property.

"Once inside, he found Sarah in her bedroom and subjected her to a frenzied and brutal attack with a knife and then attempted to take his own life."

Read more: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/732688/wife-killed-for-single-facebook-status

---

Sarah Richardson (left) was stabbed to death by her husband Edward

[K8-EEE]

1. Cripes!!

My husband, an old-school pencil-and-paper artist, is always telling me his opinion that computers are driving everyone insane.

Seeing his point more and more!

[World Traveller]

15. Just 18 years for murdering his wife??

After 18 years he could possibly get out??? The poor woman will still be dead and have been denied her chance at life 18 years from now..

He's lucky he lives in the U.K. - he'd have gotten a lot more time in the U.S. justice system.

At times, I'm appalled at how harsh the U.S. justice system can be. In this case, I'm appalled at how lenient the U.K. system can be.

[Politicalboi]

16. Not always true

I was watching Forensic Files one night and they talked about a guy who killed his sister and got 7 years. And he was the suspect in the murder they were investigating. Certain cases deserve the death penalty. Mostly when it involves killing children. And molesters of children should get life with no parole. Each case could be looked at individually.

[thesquanderer]

17. death penalty

The problem is that if you have a death penalty--even for only the few, most heinous acts--sometimes someone will be put to death who was innocent. That's what happens when you have an imperfect legal system, and humans probably can't devise a perfect one. Putting an innocent person to death has happened before, and there's no way to be sure it won't happen again.

Ending the death penalty is an extension of other civil rights issues that are discussed here so often, how our system is based on the fact that it is better to have a system that errs on the side of letting some guilty people go free than it is to have a system that will imprison innocent people. Except more so, since an innocent person in prison can eventually be freed (if exonerating evidence is later found), while an innocent person who is executed can never be brought back to life.

People are convicted for things when they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but errors are still made. Is it acceptable to have two criteria... i.e. we can imprison you if we find you guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but can only kill you if we find you guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? Most accused people do offer some kind of defense, as implausible or unlikely as it may be, but how often can we be absolutely, 100% sure it's a crock? Society is not better protected by killing a person than it is by imprisoning someone for life. That being the case, why risk the consequences of being wrong? For revenge?

Though I reserve the right to personally pull the switch on anyone who hurts my dog.

[World Traveller]

19. That's a tough debate

I'm really ambivalent about the death penalty.

I agree with most of what you say. Unless the evidence is overwhelming, a lot of times we can not be 100% sure the criminal did it. That's why generally I oppose the death penalty. There have been too many cases where the innocent of various crimes have been jailed, then later proven innocent via DNA testing or proof that they were framed.

On the other hand, last night I watched a program about a man who murdered 3 teenage girls in Portland Oregon in 1969. He took them to his garage, forced them to disrobe, and took their pictures before killing them. They showed a photo of one girl (just the shoulders and face portion), 19 years old, taken just before he killed her. She looked like she had guessed her fate.

He confessed to his lawyer (program interviewed lawyer), then later at trial claimed to be insane. 7 experts who testified said he was not insane, just a perverted psychopath. The S.O.B got life in prison, and a few minutes later, there's a short take of him at the end of the program. It's the late '90's,and the SOB is walking around the prison, in the prison library, smiling, etc.

For me, that POS is a clear candidate for the death penalty, I wish he had gotten it. Confession, overwhelming physical evidence (he inadvertently included himself in a photo he took of one of the dead girls, because there was a mirror in the background, and photo was found in his garage).

[thesquanderer]

20. yeah, I didn't say it was easy

re: "said he was not insane, just a perverted psychopath."

Semantics can be tricky. We use language to categorize a world that is not always easy categorizable. Merriam Webster's first definition for "psychopath" says "mentally ill." Where on the mentally ill scale do we say that person A is executable and person B is not? Can we be that precise in who can be "acceptably" executed?

re: "the SOB is walking around the prison, in the prison library, smiling, etc."

That gets back to what the point of incarceration or the death penalty should be... is it the protection of others (preventing him from being able to do such things again), or is it also revenge? It may be galling that he may still be able to experience happiness, but I think that's the necessary trade-off for making sure an innocent person isn't put to death. His imprisonment protects us. His execution endangers us (by making the innocent among us capable of being executed). His execution accomplishes nothing except providing us with a visceral satisfaction, at possibly great expense to others.

Coincidentally, on DU's front page as I type this: "Four pathologists back death row inmate's innocence claim"

[JayMusgrove]

21. Quite a coincidence that the other DP case is in the news and I

suggest everyone look into it.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[World Traveller]

24. Cruel and ego-driven, not insane

I hear you...you make good points...

But in this case, the murderer was CRUEL and EGO-DRIVEN, not criminally insane. When he first came under suspicion, he talked to the police and proclaimed his innocence.

Then he rushed to hire a lawyer, told lawyer he had murdered the girls, and asked lawyer what he should do now. Lawyer told him not to talk to the police, and he shut up. He only admitted guilt later at trial because the physical evidence was overwhelming and he fell back on an insanity plea.

He spent the next 30 years in prison, reading law books and filing appeals (he was intelligent).

Bottom line is that his own pleasure and thrills were more important to him than lives of those randomly abducted teenage girls.

I honestly don't think he deserved to live...in this case, I would support the death penalty...he had tortured the girls, there were multiple murders, and it was clear he knew what he did was wrong and chose to do it anyway.

[thesquanderer]

25. not defending him

re: "I honestly don't think he deserved to live...in this case, I would support the death penalty"

I'm certainly not defending him. But how do you craft a system that can execute him without risking executing someone who shouldn't be executed?

He is in prison, he is no longer in a position to do the kinds of terrible things he did. What is the actual benefit of killing him? Who benefits, and how?

And then what harm is done by *not* executing him? Any?

And compare that to the harm that is done through the potential to execute innocent people in a system that is inherently imperfect.

[depakid]

22. That's the minimum possible he'd serve- likely he'll be in much longer

and will be an old man when he gets out- assuming that he lives that long.

[Statistical]

27. Sadly not true.

Due to a combination of reductions for good behavior, reductions for jail overcrowding, and parole most violent criminals serve less than 60% of their sentence. He could be out in 10 years.

[depakid]

28. He's been given a life sentence with 18 years as a minimum

18 years is the "tariff" -the minimum period the offender must serve before being considered for release on license by the Parole Board.

According to the Sentencing Adviory Panel, persons convicted of murder are invariably detained longer than the tariff period.

Page 3 of the report describes how his sentence works:

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/minimun_terms.pdf

Bottom line: this guy will be an old man when he gets out- if he lives that long.

[Fearless]

2. And a whole bunch of teenage romanciers just shit themselves.

:rofl:

[Rage for Order]

3. That poor guy

I abhor what he did, but he's obviously very mentally ill. I hope he gets the mental health attention he so obviously needs

[susanna]

4. Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?

Because I'll be willing to consider "help he so obviously needs" once they get done charging him for the death of his soon-to-be-former wife.

Seriously...

[Rage for Order]

6. Oops, you're right

I initially thought the story was about a woman who killed her husband, which would have automatically led to the logical conclusion that "he made her do it" through some sort of abuse. Now that I see it was a man who killed his wife, I hope they throw the book at the monster; let him rot in his jail cell and never see the light of day again.

Sorry, I had my domestic violence templates confused.

[susanna]

9. Yeah.

So that's why you worried about the help he so obviously needs, if HE'S dead? I see; it's all so clear to me now. Gotcha.

:sarcasm: < real easy, try it sometime!

If you have a bone to pick about male on female vs. female on male fatalities in relationships, hell, that's okay. But this story seems pretty straightforward. HE broke into HER house, stabbed her to death. Then, you come out saying "I hope HE gets help." From the first, it implies you didn't read the story. But, hey! Have your fun. "Domestic violence templates" indeed.

on edit: spelling

[skyounkin]

10. Ohhhhhhh

ZING!

[Triana]

13. your 'domestic violence templates'

WHO had the knife? WHO broke in? WHO stabbed WHOM? It was HIM who did all of that. NOT her.

SHE is dead. BRUTALLY murdered and all you can think about is "oh poor murdering sonofabitch. Pfft. Not an iota of thought for this HUMAN BEING who was murdered at the hands of him.

And yes that IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. And YES, he should rot. His brain already is. The rest should follow.

You need therapy man. And SO does your murdering friend. It'll give him something to do while he rots in prison.

[salin]

18. reads as of you have an

er... interesting axe to grind.

[Posteritatis]

23. Ouch (nt)

[pop goes the weasel]

5. I don't see where you get that

Mental illness does not equal violent behavior. This guy had some poor coping skills, but that isn't the same as mental illness. From what appears in the story, the man had a firm grasp of reality, but not a firm grasp of himself.

[eggplant]

7. He certainly had a firm grasp of the knife

[TheEuclideanOne]

8. Well he obviously had poor coping skills

Boy, you are a keen observer of human nature. Of course, my definition of poor coping skills has a lower limit than yours. I would say that when you actually brutally murder somebody, it goes beyond poor coping skills.

[aquart]

11. Unless you believe that considering a woman to be property is a form of mental illness.

[mackerel]

12. Half his age and neither of them saw what was coming.

Seriously people waste their lives.

[bitchkitty]

14. Yes, he will suffer. As he should.

Most abusers don't/won't go to counseling and refuse any help. It's too bad he wasn't helped early on when it could have done some good, but many people with problems never kill people or beat their spouses to death in a fit of rage. 18 years is a bargain for him, he'll probably live to see freedom. Hopefully he will be too worn out to beat another woman or stab another woman to death.

That poor woman, I don't have to imagine the fear she must have felt, having been a victim of abuse.

Fuck him, he's a killer. I reserve my sympathy for his victim's parents.

[Gwendolyn]

26. Honor killings are still as much a part of the west..

... as well as the east. They just manifest in different ways.

[Regret My New Name]

30. Hmmm...

Even if you accept they have the same motivators(which I personally don't), murders like these are accepted in our society as a acceptable. You'll find very few people who will say "yeah, well she had it coming".

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Vile. Just vile.

Makes you wish she'd managed to get farther away. It surely seems she must have had some idea of what a monster he was...