Nurse’s Reports to Police were Ignored – Internal Investigation Launched

In the last days of her life, Arianna Taylor Israel made desperate attempts to elicit the protection of the police, making three visits to the Questelles Police Station to report that her life had been threatened by her husband, the holder of a licensed firearm.
And now, the police have launched an internal investigation as to why no action was taken against Mitchell “Mitch” Israel, the person who had made the threats.
Taylor-Israel, a staff nurse at the Milton Cato Memorial Hospital (MCMH) was gunned down at about 3:30 pm last Thursday, January 30 outside the St Martin’s Secondary School, where her older son is a student.
Originally from Cuba, Taylor-Israel died at the MCMH about one hour after the attack.
She had filed the report of the threats at the Questelles Police Station on Saturday, January 25 and made follow up visits to the police station on Sunday, January 26 and again on Wednesday, January 29, to enquire into the status of her complaint, Searchlight has confirmed.
Not being happy with the response she was receiving, on Thursday morning Taylor-Israel, said to have been in her mid-40s, reached out in desperation to a retired female police officer, who it is said immediately contacted a high-ranking police officer about the matter.
A usually reliable told Searchlight that orders were issued on Thursday morning for Israel to be picked up, but it appears that those orders were not acted on.
Israel, 57, a civil servant attached to the Ministry of Transport and Works, was taken into police custody about one hour after his wife of about 15 years was shot.
Up to midday on Saturday, he had not yet been charged.
Commissioner of Police Colin John told SEARCHLIGHT on Saturday that an investigation has been launched into “the action or inaction of certain persons (within the police force) and based on the results, action will be taken.”
He said there is a standard procedure which is followed when the police receive reports that someone who is the holder of a licensed firearm has threatened another person.
“We would take the firearm, we would investigate the matter and if there is sufficient evidence to charge, we would charge. If there is insufficient, we would not charge them, but the fact that the person has a licensed firearm, even if the case is not made out to go to court, we would still refer the matter to the Firearms Licensing Board with a recommendation to revoke the person’s license.
“But the firearm would normally be seized by the police until that investigation is completed,” the Commissioner said.
John said two separate investigations are usually done — an investigation into the threat and another to determine if the holder of the firearm license is fit and proper to hold such a license.
He said as recently as late last year, the Firearm Licensing Board, on the advice of the police, revoked the firearm license of a person who had irresponsibly discharged his firearm at another person, even after the complainant in that matter changed his mind about pressing charges.