A grandma-turned-cold-blooded killer... the carer whose brutal actions left a family 'bewildered'

A grandmother waited outside the home of a 90-year-old woman until her bedroom light was switched off before letting herself in and murdering her.

Carer Jayne Hill had been caught stealing £40 from Myra Thompson, a vulnerable woman who she was trusted to look after. In an inexplicable and brutal 'attempt at self-preservation', Hill decided to kill Mrs Thompson in her home in Merseyside to ensure she could not act as a witness to her crime, the Echo reports.

Hill let herself into Mrs Thompson's home, before hitting her over the head with a flask and then smothering her with a pillow, Liverpool Crown Court heard. Hill, 52, has now been jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum of 22-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to murder and theft.

READ MORE: Guns, ammo, a drugs lab, 800 parrots, and amphetamines in a bag for life: Inside 'The Pen'

Prosecutors told how Hill had been caring for Mrs Thompson for around four months prior to April this year and had visited her at her house, Bolde Way in Spital, Wirral, on around 30 occasions. The victim was said to have been "very alert, very independent and requiring very little support" but was "undoubtedly frail" and suffered from Parkinson's disease, as well as ulcers to her legs which required her to use a Zimmer frame.

Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, described how she was however "capable of using the whole house independently", with her carers' roles being to "ensure that she ate and drank enough". When one, Michelle Hadfield, visited her on April 22 this year, Mrs Thompson was said to have been "in good spirits".

But, when another care worker attended the property the following day, she was found dead in her own bed. It came after she had become suspicious during March 2024 that one of her carers had been stealing cash from her purse, leading to a neighbour installing a covert camera within the property.

Footage then captured Hill, of Norwich Drive, Upton, taking a quantity of cash, said to have been between £40 and £60, from Mrs Thompson's handbag on April 12. When spoken to by her employer, the thief "denied the allegation" but was subsequently suspended from her duties - although she continued to "give the impression that she was still going out to work" to her partner.

On the evening of April 22, she claimed to have had an appointment which would require to her stay overnight at a client's house and left home shortly after 8.30pm. Hill's mobile phone then placed her at the scene of the murder from around 10pm.

Mr Johnson meanwhile outlined how Mrs Thompson "was in the habit of keeping a written log of her daily activities", which showed that she had taken her medication at 10.45pm and used the toilet at 11.15pm. A post-mortem examination subsequently found that she suffered "a number of significant injuries", including a wound to the scalp which was consistent with being "caused by somebody hitting her over the head with the metal flask found at the bedside".

Bruising and abrasions were also noted to her neck. A Home Office pathologist ultimately gave findings "strongly indicative of asphyxial death, resulting from smothering and neck compression".

Under interview, Hill initially claimed "that the first thing she knew about the murder was when she was arrested" and "denied any involvement". She also maintained that she had been asleep on the sofa at home at the time of Mrs Thompson's death and claimed that a minor injury to her neck had been caused by the seatbelt of her vehicle.

When informed of the phone data during a second round of questioning, she stated that she was "baffled". However, when quizzed for a third time, Hill confessed to killing Mrs Thompson.

She said during this interview that she had previously visited the address on April 18 "with the intention of returning the money" but had "bottled it". She alleged that she had then returned four days later "with the intention of persuading Mrs Thompson to accept the return of the money so that she would not lose her job" and "had gone in the evening so that the neighbours would not see her".

Mr Johnson told the court: "Mr Hill said she let herself into the house. She went upstairs and Mrs Thompson started shouting, so she picked up the flask and hit Mrs Thompson. But that did not stop the shouting, so she used a pillow and put that over Mrs Thompson’s face until she stopped struggling. She said she then returned to her car not knowing what to do and returned home as if she had been doing an overnight job.

"The data on the phone suggests that Jayne Hill left Bolde Way just before 5am that morning. She said she had left home at about 8.30pm, drove for 20 mins, parked up nearby, sat there for a couple of hours and had a smoke. She said she had intended to beg Myra not to say anything and to return the money.

"She said at about 11pm, she had retrieved the key from the key safe, went in and Mrs Thompson must have heard her and said 'who's there?', which made her panic. She confirmed that there were no lights on in the house when she had entered.

"She said she had picked up something, but did not realise it was the flask. She said she hit Mrs Thompson on the head twice to shush her. Jane Hill denied tidying up the scene, saying she did not know what to do. She just left.

"She said she had carried on with the pillow after the noise had stopped because Mrs Thompson was still moving. She accepted that Mrs Thompson was in no position to defend herself against the physical attack.

"The inference, which we say is inescapable, is that, in effect, Jayne Hill sat and waited for Mrs Thompson to switch off her light before she entered the property. That in turn, we would submit, means it is entirely inconsistent with her version that the purpose of the visit was to persuade Mrs Thompson to accept the return of the money and take matters no further. Accordingly, we invite the court to deal with this case on the basis that this was a cold-blooded attack and that the purpose of going in was to attack Mrs Thompson.

"It is clear that two weapons were used, a flask and a pillow. The reaction of Mrs Thompson to an unannounced visit under cover of darkness, we submit, was entirely predictable. Therefore, we submit that, in the context of a previous aborted visit, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from all the facts was that this was a planned attack on a defenceless, vulnerable, elderly woman in her own home which was motivated either by money, by revenge or by a desire to remove the witness to Jayne Hill’s dishonesty, or a mixture of the three.

"For those reasons, we submit that this is a case in which the seriousness of the offence is particularly high. The reason we say that the seriousness of the offence is particularly high is that it was done in the expectation of gain as a result of the death, it was intended to interfere with the course of justice or it was a gross breach of trust committed against a lady at night in her own home who was known to the defendant to be particularly vulnerable."

When officers searched Hill's car, they found jewellery "which had been stolen from people for whom Mrs Hill acted as a carer" stashed in an empty cigarette packet. One of these items was a gold necklace belonging to 97-year-old Jean Derbyshire, a dementia sufferer who lived alone.

This had been given to her by her now deceased husband "many years earlier", while the owners of a second gold necklace and a gold ring have not been traced. Hill, who had last visited Mrs Derbyshire's home on April 12, said during her interview that it was "possible that the other items had also come from Mrs Derbyshire’s house, but she was not sure" and admitted that she intended to pawn the items.

She has no previous convictions. David Polglase, defending, said on her behalf: "You are dealing with somebody who has pleaded guilty to the gravest offence on the criminal calendar, and other offences, without having troubled the court before. Jayne Hill has reached the age of 52 living a blameless life, having had a long standing relationship and raised a family. Her two daughters attend today and stand by her.

"She has worked since being a young woman, raising children. The sad irony and tragedy of this case is that the very circumstance that puts her before the court is making a positive contribution in a caring role that went terribly, badly wrong.

"She has grown up children. She has four grandchildren. It appears that her former partner stopped work 12 months before the commission of these offences, was on benefits and was sanctioned, and this increased financial pressure on the defendant.

"She fell into temptation as a result of her finances being stretched. She failed to deal with those circumstances in any sensible manner. Jayne Hill cannot properly explain why her reaction to being caught out stealing from Myra Thompson was as it was.

"She was unable properly or appropriately to deal with that. Had she admitted what she had done, she would have lost her job and then, if the case had gone to the police, your lordship would not have seen her again and she would have been dealt with in a very different way.

"Clearly, what went on as a consequence of the theft was wholly irrational and inappropriate. That is something she is going to have to wrestle with. She will have a considerable period of time to face up to the consequences. She bitterly regrets what she has done."

Hill, who wore a white bubble coat over a turquoise top and sported dyed red hair, previously admitted murder and four counts of theft and sat with her head bowed in the dock throughout today's hearing. She showed no reaction as she has handed a life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22-and-a-half years.

Sentencing, the Honorary Recorder of Liverpool Judge Andrew Menary KC said: "You knew Mrs Thompson because you were employed by an agency to provide care for her in her home. On the night of the 22nd of April, you went to that address and brutally killed her while she was alone and utterly defenceless.

"Your purpose of going there was, I am sure, to kill her. That makes this a particularly cold blooded crime, and your reasons for doing such a dreadful thing defy belief.

"Although she was elderly and struggled with her mobility, Mrs Thompson is described as very alert and very independent. She was able to live happily and independently in her own home. Her husband had died some years earlier and they had no children, but she was undoubtedly loved and cherished by the few close friends she had - particularly her close neighbours, who provided additional support.

"Your job was to look after vulnerable people like Mrs Thompson. It was a job that required a high level of trust because of the extent and unrestricted nature of the access you had to clients' homes and their possessions. I have no doubt that there was more than one occasion when money was taken by you.

"After you were sure that Mrs Thompson was in bed and the lights were off, perhaps hoping that she was asleep, you let yourself in with the key from the key safe, went upstairs and killed her. You said that you went there only intending to talk to Mrs Thompson in the hope of persuading her to take back the money that had been stolen in the hope that you would be able to keep your job.

"You no longer stand by that account, and it is clearly one that was not true. The time of night that you went, waiting until you believed that she was in bed and perhaps asleep, and the suddenness, ferocity and persistence of the violence you used - including the use of weapons - against someone you knew was frail and elderly demonstrates that you went there that night intending to kill your victim. Significantly, the reason that you killed her was because you wanted to remove her as a witness to the theft - a theft, on your account, of £40.

"You hit her several times over the head with a metal flask and then applied a pillow with considerable force over her face so that she was fatally strangled and suffocated. She had other injuries to her body, indicating that she fought as strongly as she properly could at a time when she must have realised you were attempting to kill her.

"You hoped that her death would somehow enable you to keep your job and, more significantly, I am sure that you feared the matter might go further and involve a complaint to the police. You wanted to try to conceal the fact that a crime had been committed by removing the person you believed was the only possible witness. This was, therefore, a premeditated murder intended to obstruct the course of justice.

"This was a cruel and callous offence involving significant planning and premeditation, committed in gross breach of trust against a vulnerable woman in her own home. Her suffering during the time that you were attacking her must have been profound.

"You are a woman of previous good character, with no previous convictions and no suggestion that you have behaved inappropriately towards any other client in terms of the quality of your care for them. You had a partner that you had shared your life with for many years, though that relationship is now at an end. You have two daughters and four granddaughters. They must be as bewildered as everyone else that you are in this position and have done what you did.

"I accept that there may have been pressures at home to do with your finances. These do not begin to explain your extreme reaction. It may be that others characterise you as some sort of monster, but I accept that you now deeply regret what you have done.

"I accept the frankness of your letter [to the court] and the expressions of deep sadness at the loss you have caused. It may well be that you are at a complete loss to explain to yourself, never mind others, why you behaved in the way you did, but this was not a sudden explosion of anger. It was a considered act, and the selfish motive was an attempt at self-preservation."