PIT BULL GRANNY NOT GUILTY

#1
on the news just now, the granny that let a snarling pitbull in to play with a baby girl cleared of manslaughter, what is THAT......all about?
 
#2
10BA09 said:
on the news just now, the granny that let a snarling pitbull in to play with a baby girl cleared of manslaughter, what is THAT......all about?
I would assume that granny had no idea that said doggy would savage said kiddy to death, hence no crime.
 
#3
reportedly, the whole family were aware the dog was intensely envious of the child, the two were never allowed into the same room, add vodka and a few spliffs!!!!!
 
#4
Its probably about justice, based upon the decision of a jury who have heard all the evidence from both sides in an adversarial court system and reached their conclusion accordingly.

Their views, and that of the experienced judge who would possibly have provided some element of guidance, are clearly of little merit when compared to the views of anonymous posters on the t'internet, based upon snippets of tabloid media coverage.

Hanging them and throwing away the key is too good for the likes of them etc etc. :roll:
 
#5
Dilfor said:
Its probably about justice, based upon the decision of a jury who have heard all the evidence from both sides in an adversarial court system and reached their conclusion accordingly.
A pot-smoking, wine drinking, pill-popping jury full of pikeys with pitbulls?
 
#6
msr said:
Dilfor said:
Its probably about justice, based upon the decision of a jury who have heard all the evidence from both sides in an adversarial court system and reached their conclusion accordingly.
A pot-smoking, wine drinking, pill-popping jury full of pikeys with pitbulls?
You know them then! :lol:
 
#8
msr said:
Dilfor said:
Its probably about justice, based upon the decision of a jury who have heard all the evidence from both sides in an adversarial court system and reached their conclusion accordingly.
A pot-smoking, wine drinking, pill-popping jury full of pikeys with pitbulls?
Msr

Yes, my mistake, I didn't make the obligatory ARRSE reference to 'chavs' and 'scum' and 'machinegun the lot'.

As if drinking wine and taking class C drugs on New Year's Eve (even whilst in charge of a child) are particularly rare, or even class-based, activities.
 
#9
Dilfor said:
Its probably about justice, based upon the decision of a jury who have heard all the evidence from both sides in an adversarial court system and reached their conclusion accordingly.

Their views, and that of the experienced judge who would possibly have provided some element of guidance, are clearly of little merit when compared to the views of anonymous posters on the t'internet, based upon snippets of tabloid media coverage.

Hanging them and throwing away the key is too good for the likes of them etc etc. :roll:
So Dilfor, are you saying a viciously trained illegal dog, left with a small child by a drugged up drunk, a child who was then torn apart by said illegal hound is not manslaughter?

Oh I forgot, the concept of "Common sense" has been thrown out by our wonderful judiciary who really do have their fingers on the pulse when it comes to justice.
 
#10
8O
Dilfor said:
msr said:
Dilfor said:
Its probably about justice, based upon the decision of a jury who have heard all the evidence from both sides in an adversarial court system and reached their conclusion accordingly.
A pot-smoking, wine drinking, pill-popping jury full of pikeys with pitbulls?
Msr

Yes, my mistake, I didn't make the obligatory ARRSE reference to 'chavs' and 'scum' and 'machinegun the lot'.

As if drinking wine and taking class C drugs on New Year's Eve (even whilst in charge of a child) are particularly rare, or even class-based, activities.
Hey Dilfor all your posts have been a bit pious recently, have you found god or something? :D Whats wrong with sterotyping and generalisation of people?
 
#11
Three keys words: Liverpool Crown Court ;)

msr
 
#13
schweik said:
msr said:
Three keys words: Liverpool Crown Court ;)

msr
So you were right about the jury then, msr
It's not difficult is it :D

Ellie's grandmother accepts blame

Ellie Lawrenson's grandmother has told a court that she was responsible for the five-year-old's death after she was mauled to death by the family dog.

Jackie Simpson, 45, was baby-sitting Ellie when she let the pit bull terrier into her house on Merseyside.

It attacked the child causing 72 injuries. Asked if she accepted blame, Ms Simpson said: "Yes, because I let the dog in."

Ms Simpson, from St Helens, denies manslaughter by gross negligence.

"If things had gone the way they should have that day I wouldn't have had the kids anyway. I opened the door and it's my fault. I never thought the dog would do anything to Ellie," Ms Simpson said.

Cross-examining her at Liverpool Crown Court, Neil Flewitt QC, said: "You let that child down, didn't you?"

"Yes," she answered.

Ms Simpson admitted consuming two bottles of wine and smoking 10 cannabis joints on the day of the attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6981602.stm
 
#14
There are so few witnesses in Liverpool you get Jehovas bystanders knocking on your door.
 
#15
From those little snipets of tabloid media coverage I think had the said granny not popped her pills and smoked her biftas, maybe, just maybe that little girl would be recovering in hospital. The gran would of been 'straight' and able to get the dog off her.

Whos the manslaughter verdict justice for?

I also hope the mother of the girl was not aware the gran popped pills while babysitting.
 
#16
The_Cad said:
Dilfor said:
Its probably about justice, based upon the decision of a jury who have heard all the evidence from both sides in an adversarial court system and reached their conclusion accordingly.

Their views, and that of the experienced judge who would possibly have provided some element of guidance, are clearly of little merit when compared to the views of anonymous posters on the t'internet, based upon snippets of tabloid media coverage.

Hanging them and throwing away the key is too good for the likes of them etc etc. :roll:
So Dilfor, are you saying a viciously trained illegal dog, left with a small child by a drugged up drunk, a child who was then torn apart by said illegal hound is not manslaughter?

Oh I forgot, the concept of "Common sense" has been thrown out by our wonderful judiciary who really do have their fingers on the pulse when it comes to justice.
It isn't the Judge who reaches the verdict - it is the jury.
 
#17
Poppy said:
The_Cad said:
Dilfor said:
Its probably about justice, based upon the decision of a jury who have heard all the evidence from both sides in an adversarial court system and reached their conclusion accordingly.

Their views, and that of the experienced judge who would possibly have provided some element of guidance, are clearly of little merit when compared to the views of anonymous posters on the t'internet, based upon snippets of tabloid media coverage.

Hanging them and throwing away the key is too good for the likes of them etc etc. :roll:
So Dilfor, are you saying a viciously trained illegal dog, left with a small child by a drugged up drunk, a child who was then torn apart by said illegal hound is not manslaughter?

Oh I forgot, the concept of "Common sense" has been thrown out by our wonderful judiciary who really do have their fingers on the pulse when it comes to justice.
It isn't the Judge who reaches the verdict - it is the jury.
Quite right Pops, - but a judges summing up can be mighty powerful and virtually direct a jury to bring in a certain verdict. :wink:
 
#18
She was charged with manslaughter through gross negligence and the burden of proof required for that is high at the best of times

But given that the scumbag who actually owned the dog (a banned breed under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) got sent down for 8 weeks (yes 8 weeks) what would have she got even if found guilty?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
CptDanjou The NAAFI Bar 506
sunnoficarus The NAAFI Bar 54
filthyphil The NAAFI Bar 18

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top