Egluntyne Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 ...At the verdict in the trial of Ellie Lawrenson's Grandmother. I would have thought that the fact that she was drunk, had admitted to smoking seven spliffs and had broken the family rule of not allowing the dog in the house when the child was there would have swayed the jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeckyBoo Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 you would think so wouldn't you? Mind you, there's not many verdicts that surprise me any more. And I guess it wouldn't have been a question of, "do you morally think she was responsible" it would have been "can the Police PROVE that she was responsible" If they'd have asked the first question I know what I would have said! (says she about to pick up a puppy!) Mrs B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules. Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 I think the verdict is totally wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superjules Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Having followed the trial last week, I can't believe the verdict. I really thought there was no way she could get off based on the facts reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olly Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 don't forget, the verdict has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. And the question was not 'did she take proper care of Ellie' or 'was she behaving responsibly' or 'should she have let the dog in' ... all of which could be answered 'no'. The jury had to decide if she carried out an unlawful and dangerous act, or whether she was negligent and showed a disregard for the safety of others (I'm paraphrasing). What she did was stupid, foolhardy and wrong, but not necessarily within the definition of the above. I 'm not defending her actions for a moment, and I think her daughter should never have left Ellie with her, knowing that she was taking drugs and drinking. She and her son and daughter have already been punished in the worst possible way and will have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Unbelieveable!! I was sure she would be found guilty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahJo Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Unbeleivable, the poor little girl. What amazed me was how she even found the door, having smoked and drunk 2 bottles of wine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clash City Rocker Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 not defending her actions either I'm sure "responsibility" for the dogs actions is the "Owners Responsibility" and he (her son) was sent to jail earlier in the year for "possessing an illegal breed" an example of an horrific scenario could be " someone's pitbull getting into my garden, harming my daughter, and me getting sentenced because I was looking after her" I would argue that it wasn't my dog, and the dog owner was the culprit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dogmother Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 I couldn't believe it either, but the parents are to blame too for leaving their little girl in her care, when she must have been obviously intoxicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubereglu Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Yes. She should have been sent to prison. However did anyone here about the bloke docking a dog's tail off with a pair of scissors and getting two months. So let me see...you get imprisoned for that, BUT NOT for a dog, (you were supposed to of been in control with) mauling and killing a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egluntyne Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 I think her daughter should never have left Ellie with her, knowing that she was taking drugs and drinking. She and her son and daughter have already been punished in the worst possible way and will have to live with that for the rest of their lives. That is a sound point. I still think that the grandmother should have been found guilty though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clash City Rocker Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 I think her daughter should never have left Ellie with her, knowing that she was taking drugs and drinking. She and her son and daughter have already been punished in the worst possible way and will have to live with that for the rest of their lives. That is a sound point. I still think that the grandmother should have been found guilty though. I'm still not defending the woman's actions but I wonder what you think she's "Guilty" of? Being Drunk?.......at her age it's not illegal Smoking Spliffs? ...the current government seems happy for all of us to do this, hence it's "hell bent" on decriminalising Cannabis and other "soft drug" use or "Allowing" the family pet (in this case a Pitbull) into the house, not against any criminal or civil law that I know of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dogmother Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 She is guilty of causing the death of her grandchild (or so I see it), she was in such a state as to be incapable of sound reasoning and responsible actions, to my mind, that is that same as killing someone while drink driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egluntyne Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 I think her daughter should never have left Ellie with her, knowing that she was taking drugs and drinking. She and her son and daughter have already been punished in the worst possible way and will have to live with that for the rest of their lives. That is a sound point. I still think that the grandmother should have been found guilty though. I'm still not defending the woman's actions but I wonder what you think she's "Guilty" of? Being Drunk?.......at her age it's not illegal Smoking Spliffs? ...the current government seems happy for all of us to do this, hence it's "hell bent" on decriminalising Cannabis and other "soft drug" use or "Allowing" the family pet (in this case a Pitbull) into the house, not against any criminal or civil law that I know of Manslaughter by being totally negligent and allowing a dog known to be dangerous into the same room as the child....against the expressed wish of the parents. The fact that she was drunk and under the influence of cannabis are exacerbating factors. By agreeing to look after the child she took on certain responsibilities the plain fact is that if she had not let the dog into the room the child would not have died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clash City Rocker Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 She is guilty of causing the death of her grandchild (or so I see it), she was in such a state as to be incapable of sound reasoning and responsible actions, to my mind, that is that same as killing someone while drink driving. Lets not fall out I'm in agreement with you. from the start I've not defended her actions.....but..... I don't think you can be convicted of "incapable of sound reasoning and responsible actions" (mental health act perhaps) you can however be convicted for "drink driving" there are laws, it's illegal. it's the old "Law is an ass" quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
