Not Guilty for Pitbull owner who killed.

**Brocks** · 11th September 2007, 12:34

I have been following this story locally over recent weeks and was convinced it was an open and shut case.

The short of it is that Mum and her 5 year old daughter went visit Grandma were there was also Pitbull. The family rule was if the child was in the house the dog was kept away. During the visit the Grandma who was drunk and high on drugs let the dog in and it ripped the poor girl to shreads.

The CPS tried to do the grandma for Manslaughter through negligence. I was convinced she'd go down because:

The family owned a banned dog.
The dog had a history of attacks
The dog was known to be very dangerous
The dog was put out as a safety measure
She let the dog in knowing all this although the story has changed over the trial.
She admitted responsibility for the death in court

This case has sickened me somewhat and I am gobsmacked at the not guilty verdict. I know she will live with the guilt of her for the rest of her life, but that poor girl died a horrific death in a place that most of us would imagine to be the best place in the world....Visiting nanny!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...de/6987128.stm

**j13hdb** · 11th September 2007, 13:14

Unbelievable! If I was a copper I think I'd give up! We had a beautiful young lady copper at work who's a rape councillor who said the amount of rapes or times they've had to fight and catch a criminal then the CPS throws it out is unbelievable- but this where obviously the jury's thrown it out is way beyond belief. Hope she feels so much grief every day she ends it, mind you she'll probably be high on drugs all the time!

And we worry when we get caught speeding..................

**Big-Pete** · 11th September 2007, 13:25

Totally agree, Its disgusting that She got away with... Our law system needs a good looking at......

**Caterman** · 11th September 2007, 13:42

Lost for words! This country really is getting to be a joke.

I'd better not go on as i could get in serious trouble for what i could say

If i could get my wife to come with me i would be on the way to the airport NOW! .................and not come back

**Hideous** · 11th September 2007, 13:42

I'm in two minds about it. The dog shouldn't have been there in the first place, whoever owned it.
I'm not sure manslaughter was the correct charge from the start; not quite as cut and dried as that IMO.

**AJA** · 11th September 2007, 13:56

I'm not sure she was guilty of manslaughter. The grandmother is a known drug taker and pi$$ head, so would you leave your kiddies with her; family or not! The parents of the poor girl are equally at blame in my eyes for placing their child in harms way. The owner of the dog is also to blame for obvious reason. The dog should of been put to sleep in the first place after the first attack.

The grandmother was probably dumped with the child and the dog and wasn't a strong enough person to control both, while the parents and dog owner went about doing whatever they were doing (I won't speculate).

She is guilty of neglegance but so is the dog owner and the parents of the child. They'll all have to live it now and not try to push the blame onto the grandmother. What a close family they must be.

**john_k_sri** · 11th September 2007, 13:57

Originally Posted by Hideous

I'm in two minds about it. The dog shouldn't have been there in the first place, whoever owned it.
I'm not sure manslaughter was the correct charge from the start; not quite as cut and dried as that IMO.

I would agree. Reminds me of when I was on jury service yonks ago when a charge of GBH led to a not guilty verdict when a motorist hit another one who fell and cracked his head on the ground and subsequently suffered brain damage. Case hinged on whether the assaulter intended to cause brain injury. No chance. As the judge later remarked ABH would have been a more appropriate charge.

Worth bearing in mind that Ellie's grandmother has to live with what she has caused to happen. This case also proves that the problem is not the dangerous dogs, but their owners and those they associate with. Those who let their dogs terrorize people should themselves be treated like terrorists.

**Brocks** · 11th September 2007, 13:58

Manslaughter Defn:

The unlawful killing of another without intent to kill; either voluntary (upon a sudden impulse); or involuntary (during the commission of an unlawful act not ordinarily expected to result in great bodily harm).

I take it letting an illegal animal get to the child was a lawful act then

**AJA** · 11th September 2007, 14:00

The law isn't always 'black and white' though is it!

This is why the jury system was introduced wasn't it.

**Brocks** · 11th September 2007, 14:00

The dog's owner was sent down BTW for owning a banned dog.

She knew it was a banned dog and knew it was dangerous. She did not intend for the animal to attack but her actions lead directly to the childs death.

The child hadn't been left with the grandmother, they were visiting with the mother.