Justice ?

Didn't the woman let the dog inside because there were fireworks outside and the dog was scared?

Was she actually found 'Not Guilty' or 'Aquitted'?
I only ask because I'm not sure whether there's a difference - does one mean that the jury found her innocent, whilst the other means that they couldn't actually come to a conclusive verdict based on the evidence they heard?

And yes, I'm sad and watch too many American cop/crime shows, so my real-world UK knowledge is pathetically lacking.

Originally Posted by sarah

Didn't the woman let the dog inside because there were fireworks outside and the dog was scared?

or huingry?

[G]

Grandmother of a 5 year old at 45..........abouts sums it up really.

Although I think its wrong she got away with it.

I also think its wrong that they kept a dog locked outside at new year when fireworks were going off all over the place.....its no wonder the dog was going mental.

Originally Posted by graemepaterson

Although I think its wrong she got away with it.

Grr.

She didn't get away with ANYTHING!

Skipping the country or the police/cps burning all the evidence by mistake the night before the trial is 'getting away with it', being aquitted isn't.

No wonder so many people think the justice system doesn't work - it's cos they don't have the slightest clue about what justice is.

Originally Posted by K

And yes, I'm sad and watch too many American cop/crime shows, so my real-world UK knowledge is pathetically lacking.

Small point. Scotland has its own laws which are separate from England.

English law..not UK law.

[G]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Grr.

She didn't get away with ANYTHING!

Skipping the country or the police/cps burning all the evidence by mistake the night before the trial is 'getting away with it', being aquitted isn't.

No wonder so many people think the justice system doesn't work - it's cos they don't have the slightest clue about what justice is.

Firstly for someone who must know so much about the justice system and the term in question, to the point where they can ridicule other peoples knowledge of the justice system, its spelt acquitted...and the definition is

'the term used when a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, which means that the jury did not find that the State proved the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt'

So for whatever reason she has been found not guilty of manslaughter despite her clearly being the responsible person in charge of the child at the time, the responsible person in charge of the dog at the time it killed the child and all whilst being off her face on drugs and alcohol.

Now its not murder, she didn’t intentionally go out of her way to let the dog kill the child...but she was responsible for them both and her own action which ultimately led to the child being mauled, All responsibility was hers as she was left in charge hence manslaughter.

It's all irrelevant anyway and there no point falling out about it :P

Poor Ellie. She didn't ask to be born into a family like that. And what a horrible end. From what I read on the BBC and elsewhere, had I been on the jury, I would have convicted. But I wasn't, the BBC can be selective, and as FS rightly says, we don't have a full picture. But it seems wrong in principle to me that a woman who knew that the dog was a banned breed, and a vicious brute, and who knew not to let it into the house, and yet did so, should walk away scot free.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Grr.

She didn't get away with ANYTHING!

Skipping the country or the police/cps burning all the evidence by mistake the night before the trial is 'getting away with it', being aquitted isn't.

No wonder so many people think the justice system doesn't work - it's cos they don't have the slightest clue about what justice is.

What do you mean by "she didn't get away with anything"?

As far as I can work out, aquitted is basically getting let off with no punishment.
This is what has happened in this case despite the following >>

1. Left in charge of a minor
2. Proved to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol
3. In charge of a banned breed and dangerous dog

There is a law that makes it illegal to be in charge of a minor whilst under the influence of alcohol.

Why was the dog allowed anywhere in the country if it is a banned breed?

So 2 laws broken.

As someone else pointed out, if she had been driving and had killed a minor she would have probably been sentenced to a term inside.
But according to her peers/lawyer its ok to be out of it when theres a minor and dangerous dog in the same building.
Something not right there.

So from what I can see she HAS got away with it.

Just my opinion though!

Originally Posted by graemepaterson

Firstly for someone who must know so much about the justice system and the term in question, to the point where they can ridicule other peoples knowledge of the justice system, its spelt acquitted...

If bringing up a typo is the best you can do...

I wouldn't profess to know alot about the justice system, just the basics. The most fundamental rule being, innocent until proven guilty. In fact, most people probably know about this principle. For some reason however, it's often immediately forgotten about in a fit of righteous indignation when the 'evil jury' in defiance of 'justice' outrageously come up with the 'wrong decision'.

Originally Posted by graemepaterson

All responsibility was hers as she was left in charge hence manslaughter.

...which she was found not guilty of.