Motoring1 min ago
This'll put the dog amongst the pigeons....
The grandmother of Ellie Lawrenson, the five-year-old who was mauled to death by a dog banned in Britain, was today cleared of the child's killing.
Jacqueline Simpson, 45, was acquitted of manslaughter by gross neglect by the seven men and five women jury at Liverpool crown court, following a six-day trial.
During the trial, Ms Simpson denied failing to take proper care of Ellie by allowing the pit bull terrier - which had previously attacked family members and other dogs - in the house when she knew it was dangerous.
Ms Simpson was babysitting Ellie at her home in St Helens, Merseyside, early on January 1 when the dog attacked the girl, causing 72 injuries, primarily to her head and neck.
The dog, called Reuben, was owned by Ellie's uncle Kiel Simpson, and was banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
The court heard that, in the hours before the attack, Ms Simpson had drunk two bottles of wine, taken anti-depressants and smoked cannabis.
Jacqueline Simpson, 45, was acquitted of manslaughter by gross neglect by the seven men and five women jury at Liverpool crown court, following a six-day trial.
During the trial, Ms Simpson denied failing to take proper care of Ellie by allowing the pit bull terrier - which had previously attacked family members and other dogs - in the house when she knew it was dangerous.
Ms Simpson was babysitting Ellie at her home in St Helens, Merseyside, early on January 1 when the dog attacked the girl, causing 72 injuries, primarily to her head and neck.
The dog, called Reuben, was owned by Ellie's uncle Kiel Simpson, and was banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
The court heard that, in the hours before the attack, Ms Simpson had drunk two bottles of wine, taken anti-depressants and smoked cannabis.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by NJOK. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While there is not doubt she was "guilty" (she never denied it) one could argue she will live with the guilt for the rest of her life. Putting her in prison will not solve a lot.
Mind you, she is typical of the low life scum that are happy to spend their days in a drunken and drugged stupor when she was supposed to be looking after a young child.
But the real question is why the dogs were still allowed in and around the home when they had already bitten two people.
For that the whole family have to take the blame.
Mind you, she is typical of the low life scum that are happy to spend their days in a drunken and drugged stupor when she was supposed to be looking after a young child.
But the real question is why the dogs were still allowed in and around the home when they had already bitten two people.
For that the whole family have to take the blame.
I'm very impressed that all you can read a few sentences and realise that she was guilty
The jury who sat through who knows how many hours of evidence and argument and eventually acquitted her must simply have lacked your obvious common sense.
I don't know we bother with trials - we can simply have a few points posted up here and cut straight to the sentencing!
The jury who sat through who knows how many hours of evidence and argument and eventually acquitted her must simply have lacked your obvious common sense.
I don't know we bother with trials - we can simply have a few points posted up here and cut straight to the sentencing!
They were all guilty.
most of all for having a dog they knew was banned. These dogs are used for one thing only and thats fighting, which is banned in this country any way.
The only person who would have been grieving for the dog was the owner who had it for one of two reasons. To fight or make him look hard.
It's a sad thing that paople still have these dogs either to make money or because it makes them some how feel hard. Dogs do what they are taught to do. So what was that **** of an owner teaching it to do. Should he not be in the docks as well as the grandmother?
most of all for having a dog they knew was banned. These dogs are used for one thing only and thats fighting, which is banned in this country any way.
The only person who would have been grieving for the dog was the owner who had it for one of two reasons. To fight or make him look hard.
It's a sad thing that paople still have these dogs either to make money or because it makes them some how feel hard. Dogs do what they are taught to do. So what was that **** of an owner teaching it to do. Should he not be in the docks as well as the grandmother?
Thing is, she let the dog into her house, knowing it was dangerous,Guilty in the first inst,
Being drunk, (you can't put it any other way), and under the influence of a drug. and at the same time in charge of a dangerous weapon, (the dog), Guilty in the second inst.
This woman was, and should have been found guilty, as should her son for having an illegal dog.
Being drunk, (you can't put it any other way), and under the influence of a drug. and at the same time in charge of a dangerous weapon, (the dog), Guilty in the second inst.
This woman was, and should have been found guilty, as should her son for having an illegal dog.
Jake-the-peg.
Whats your take on it then, seeing everyone else believes that it was an injustice her getting off.
Lonnie explained it extremely well if you ask me.
I appreciate that the jury found her not guilty on a manslaughter charge, but what message is this sending out to the chav pit bull owners. And it makes a mockery of the dangerous dogs act.
She addmitted she new the dog was banned in the uk if you believe what you read, so one must make an assumption that she realised that the dog was em ''dangerous''.
It was more than likely some legal loophole that saved her from her rightful punishment
Prison
Whats your take on it then, seeing everyone else believes that it was an injustice her getting off.
Lonnie explained it extremely well if you ask me.
I appreciate that the jury found her not guilty on a manslaughter charge, but what message is this sending out to the chav pit bull owners. And it makes a mockery of the dangerous dogs act.
She addmitted she new the dog was banned in the uk if you believe what you read, so one must make an assumption that she realised that the dog was em ''dangerous''.
It was more than likely some legal loophole that saved her from her rightful punishment
Prison
Shadow.
She won't give a jack sh!te about being spotted in society.
Scum like these do not know the meaning of the word ''REMORSE''
I'll go further more and say, that it would'nt come as a surprise if the family get caught again with an illegal pit bull, after all, a dole check will only go to far, they need more income!!
She won't give a jack sh!te about being spotted in society.
Scum like these do not know the meaning of the word ''REMORSE''
I'll go further more and say, that it would'nt come as a surprise if the family get caught again with an illegal pit bull, after all, a dole check will only go to far, they need more income!!
On a completely different take, why on earth did the childs mother leave her with her grandmother? The mother must have known that the grandmother was a dope head with a drinking problem. This amount of substance abuse is very difficult to hide, and I would suspect that the mother knew full well that the grandmother has drug and alcohol problems.
There is no way on earth I would ever leave my kids with anyone who I knew had these type of problems, especially with a dangerous dog around.
There is no way on earth I would ever leave my kids with anyone who I knew had these type of problems, especially with a dangerous dog around.
laurence, I think jake's point was that the jury in this case have access to all of the information.
They jury are made up of ordinary people, not politicians or footballers or any other select group. They represent society. They're selected randomly.
Unlike us, they don't get their information from snippets of news or tabloid newspapers. They sit there for days and days soaking listening to all of the evidence. Then, from that, they make a decision.
If they'd only seen the news that you had, I dare say they'd think it was an injustice for the woman to be let off. But they've heard the whole story. You haven't.
That doesn't mean miscarriages of justice never happen. Just that it's perhaps slightly arrogant to say that you're a better judge of right and wrong than your fellow citizens. Citizens who have actually sat through the trial.
They jury are made up of ordinary people, not politicians or footballers or any other select group. They represent society. They're selected randomly.
Unlike us, they don't get their information from snippets of news or tabloid newspapers. They sit there for days and days soaking listening to all of the evidence. Then, from that, they make a decision.
If they'd only seen the news that you had, I dare say they'd think it was an injustice for the woman to be let off. But they've heard the whole story. You haven't.
That doesn't mean miscarriages of justice never happen. Just that it's perhaps slightly arrogant to say that you're a better judge of right and wrong than your fellow citizens. Citizens who have actually sat through the trial.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Crosswords1 min ago
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News3 mins ago
Body & Soul25 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.