Woman cleared of dog attack killing

[m20gull]

I agree. 12 people agree on the evidence put in front of them despite our opinions.

.. and our lack of access to all of the facts that are presented to the jury. As usual with a five day case, all we get to hear is the sensational bits until the jury returns. I find it absolutely impossible to judge whether someone is guily from what is reported anywhere.

I take comfort that juries deliver verdicts that are carefully considered on the basis of all of the facts presented to them, rather than hanging everybody on the word of the press.

 

[Questions]

.. and our lack of access to all of the facts that are presented to the jury. As usual with a five day case, all we get to hear is the sensational bits until the jury returns. I find it absolutely impossible to judge whether someone is guily from what is reported anywhere.

I take comfort that juries deliver verdicts that are carefully considered on the basis of all of the facts presented to them, rather than hanging everybody on the word of the press.

You must never wait to you have all the facts in before you post on here. Thats missing the whole point of this place.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I take comfort that juries deliver verdicts that are carefully considered on the basis of all of the facts presented to them, rather than hanging everybody on the word of the press.

Without seeing or knowing anything about the jury or the seeing the actual case in question? EDIT: Flamin' mousepad - deleted a bit I wrote. It works both ways. I am suggesting that the whole case was to be judged on hearsay as there is a difficulty in gaining any 'hard' evidence in this type of case, but that does not mean that she should be acquitted, for the following reasons. It is not as simple (as you know) as getting behind a wheel whilst drunk and killing a passenger or another driver/pedestrian.

Manslaughter through gross negligence was the charge and I fail to see how they found in her favour. The circumstantial evidence is the death of a child caused by the dog. It seems that her whole defence relies on the fact that she did not know that the dog was banned from entering the house - whether she could possibly be functioning properly after admittedly consuming two bottles of wine and 10 joints is another matter.

Earlier in the court case, she told the jury that the dog had been kicked, punched and tormented by members of her family. She also said 'I wouldn't have thought it could have done that to a baby it had grown up with', despite the fact that she knew the dog had bitten another family member, previously, after it had been kicked and beaten by Ellie's Uncle.

It seems that there is the feeling (certainly in the summation from the judge) that Ms Simpson has suffered enough and is paying the price for her negligence.

 

[Yorkie]

Juries don't deal with feelings. They can only judge on facts.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Juries don't deal with feelings. They can only judge on facts.

Thank you, Yorkie. I had managed to grasp that fact. There comes a point, in a case like this, when the jury would have to decide whether or not the defendant knowingly allowed a dangerous dog into the hosue. From her evidence, it is clear that she knew the dog was a liability. She admitted that the dog had a violent past when it was beaten and it had been beaten before the owners left to celebrate New Years Eve. What evidence are we not privy to? What other possible evidence is there that could acquit her of the charge?

The judge summed up saying that she was already paying the ultimate price, in that she had lost her Grand Daughter. How? Allowing a dangerous dog (with a history of violent acts) to enter the house. Why did she do that? She said she felt sorry for the dog and her judgement was clearly impaired by two bottles of wine and ten joints. Pray tell me, what could possibly have saved her from a conviction, other than the fact that 'she was already paying for HER actions?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Earlier in the court case, she told the jury that the dog had been kicked, punched and tormented by members of her family. She also said 'I wouldn't have thought it could have done that to a baby it had grown up with', despite the fact that she knew the dog had bitten another family member, previously, after it had been kicked and beaten by Ellie's Uncle.

On the Liverpool Echo website there is a disturbing video of the dog being abused by a member of the family, who for some bizzare reason appears to be continually kicking at a ball that the dog is holding in its mouth. Many of the kicks could have been equally well aimed at the dogs head itself, so there is little wonder that the dog was badly behaved generally and out of control. It had previously attacked several other people, and the gruesome extent of the child's fatal injuries have not been generally reported.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/vide...which-killed-ellie-lawrenson-100252-19734955/

"Sergeant Paul Hudson was one of the fist police officers on the scene and he told the court in a statement: “The living room floor was awash with blood.

“I heard the dog in the garden and was concerned for our safety if it got in.

“It appeared frenzied, barking and baring its teeth at me. I was worried that it could run at the window and easily break the glass.”

Dog expert PC Peter Tallack told the court he examined the dog’s dead body the day after the fatal attack.

He said it was devoid of fat, with unusually well-developed neck muscles and it had immeasurable strength to bite and shake.

PC Tallack told the jury he watched video footage filmed by Kelsey Simpson of Reuben running round the house and playing with a football.

Kelsey told the court she was kicking at the ball in the dog’s mouth and PC Tallack said it was not conducive to good behaviour from a dog.

He said: “My heart was in my mouth watching that video.

“I could see the warning signs.” "​

 

[Yorkie]

Thank you, Yorkie. I had managed to grasp that fact. There comes a point, in a case like this, when the jury would have to decide whether or not the defendant knowingly allowed a dangerous dog into the hosue. From her evidence, it is clear that she knew the dog was a liability. She admitted that the dog had a violent past when it was beaten and it had been beaten before the owners left to celebrate New Years Eve. What evidence are we not privy to? What other possible evidence is there that could acquit her of the charge?

The judge summed up saying that she was already paying the ultimate price, in that she had lost her Grand Daughter. How? Allowing a dangerous dog (with a history of violent acts) to enter the house. Why did she do that? She said she felt sorry for the dog and her judgement was clearly impaired by two bottles of wine and ten joints. Pray tell me, what could possibly have saved her from a conviction, other than the fact that 'she was already paying for HER actions?

Without reading the evidence, I can't answer. There is probably a lot more to it than that.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Interesting viewing, Cheshire. What sort of person films themselves taunting a highly dangerous dog?

Without reading the evidence, I can't answer. There is probably a lot more to it than that.

But what other evidence could possibly affect the case of the prosecution? I know you are not privy to the case details, so I am asking if you would like to speculate.

She was under the influence, whilst in charge of a child. She let in a KNOWN TO BE dangerous dog.

The whole defence is based around the fact that she, allegedly, did not know the dog was not allowed in the house and that she didn't think it would attack Ellie. The person that could have offered evidence to send her down was her son...

Of course, she has suffered enough to be punished for her actions.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

scousers ,f***ing horrible,horrible c*nts,
self pitying vermin,
showed their true colours at the champions league final in Athens,
don't like queing for football games,
FACT
Horible c*nts,
a pox on the whole filthy,shitty ,self pit city.

 

[The Wookiee]

Juries don't deal with feelings. They can only judge on facts.

She smoked 10 joints - FACT
She drunk 2 bottles of wine - FACT
She knew the dog was a danger - FACT
She let the dog in the house - FACT

What the hell did she think the dog was going to do, roll over and let the kid tickle its tummy!!!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

scousers ,f***ing horrible,horrible c*nts,
self pitying vermin,
showed their true colours at the champions league final in Athens,
don't like queing for football games,
FACT
Horible c*nts,
a pox on the whole filthy,shitty ,self pit city.

I take it coming from Brighton, you are a cottaging camp gay, then Mr Baker, if we are going to peddle stereotypes.

 

[tedebear]

Without reading the evidence, I can't answer. There is probably a lot more to it than that.

I'm sure you're right but I'd like to read the transcripts - I'm finding it very difficult to understand the judges thinking in this case. As you say there must be far more to it than we know.

 

[m20gull]

On the Liverpool Echo website there is a disturbing video of the dog being abused by a member of the family, who for some bizzare reason appears to be continually kicking at a ball that the dog is holding in its mouth. Many of the kicks could have been equally well aimed at the dogs head itself, so there is little wonder that the dog was badly behaved generally and out of control. It had previously attacked several other people, and the gruesome extent of the child's fatal injuries have not been generally reported.

All I can see is an owner playing with their dog; not at all disturbing.

I don't doubt that the dog would be a danger around a small child - all dogs are, regardless of their size or upbringing.

I thought the dog had bitten one person and one other dog, not several other people (I was wrong - it was two people, one of whom was Ellie's aunt). My dogs are bitten by other dogs occasionally, that doesn't make the other dog dangerous - it makes it a dog. I also don't doubt the nature of the injuries, I have been bitten by a dog and can imagine the damage they could do to a small child, but that doesn't affect the trial.

The question is was she negligent?

The jury, following the evidence presented to them, said no.

 

[tedebear]

All I can see is an owner playing with their dog; not at all disturbing.

I don't doubt that the dog would be a danger around a small child - all dogs are, regardless of their size or upbringing.

If thats the footage which was on the BBC news last night, then no, I'd not call it disturbing, but kicking a football that a dog was holding in its mouth isn't really what I'd call appropriate "play" behaviour. I'd never kick a dog, nor kick at anything it was holding...

There are dogs which are dangerous - no question about it, its often in their breed, and many are bred for that purpose. But more often than not its the owners lack of attention/training/respect of the dogs which make them a danger to society.

 

[pasty]

What disturbs me most in this is the fact that the dog had been involved in 2 previous attacks. Irrespective of the owners wishes, I was under the impression that it is the norm to destroy dogs that have been involved in attacks?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I also don't doubt the nature of the injuries, I have been bitten by a dog and can imagine the damage they could do to a small child, but that doesn't affect the trial.

The question is was she negligent?

The jury, following the evidence presented to them, said no.

According to the first police on the scene the child's body was found in more than one piece........

I wasn't aware that aiming repeated kicks at a dogs head was regarded as "play".

 

[liverpool_one]

scousers ,f***ing horrible,horrible c*nts,
self pitying vermin,
showed their true colours at the champions league final in Athens,
don't like queing for football games,
FACT
Horible c*nts,
a pox on the whole filthy,shitty ,self pit city.

you sad sad uneducated piece of shit

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

you sad sad uneducated piece of shit

Calm down,calm down,
granny stabbing ,verminous scouse oxygen thief.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I wasn't aware that aiming repeated kicks at a dogs head was regarded as "play".

You don not seem to have had a respone Cheshire. I, too, would not regard repeated kicks at a dogs head as 'play' but what do I know? I wasn't there for the evidence?

 

[liverpool_one]

Calm down,calm down,
granny stabbing ,verminous scouse oxygen thief.

not self pitty just people who do not forget.
and for your information i'm not scouse i'm from brighton but now live at liverpool.
and i remember during the trouble times at brighton when a steward opened the exit gates to the north stand before the match started and let loads of people in for free now if we had any where near the support liverpool has we could have been facing similar tragedy of hillsborough or problems they had in athens. every city has it's scum yes even brighton.