not guilty of manslaughter

[Elasticwoman]

The woman whose son's dog mauled her granddaughter to death is not guilty of manslaughter.

What is she guilty of?
Bad luck?
stupidity?
drunk & stoned in charge of a child?
having children herself before growing up?

I think taking (reportedly) over a bottle of wine and ten joints whilst having responsibility for a small child is awful

But apparently the courts don't see that

I was surprised by the verdict.
I can only think that the jury were party to a great deal of mitigating information that wasn't released to the press.
But I can't think what that might be.

Agree Peachy - when I heard that on the radio prior to the verdict I thought she would definitely be facing a jail sentence. Her daughter has also managed to forgive her it seems (called her the best mother in the world - shame she sucked as a granny really).

One glass of wine V TEN (illegal) cannabis joints and over a bottle of wine

there is no comparison

Absolutely. I think the courts need to be careful about saying you can't drink when there is a child in the house. I could be guilty on a number of occasions!

Then again, I don't own a pit bull terrier, but I do own a poodle. Dogs are unpredictable and can be quite gentle at some times and vicious at others. I think she felt that the dog wouldn't bite - clearly she was wrong and this may have been accentuated by the fact that she was drunk and stoned. I don't know if this is manslaughter though.

Just to add also, that a glass of wine for one person is a bottle of wine for another. It depends how much you are used to boozing.

I saw the child's father on tv last night. He hasn't forgiven mother-in-law. Has the traumatic bereavement split the parents' relationship?

The grandmother broke her daughter's rule of not having the dog in the house at the same time as the child.
The parent's could see already it was a danger.
Like leaving a loaded gun around a toddler

I think it was demonstrated in court that the dog had bitten before on more than one occasion. So she knew perfectly well it was bloody dangerous. Not arguing with the verdict, though, lots of other factors to take into account. But I do think 'we' should be clear that this was not an unpredictable outcome.

Crikey, sorry, wrong use of apostrophe

Oh, apparently one previous bite happened when the dog owner (uncle) hit the bloody dog. So he was clearly not a fit and proper person to own any animal, let alone a pit bull type.

The dog was so dangerous that it couldn't be let into the house with the a child. It had bitten two other people shortly before. Eight weeks for continuing to keep that dog despite knowing how dangerous it was is a pretty short sentence IMO.

What about the dogs owner, the uncle ? He had a dangerous, banned dog and got 8 weeks !!! He should have been up on the manslaughter charge. He knew it was a dangerous dog. So did the grandmother though. My ex BIL had a staff bull terrior that although was as soft as cotton wool was not allowed around my kids when we visited. He said he loved his dog and didn't think he would ever attack anyone but he couldn't 100 % trust him and would rather not take the risk. He also said that if the dog ever attempted to attack anyone he would have him put down straight away. I really feel for the parents and hope they can overcome how this will surely affect their relationship.

I agree that there is probably a lot of information regarding the grandmother which was not made public. Sounds to me like she has suffered from depression and/or similar problems.

There are no winners here. She will have to live with the fact that she basically caused her grand daughter's death in the most horrible violent way imaginable.

Regardin the dog itself: it was a banned species but I think the owner ( her son) was penalised for that already so strictly speaking she couldn't be prosecuted for owning an illegal animal as it wasn't hers.

Awful all round.