She’s Not ‘A Victim’…

…she’s (partially) the cause:

Both Ms King and Mr Wright were both initially held on suspicion of manslaughter but in April were released without charge.

Addressing the hearing, Det Insp Peter Simm said he released Ms King because "I was of the opinion she was a victim herself of what happened that night".

"She was a very young mother who cared deeply for her child," he said.

Just not deeply enough not to shack up with the first unsuitable chav with a potential killer ‘pet’ she came across.

So to call her ‘a victim’ in the same sense as the baby the beast savaged to death is merely adding insult to injury.

The coroner said he had considered whether a verdict of unlawful killing could be returned by reason of gross negligence manslaughter, but that needed to be looked at with foresight rather than hindsight and required a gross breach in duty of care, which amounted in law to a criminal act.

He also needed to consider whether there was an obvious and immediate risk of serious injury to Ava-Jayne, he said.

As a result, he said, he shared the view expressed by the Crown Prosecution Service that the facts did not amount to gross negligence.

Really? You mean, despite all the previous case histories and sorry tales, bringing a baby into an environment such as this one didn’t present ‘an obvious and immediate risk of serious injury’?

I don’t know who’s dimmer, the chavmum or the authorities.