July 21, 2008 at 8:42 pm #61736AnonymousGuest
Anyone remember this one?
Interesting that on appeal the judge ruled that the dog did not bite the child but caused the injury to her face with it’s claws, and allowed the dog to go home. The police will not be taking any action against the owner either.July 21, 2008 at 8:44 pm #90229GSPmadMember
remember that one as was very close to home….July 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm #90230AnonymousGuest
Clearly they must have taken hospital records into consideration. It would surely have said on medical notes if the injuries were consistant with teeth.
I have to be honest this case always struck me as a little odd. In particular i did wonder at the time if the childs mother may have been telling her what to say on the news – i can still recall how the little girl was giggling into the camera when she insisted that she personally wanted the dog put down.
I know it sounds awful but at the time i couldn’t help wondering if mummy was putting words in her mouth because something about it seemed almost ‘staged’. It was weird to watch.July 21, 2008 at 8:58 pm #90231SuzAndTheDivaMember
very interesting – and yes judge will have had some reason to state that it was claws that caused the injury not tetth – It can happen, I have some serious scars from dog nails – infact the worst injury I got through work was a bite but infact a rather happy labrador jumping up and dragging his paw down my arm (just after id cut his nails) total accident nothing nasty about the dog, totally sliced my arm open fair amount of blood rather painfuland i still have the scars……
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.