ReikiAnge Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 it makes you think especially as the chief prosecution witness was a Rescue representative with no training nor behavioural background and who advised that bully be put down despite neither being present when the incident took place nor ever having met the dog let alone assessed temperament and who attempted to rubbish the comprehensive assessments that had been undertaken by qualified and eminent behavioural professionals. There are two sides to every story maybe this is something she should bear in mind in the future (not someone from refuge) Dear god. If she's happy to call for a dog to be killed in that situation then I worry for the rescue she represents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K9 Mac Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 I don't often post here - just normally check the help needed section, but WOW what good news! Really pleased for Bully's owners and shocked that a rescue representative was a prosecution witness What happens to dogs terrified at the change surroundings, who nip out of fear at that rescue?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazyhound Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 Fantastic news. So please for Bully and his family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggie110th Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 Great news ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranirottie Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 Thats great news but I am extremely concerned that a rescue rep would ask for a dog to be destroyed without even assessing the dog first or having first hand experience of the situation. That is a worrying state of affairs. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudi Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) No-one on this forum was present at the incident, anymore than the rescue rep was or the expert witnesses were, so I guess no-one really knows what happened. I'm not linked to the rescue in any way and the dog should have been assessed, but I believe the rep went on the basis of the photos of the injuries. The same photos from which the experts decided that the damage was caused by a claw and not a tooth. If there are inconsistencies on the side of the prosecution, then there are most certainly just as many on the side of the defence. This isn't just a nip or a scratch from a claw - Chloe's cheek was almost hanging from her face and she is left with a long scar. If people saw the injury they would understand more why the dog was initially to be put to sleep. I'm not saying he should be, I'm just trying to give a more complete picture. Unless Chloe has very good plastic surgery, she is scarred for life. The child is oblivious to the twists and turns of all the experts, all she knows is that Bully hurt her and now he's coming back to live near her again. She is understandably petrified of the dog and had to be calmed down for about two hours last night when she heard he was coming back and has said she won't go outside again in case he gets her. The family are planning to move away. I think this is a very hollow victory. I hope with all my heart that the experts are correct about Bully's temperament. Edited July 5, 2008 by Rudi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted July 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 No-one on this forum was present at the incident, anymore than the rescue rep was or the expert witnesses were, so I guess no-one really knows what happened. I'm not linked to the rescue in any way and the dog should have been assessed, but I believe the rep went on the basis of the photos of the injuries. The same photos from which the experts decided that the damage was caused by a claw and not a tooth. If there are inconsistencies on the side of the prosecution, then there are most certainly just as many on the side of the defence. This isn't just a nip or a scratch from a claw - Chloe's cheek was almost hanging from her face and she is left with a long scar. If people saw the injury they would understand more why the dog was initially to be put to sleep. I'm not saying he should be, I'm just trying to give a more complete picture. Unless Chloe has very good plastic surgery, she is scarred for life. The child is oblivious to the twists and turns of all the experts, all she knows is that Bully hurt her and now he's coming back to live near her again. She is understandably petrified of the dog and had to be calmed down for about two hours last night when she heard he was coming back and has said she won't go outside again in case he gets her. The family are planning to move away. I think this is a very hollow victory. As i said earlier this was a very bad injury about that there is no question, however on medical photos and evidence the court ruled that this damage was caused accidentally by a claw and I hope with all my heart that the experts are correct about Bully's temperament. i dont believe anyone else but the prosecution did comment on the events leading up to the incident, the decision was made by the judge and bench that the medical notes provided by the prosecution were not consistant with a bite or shaking as claimed by the prosecution but were consistant with a claw injury as was the report provided by a vet, and that the original case resulting in a destruction order was not proved by the prosecution. he ruled that the injury was not a vicious attack but a tragic accident. As i also said earlier the injury was severe and the trauma and pain that this child went through was awful, Bully is a large and very heavy dog and his full weight was obviously on his front end as he came down after jumping up. but it was decided in court that this was what the injuries caused were consistant with and that it was an accident. I understand the childs fears are real and that she may never be comfortable around dogs again and that is tragic, but the dog was not and is not ever allowed out off lead and i would assume that his owners will think carefully in future about arrangements when having gatherings. Lessons should and im sure will be learned because both parties are now aware that accidents can and do happen and that lives have been affected by this awful incident. Those lessons should also be learned by every one of us as accidents can and do still cause severe trauma to both parties. i am often told by visitors not to bother when i say hang on ill just sort the dogs out but i am glad that i do put my dogs away because at least i cannot put either them or visitors in the position all in this case are in. Unfortunately hindsight is a wonderful thing and accidents cannot be predicted that is why they occur. My comments re the prosecution 'expert' are based on my personal opinion and concern that someone with no medical knowledge or expertise diagnosed an injury as a bite and supported the euthanasia of a dog based solely on photographs and assumptions of what occurred and that i would not expect someone even with training and behaviour qualifications which i understand this person does not have to attend court and comment on a dogs temperament without ever laying eyes on the dog in question much less assessing it. i find that more than a little worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiye Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 I cant get my head round this I am upset of course for the victim, the little girl. It is an experience that will be with her for the rest of her life. I am happy for the owners. They have been a long time with out their loved pet, and who can say what a change this may have had on him too. I am furious at the handling of the case by the first judge. And how a Rotti breeder, and someone involved in welfare, can make such an off hand conclusion on a dog she has never laid hands on It has turned out to be a pretty 'costly' affair for all involved. I hope lessons have been learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusewalker Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 (edited) No-one on this forum was present at the incident, anymore than the rescue rep was or the expert witnesses were, so I guess no-one really knows what happened. I'm not linked to the rescue in any way and the dog should have been assessed, but I believe the rep went on the basis of the photos of the injuries. The same photos from which the experts decided that the damage was caused by a claw and not a tooth. If there are inconsistencies on the side of the prosecution, then there are most certainly just as many on the side of the defence. but the dog was assessed. by the defence's behaviour expert. so at least the defence behaviour expert actually met Bully, unlike this 'rescue rep', whom didnt. Edited July 6, 2008 by krusewalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusewalker Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 If there are inconsistencies on the side of the prosecution, then there are most certainly just as many on the side of the defence. According to Ryan O'Meara, there were no inconsistencies with the defence case. Ryan repoprts that during the original trial, the owner wasnt allowed to adjourn when his defence solicitor didnt turn up, forcing him to defend himslef, thus denying him a proper defence. In the appeal, the judge said the prosecution actually made the defences case for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traceymcl Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 I am glad that Bully has been allowed to keep his life and that his owners haven't lost their friend. But it's an awful situation all round. I'm not surprised that the little girl's family feel they need to move. I'd also find it very difficult to stay there under those circumstances. I hope they are able to get whatever counselling they all need to help them recover from it. It's a hard way to learn lessons. I feel for all the people involved. I do wonder how much influence the media has had on the emotional trauma felt by the little girl and her family. Had Bully been another kind of dog - a large goldie or a great dane - I wonder if the event would have been perceived as an aggressive attack or as an accident. I suspect that the belief that the dog had aggressively attacked the little girl may have played a part in the emotional distress felt. The little girl cannot have been unaware of how upset her adult carers have been and that must have influenced her ability to get over the incident. Children are so good at picking up on their parent's stress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted July 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 Just to clarify that it is unclear if the rescue whose representative was involved are aware of or condone this persons actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusewalker Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 Just to clarify that it is unclear if the rescue whose representative was involved are aware of or condone this persons actions I agree Rumpole. I dont know if that rescue condoned, were involved with, or were aware of their reps actions during this court case. Although, this person would have been hired as a witness by the prosecution because they work for this breed organisation. So one can justifiably ask the question are they happy with this? Also, when googling this organisation, it was the statement made by this organisation on their own website which i have quoted and questioned. Whilst im not saying the rescue rep wrote that statement on that website, nor that the rescue was involved in any of the statements made by their rep during the court case, i simply notice that both sets of statements share similar characteristics, the results of could result in misunderstood Rottweilers being terminated - in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudi Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 Why doesn't someone contact the organisation and ask? Normally rescues are not allowed to be bashed on this forum unless they are present to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddyboy Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 I am glad the judgement went in favour of an accident, as stated previously, if the dog had been any other breed presumably this is what it would have been classed as from the start. My mother is on Warfarin, and bruises and bleeds very easily - this weekend she met my new dog for the first time - he is still very excitable and jumped up (I am working on this, but he has only been with me a week so far!!).... his claw caught her and she bled, and bled, and bled, and bled. If anyone had seen this they could have made an assumption as he is half staffie therefore a vicious fighting dog - however much she annoys me at least my mother is pro-dog and knows it was an accident. (she has gone home covered in bruises where she bumped into things, had a toy thrown at her by "the boys" etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts