issued in court April 30, 2010
released a week later in writing
Note: there are a few unclear statements in this text. In the verdict (not posted yet), the judge said she did not give much weight to the testimony of one witness, Harold Crowell, an electrician, because he had done work for me in the past. This is incorrect. He never did any work for me. He is a neighbor. His house is about 1 km down the road. We did meet once, for a few minutes, long before the incident he witnessed the morning of July 20, 2008. He didn't testify that he had done work for me, nor did I. Unfortunately, his testimony was the most objective and accurate. Instead, the judge put most of the weight on the testimony of David Shea, who was the man walking two dogs (chihuahua and a black lab), and my neighbor across the road, who admitted she didn't see anything, but claims to have heard sounds. She also claimed Brindi had tried to attack people four times. That statement was untrue ; nobody ever reported such a thing, yet it was used on the information to obtain the seizure warrant. David Shea changed his story several times after he reported the incident, especially regarding whether his dog was injured. He didn't report any injury originally, but claimed one later, then changed back, and so on. In fact, I tried to get the judge to strike all of his testimony as unreliable - and after all, he testified over eighteen months later - but she would not. Had the judge put most of her weight on Harold Crowell's testimony (and unfortunately I don't have a digital file of the transcript yet), her verdicts would have been very different, and/or the sentencing, especially the condition for doing training while Brindi was still in the pound! I will try to get that on here soon.
It's not insignificant, because HRM has been whipping up Judge Murphy's remarks about future incidents as if they set down a rule that Brindi would have to be put down if anything further happened.
SO much for muzzle orders that automatically render a dog dangerous.