The woman I spoke with was the Animal Control Officer that dealt with and saw the dog in question.
I did an investigation by verifying with a professional that had seen the dog with her own eyes.
Dogsbite.org did NO investigation but only repeated a newspaper account and REFUSED to change their account when presented with the facts.
Dogsbite.org is NOT an excellent source of info.
...and yet you choose to believe them and their newspaper based account rather than a professional eye-witness. /smh
Have a Nice Day
We’ve talked about this before. I pointed out that we don’t know how many people viewed the animal, what their relative levels of training was, if DNA tests were used, if prior info as to breed was available, what the sympathies of the “professional” in question were. You repeatedly state that this person must be believed despite lack of evidence or that her opinion is in fact evidence without viewing all other evidence. Given your absent standards for “fact”, I’m puzzled why you assert that Dogsbite.org MUST be wrong. We just can’t agree on this.