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.
Here is a site that does follow up investigations of news reports of DBRFs and other attacks.
It identifies and analyzes the factors involved in and contributing to the particular dog attack.
If you want the most accurate unbiased information on dog attacks, that I’ve found,
including public policy options to deal with dog attacks, and a library of Research materials, this is a site you might consider.
fwiw...I highly recommend it.
https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/