Cops: Girl Died While Playing With Family Dog

(AP) MANORVILLE A six-year-old girl playing with her dog in the backyard was strangled - when the pet apparently grabbed her scarf and playfully pulled her down to the ground and dragged her around the yard. Suffolk County Homicide Detective Lieutenant John Fitzpatrick calls it "an absolutely tragic story."

Police say the accident happened in the backyard of little Kaitlyn Hassard at 4:30 Tuesday afternoon. The girl came home from school wearing the scarf and the dog began pulling on it. The girl's mother put the dog in the backyard and a few minutes later Kaitlyn asked to go out and play with the dog, which weighs about 70 pounds.

The one-and-a-half Golden Retriever named Jessie, again began playing with the 40-pound girl tugging on her scarf.

Lieutenant Fitzpatrick says the girl was in the yard for no more than ten minutes, because the family was going to run an errand at the Post Office. When her eleven-year-old brother went to the backyard to get his sister, he found her lying on the ground.

The boy called his mother who called 9-1-1 and began CPR. The girl was pronounced dead at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital. Lieutenant Fitzpatrick says "there were no injuries inflicted by the dog." He adds "I don't believe the dog's actions were intentionally malicious."

OK, let me see if I got this right.

Girl comes home, dog starts pulling on her scarf, the mother puts the dog outside, and then when the girl asks to go out and play with the dog the mother lets her go out without taking off the scarf?

This Golden better not be put to sleep because of the mothers lack of brain function that led to this freak accident.

Hope it will find a new home, with older children.

Goldens are like their relatives the Lab, they are just big puppies until they are 2 or so, and some never really leave puppyhood.

I have a Golden named Maggie, a long legged 70# plus, dark reddish gold and Bear, a Chi-rat-xer mutt 15#, both will be 2 in April.

I also have young nieces and nephews ages 6-15, and the only one that can handle her is the 15 yr boy (6 1/2 ft 250# plus) and even that is a stretch when she is happy to see him. The 6 year old girl is a PITA when she is around the dogs, meaning she screams and does other things that just eggs them on. I never leave them alone together.

Bratgirl has gotten her fair share of scratches, lashes by the tail, tackled and sat on but also a lot of licks. Bratgirl isn't afraid to fight back, she has 3 older brothers.

Her 12 year old brother got a black lab puppy on Thanksgiving (from his Granddad - not from my sister who didn't want him to have a puppy because he isn't responsible enough), and he is going to be a big one, has huge paws already.

She does the same thing with him, screaming, running around ect. Actually he has grabbed onto her scarfs, clothes ect and knocked her over to sit on her and lick/ bite while outside playing ( he hasn't grown out of the biting stage yet), but as far as I know she is never left alone with him.

The problem is that no matter how vigilant of a parent you are, accidents will happen.

We have an 85 lb. Collie. Even now I won't let one of my kids, a nearly 12 yo boy, play with him alone. That's because the dog outweighs my son, and can easily hurt him when the dog get "riled up" in playing. If nothing else, the dog has big claws and if he paws at someone in play, that person will get scratched.

My 10 yo daughter, OTOH, takes no prisoners and is much less apt to get hurt by the dog. In fact, she riles him up on purpose and I have to protect the dog and daughter from one another sometimes.

Think Lassie. Even as gentle as a Collie normally is, they are dogs and will sometimes forget the kids aren't dogs or sheep. Also, the kids are not the Alpha around here, so the dog thinks of them more as equals.

The good news is all the kids have to do is yell "Mom" and the dog stops whatever he is doing.

I do see your point. However, it brings to mind the many things my husband and I said we would never do when we had kids. Then we had kids, and our opinions of a lot of changed.

In the case under discussion, giving the Mom the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure she did not foresee what was going to happen, or she would have protected her daughter. The Mom had the benefit of knowing how the dog plays with her daughter, ie., whether it played to roughly with her, and so forth.

What the Mom did not have was the time to sit down and analyze all the possible things that could go wrong if she let her daughter play in the yard with the dog. Maybe if she had, this wouldn't have happened. OTOH, foreseeing that the dog would pull her daughter around the yard by her scarf, thereby strangling the daughter, is pretty far-fetched.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. You'd really have to be there to put yourself into that mother's shoes. There is a lot going on at any given time in a household with kids and pets in it. Lots of distractions, lots of things to remember, lots to do -- sometimes accidents happen in the midst of all this, through no fault of anyone.

It's one of the hardest things about being a parent -- realizing you cannot protect your children from anything bad happening to them, no matter how vigilant you are, even if they are very young.

I think this was purely an accident. Certainly it is a reminder to us all that dogs can injure our children in play, and it would behoove us not to put too much trust in the maturity and judgment of a dog when it comes to our kids.

Quote: "You need to reread what I wrote. I wrote: "when someone suggests that a family who has been through this kind of tragedy deserves to be suspected of a crime IN LIEU OF ANY EVIDENCE"

You don`t have all the evidence, that was my point. You only have what some beat writer wrote in some newspaper article. That is not what I call evidence per se. If you put all your faith in the news media to tell you the truth, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

Quote: "The police did what they were supposed to do. A preliminary investigation is to look for inconsistencies in the evidence."

Isn`t this what I have been saying!! Now you seem to be agreeing with me. I said this the other day. "But there is a dead child here, and the reason for her death must be verified. You verify the reason for this death by investigating and ruling out possibilities. The dog causing this event may be the case, but then again it may not. You have to verify it though."

What we don`t know is how indepth this investigation has gone to this point. From the article nobody can really know for sure.

Quote: "If they find such, then they should do a full investigation."

What a second. I made this argument to a degree earlier, but in the opposite direction. I said, "But I will say, after a preliminary investigation has been completed, and no evidence is found to lead to another conclusion, then you end the investigation."

Quote: "I'm not sure why you think that what they did was not adequate and more investigation is required."

I don`t know the level of investigation that took place here from reading the article. And you can`t know for sure either, unless you are telelpathic or something...

Quote: "You are living in some alternate universe. I never implied any such thing."

Then why are you jumping all over me for wanting to make obsolutely sure the child was not a victim of foul play?

Quote; "Yes, when you said that you think fishing expeditions are a valid way of looking into crimes (notice I didn't say "investigating crimes")."

Thats not exactly what I said. Now you are simply putting words in my mouth. What do you do during an investigation? Don`t you look for clues, obtain facts, gather evidence , ask questions, etc.. etc.. You are basically fishing for answers. I think you are defining a term in a much more sinister way than I am.

Quote: "Your ideas as stated are more close to some of the European models of criminal investigation than to the US, where everyone is guilty until they establish their innocence."

How is that? I have never claimed anyone here is guilty of anything. Show me where I made this accusation that the family is guilty of committing some kind of crime.

Quote: "Just because something bad happens doesn't mean you automatically suspect foul play and force everyone in the vicinity to prove themselves innocent."

I never said this... You are making unfounded statements about me again. Asking someone a question does not mean they are a supsect. It means you simply want an answer to a question to rule out a possibility.

Quote: "If there are pieces of the puzzle which don't add up, i.e., stories which contradict evidence at the scene, then you need to do an actual investigation. Check out the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion"."

"actual" investigation? Isn`t any kind of investigation and actual investigation?

Would it be unreasonable to at least check/look into some backround of the family to see if there was ever any previous allegations/convictions of child abuse? If there is none, then you don`t persue it anymore, if you find its there, then you have to consider it.

Quote; "So my suggestion is for you to change the channel on the remote to something besides crime dramas like CSI."

I haven`t brought out anything remotely outlandish as the crap they put on that stupid TV show. But you have made some outlandish comparisons trying to bolster your argument. A childs death has nothing to do with politics. I won`t make that jump myself, but you did.

You keep implying that since it's a child that there needs to be more investigation, but all life is important and the procedures are followed no matter what age this type thing happens.

"Show me where I made this accusation that the family is guilty of committing some kind of crime. "

You have stated that they need to do an investigation to rule out whether the family might have done it. This is pretty much what they do in French law enforcement, for example, and constitutes presumption of guilt. The process is that they basically suspect everyone and then they investigate to rule out suspects, instead of looking for evidence that points to a suspect.

You should talk to some detectives. They very seldom find a situation where they don't know what happened, although that's the way it always happens in the movies and on TV because it's more exciting. I feel certain that the LEOs on the scene could determine what happened without going on a fishing expedition, and this is what they normally do.

Anyway, I doubt that I have made a dent in your opinion on this issue, but you might find it interesting to research it a bit more.

Quote: "You keep implying that since it's a child that there needs to be more investigation, but all life is important and the procedures are followed no matter what age this type thing happens."

You are correct, all life is important. But children tend to pull at heart-strings a little more because they are defenseless in so many ways. Children are just so much more vulnerable to crimes and coverups than adults. So for me, I expect no shortcuts from the police when investigating the death of a child.

Quote: "You have stated that they need to do an investigation to rule out whether the family might have done it."

A quick look into the backround of the family ( even neighbors) would not be out of line. You have to do it. If nothing is there, then nothing is there. But every now and then something pops up and you can be surprised where it can all lead.

Quote: "This is pretty much what they do in French law enforcement, for example, and constitutes presumption of guilt. The process is that they basically suspect everyone and then they investigate to rule out suspects, instead of looking for evidence that points to a suspect."

We live in the United States. You are innocent until proven guilty. I have never wavered from this position. You keep presuming just because I would like some questions answered, that I somehow think someone is guilty of a crime. I have never supported this position. But you have tagged me with supporting it. Why, I don`t know?

One thing about you, is you seem to be taking the writer at his word, the family at their word, and not considering the possibility foulplay may have happened in this case. It is possible, so you have to inquire and investigate to expel this possibilty. Even the official quoted in the news article used the word " apparently" (( quote:A six-year-old girl playing with her dog in the backyard was strangled - when the pet """apparently""" grabbed her scarf and playfully pulled her down to the ground and dragged her around the yard. Suffolk County Homicide Detective Lieutenant John Fitzpatrick calls it "an absolutely tragic story." ))

So the Detective quoted did not definitively state the girl was killed by the dog.

To add, you or I have no way of knowing if any other evidence was found at the scene and not stated by the officer , or included in the article.... I would expect if there was something unusual there, they wouldn`t mention it to the press this early on in the investigation anyway.

Quote: "You should talk to some detectives."

LOL !! I have friends who are detectives !! One who was in the local news recently on a false allegation of a sexual assault. DNA evidence proved he was innocent. It was a total bogus claim by some dirtbag woman who was about to get busted over a burglary. So she screamed she was sexually assaulted, and my friend lost his job. 1 1/2 years later !! , he was proven to be innocent of the charges, and she is now in jail. He still doesn`t have his job back, or his good name. So don`t go telling me about the presumption of guilt....

Quote: "They very seldom find a situation where they don't know what happened, although that's the way it always happens in the movies and on TV because it's more exciting."

You`re blowing smoke....and cut out the TV and movie crap as well. That is exactly what it is too, ....crap.....

Quote: "I feel certain that the LEOs on the scene could determine what happened without going on a fishing expedition, and this is what they normally do."

The chances are the girl was strangled by the scarf after the dog jerked on it. It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to make that determination. I always said this event plausible. BUT....just because a crime scene looks one way, doesn`t mean you skirt your duties to do a proper investigation. Crime scenes are not always what they seem. Criminals have a way of covering their tracks. This in no way means I am saying the parents of this child ( neighbors etc..) had anything to do with her death, but you still have to look at some things and determine there is nothing there.

A number of others on this thread share my view on this. I don`t see you calling them sick and heartless.....

By the way, how many grieving parents have you scene on CNN, FOX etc.. or your local news that ended up behind bars for actually murdering their child(ren)?

I feel for the parents, they lost their daughter, that is truly sad. But you cannot use the parents grief as a deterent to keep the police from doing their job.

Quote: "Anyway, I doubt that I have made a dent in your opinion on this issue, but you might find it interesting to research it a bit more."

In my opinion that I want the police to be absolutely sure this child was not the victim of foulplay? Yes, you are right, you haven`t made a dent in changing that opinion.

You are also correct in that I will find it interesting to research this more. If more info happens to show up on the case. If you find anything out, feel free to freepmail or ping me on it. I would appreciate that.

"We live in the United States. You are innocent until proven guilty. "

If you go digging into someone's background for no reason then you are not assuming innocent until proven guilty, you are making them a (potential) suspect. That's my point.

The experience of your friend (the detective) is an example of what I'm talking about here. Where was the presumption of innocence for him? Sounds like he got nailed even though there was scant (or maybe even no) evidence. Did they go ahead and conduct lots of background checking (i.e., fishing expedition) on him in lieu of any evidence and just because of the word of one person? If they did, do you agree that was the correct way to pursue it?

I agree with you that it's amazing and disgusting that it took him 1-1/2 years to get cleared of wrongdoing but that's part of the issue I'm talking about here. My view is that they made an assumption that he might be a suspect and he had to clear his name, whereas the burden of proof should have been on the accuser (of course, I am making some assumptions about the situation for your friend).

I don't know why you think I am asking them to skirt their duties. I am saying that the LEOs on the scene will make a determination of where to go from there, and I don't think that's skirting their duties at all. They usually can know what happened pretty quickly. Criminals can cover their tracks on TV but that happens rarely in real life, according to the detectives I've talked to.

Quote: "If you go digging into someone's background for no reason then you are not assuming innocent until proven guilty, you are making them a (potential) suspect. That's my point."

That`s nonsense. Being a suspect is not a presumption of guilt. I think you have these two words ( suspect and guilty ) confused.

By your mentality, if a crime seen showed no evidence of foul play, no investigation would be needed. So if a crook/killer set up the crime scene to cover his/her tracks, they would never be caught. Right?

Quote: "The experience of your friend (the detective) is an example of what I'm talking about here."

Huh, no it is not. He was "charged" with a crime without a "proper investigation". The DNA evidence was not there when he was charged, when it came back and showed he could not have committed the crime, the charges where dropped. But while he was fighting it, he was released from the force and was nearly wiped out financially.

I never said the family was guilty of anything or were even suspects. I said they should just check the backround and ask a few questions and if nothing showed up, then they could move along.

Quote: "Where was the presumption of innocence for him?"

Yes, you are right on that one. The police took the word of the woman (one who was a felon) over one of their own to avoid some nasty P.R. in the local media.

Quote: "Sounds like he got nailed even though there was scant (or maybe even no) evidence."

The police didn`t do their job. It was a fouled up mess of an investigation. Totally sloppy work, period.

Quote: "Did they go ahead and conduct lots of background checking (i.e., fishing expedition) on him in lieu of any evidence and just because of the word of one person?"

Yes, they did. And found nothing.. Then they simply took the word of the woman, who had a criminal past, and charged him with a crime.

Quote; "If they did, do you agree that was the correct way to pursue it?"

They had to check his backround, he was accused of sexually assaulting a woman. They did their job on that part.

Quote: "I agree with you that it's amazing and disgusting that it took him 1-1/2 years to get cleared of wrongdoing but that's part of the issue I'm talking about here."

It was the DNA lab they used that was the big problem. They had the spokesperson from the lab on TV trying to defend themselves. Their excuse? " We are doing the best we can".......

Quote: "My view is that they made an assumption that he might be a suspect and he had to clear his name, whereas the burden of proof should have been on the accuser (of course, I am making some assumptions about the situation for your friend)."

No , it was an issue that everything the woman said put my friend in her presence at the times she stated. Which was all true to a point. Except the part about him making a sexual advance on her, which the DNA evidence showed he could not have done what she said. But since the lab took forever to get the results back, he was in a ringer. It was a typical case of a cop hating prosecuting attorney who wanted to get their name in the paper for nabbing a cop. And the Chief of police was a slimeball without a spine and caved into the media pressure. If they simply took the time to look at the evidence and get the lab results back in a reasonable time, he would have not had to go through what he did. It was sickening to see.

Quote; "I don't know why you think I am asking them to skirt their duties."

You stated they should leave the parents alone because they were grieving. That is not an excuse for the police to not do their jobs.

Quote: "I am saying that the LEOs on the scene will make a determination of where to go from there, and I don't think that's skirting their duties at all."

Actually there are protocols on what is done at certain crime scenes. They cannot shirk those duties.

I think you are letting your emotions play into how the police should have handled the case with the young girl and that is something you cannot do. Emotions must be put on the back burner, that is why there are protocols that must be followed.

Quote: "They usually can know what happened pretty quickly."

In many cases , yes. But they still have procedures they must follow.

Quote: "Criminals can cover their tracks on TV but that happens rarely in real life, according to the detectives I've talked to."

That is because most detectives thoroughly investigate crime scenes and tend to leave no stones unturned. Which was my initial point to this whole exchange we have had !!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.