This web site contains all of the significant court documents relating to this case, including witness statements and legal submissions.
Each of the links at left takes you to a particular category of document, and the page link gives a brief explanation to help understand the content and significance of the documents in that category. The information provided is factual and explanatory. Except for the following notes on this page, there is no editorial comment or "spin".
The material is here for readers to form their own views.
Logan City Council has, sadly and disappointingly, put a "spin" on the outcome of this case which the site authors do not consider to be consistent with the facts.
The documents on this site demonstrate, by speaking for themselves, the factual truth of 2 things which Logan
First, the evidence in this case did expose the scientific and technical falsity of the "22 point test" as a breed identification process. Mr Da Fre called a range of professional witnesses with dog breeding, dog judging and scientific qualifications who all stated absolutely and unequivocally that the use of a breed standard as a "breed ID" tool for dogs of unknown parentage is professional and scientific nonsense. They all testified without qualification that a breed standard is a document designed and useful only for judging and related purposes when the breed of the dog being judged or assessed is already known and undisputed. See their statements.
The Council called no evidence to the contrary by any similarly qualified person.
It leading witness Ms Pomeroy could point to no-one anywhere in the world who supports her theory about using breed standards as a breed ID tool. She admitted that her assessment technique was entirely "self-taught", and her ultimate response when pressed about the professional or scientific basis for her system was "I use the standards. So obviously I think it works".
Ms Perkins asserted, and firmly maintained, that her undergraduate veterinary degree was a relevant breed identification qualification. A past President of the Australian Veterinary Association, 29 years in practice, told the Court unequivocally that it was not. That aside, her evidence was that her only other formal breed identification qualification was a course designed and taught by Ms Pomeroy. She otherwise asserted, and relied upon, her general experience and expertise.
The author of the breed standard gave evidence (by telephone from the USA
Second, the Council's public position that it withdrew before final judgement because of the "late" DNA evidence is simply untrue, at least so far as concerns what it said and did in Court.
As the transcripts show, the DNA evidence was given to the Council nearly 3 weeks before the trial resumed on19 June 2006 . The Council did seek an adjournment at the opening on 19 June to further consider the DNA evidence. The public does not know what may have been said, done or intended "behind the scenes". However, that adjournment was refused (in fairness to Mr Da Fre). The Council was then asked by the Court whether it still opposed the appeal. The Council's lawyers told the Court that it did, and the appeal ran, hotly contested by the Council, for the next 3 days, making 6 days in total.
As the transcripts show, the DNA evidence was given to the Council nearly 3 weeks before the trial resumed on
During that period, the Council first tried and failed to attack the DNA evidence and then, when that evidence had been, if anything, strengthened by the Council's cross-examination, turned tack 180 degrees and called Ms Perkins to give further evidence that, yes, she now accepted the DNA evidence after all, but that the (Staffy) mother was also a pit bull. Her final statements to the Court were to "reinforce my already firmly held view that Rusty is a pit bull terrier type of dog".
That was the Council's case, as put before the Court, with full knowledge of the DNA evidence. To say that it then withdrew - about a week later - after evidence but beforejudgement - because of the DNA evidence is contrary to the clear and simple facts on the public record. It withdrew because it acknowledged in an open letter to Mr Da Fre that it could not prove that Rusty was an APBT.
Despite full knowledge of the DNA evidence, the Council's witnesses, Messrs Pomeroy and Perkins, never modified or withdrew their evidence that, based on the 22 point test, they were absolutely certain that Rusty was a pit bull. The DNA evidence made Ms Perkins morecertain about her identification, not less.
The only rational inference is that Council withdrew because it knew that the Court would find that this evidence was incapable of proving its case.
Each ratepayer and resident can form their own opinion of the Council's actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment