THE SPECIFIC USE OF EVIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF DOG BITE RELATED HUMAN FATALITIES
By
JAMES W. CROSBY
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2016
© 2016 James W. Crosby
2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the contributions and efforts of the following:
Dr. Randall Lockwood, for his mentorship and for breaking early ground in the field of DBRF research, Dr. Kenneth Cohrn for explaining the intricacies of bites and dentition, Dr. Jason Byrd for shepherding me through the degree jungle, and all three gentlemen for agreeing to serve as my committee advisors.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of Dr. Ian Dunbar.
I sincerely thank the various Police Departments and Sheriff's Offices with whom
I have worked for their cooperation and permitting me to gather data from my cases.1
I thank the National Animal Control Association, the Alabama Animal Control
Association, the Florida Animal Control Association, the Alberta Bylaw and Animal
Control Officers' Association, and other agencies and groups that have allowed me to interact, share data, and both teach and learn through association with their personnel and their cases.
Thank you also to the prosecuting, defense and civil attorneys that have recognized the importance of this work and the need for further investigation, the Animal
Rescue and welfare groups that have sought my help and allowed me to observe and evaluate dogs in their care, and particularly the dog owners and victim families who have cooperated and shared access and information to allow research into these tragedies.
1 Due to confidentiality the author is unable to share individual agency identities here, but there are many and all are greatly appreciated.
3 To the families of the victims, past and future: I give my deepest condolences and hope that their families' loss can help save lives in the future.
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………………3
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………….8
LIST OF TABLES……………………………...... 9
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………… 10
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION...... 11
History and Quantification of Dog Bites...... 13 Review of the Literature ...... 15 Legal Basis for Accountability in DBRF Cases ...... 17
2 INVESTIGATION ...... 24
Need for Competent Investigation...... 24 The Effect of Dog Bites and DBRF on Community Perceptions of Safety...... 27
3 CANINE AGGRESSION ...... 30
What is Aggression?...... 30 Aggression as a Response to Welfare Issues...... 31 Defense Aggression...... 33 Aggression in Resource Protection...... 36 Aggression and the Social Contract...... 39 Human Factors Influencing Domestic Dog Aggressive Behavior...... 40 Domestic Dog Aggressive Behavior as a Clinical Abnormality...... 40 Domestic Dogs and Perception of Threat and Challenge...... 41 Pack Behavior...... 42
4 DOG BITE EVIDENCE...... 43
Definition of a Dog Bite...... 43 Defining Bite Mark Evidence...... 45 Purpose of a Dog Bite...... 48 Severity of Bites...... 51 Assessment of Dog Bite Injury...... 52 Parameters of Dog Bite Comparison...... 59 Cautions in Bite Mark Interpretation...... 61 Ante-mortem, Peri-Mortem, and Post-Mortem Bite Injury...... 67
5 5 BEHAVIOR...... 72
Behavior Evaluations ...... 72 Risk Assessment...... 81
6 EVIDENCE ...... 83
Circumstantial or Situational Evidence...... 83 Witness Interviews ...... 88 Behavioral Evidence...... 90 Dog Behavior ...... 90 Human behavior...... 94
7 EVIDENCE COLLECTION ...... 97
Human Sample Collection ...... 97 Sample Collection from the Animal ...... 99 Media Relations...... 107
8 CASE ANALYSIS ...... 112
Warning and Provocation...... 116 Interpreting Attack Severity ...... 120
9 CONCLUSIONS ...... 125
Investigation ...... 125 Rehabilitation ...... 126 The Breed Question...... 128 Prosecution ...... 134
APPENDIX
A IMMEDIATE ACTIONS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ...... 136
B RESPONSE CHECK SHEET-ANIMALS...... 137
C RESPONSE CHECK SHEET-HUMAN VICTIMS ...... 140
D DOG BITE INVESTIGATIVE WORKSHEET ...... 142
E DOG BEHAVIOR EVALUATION WORKSHEET ...... 148
F DUNBAR SCALE ...... 153
G EXAMPLE CASE REPORT...... 156
H CASE FILES REFERENCED...... 168
6 LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 169
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 179
7 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1-1 Three “killer Pit Bulls” from files of author re: Case #3………………………….23
2-1 ABFO #2 Photomacrographic scale………………………………………………69
2-2 Human dentition…………………………………………………………………….69
2-3 Canine dentition…………………………………………………………………….70
6-1 Severe abdominal tearing from multi-dog attack………………………………..96
8 LIST OF TABLES
Table page
2-1 Strict Liability States………………………………………………………....24
2-2 Mixed Liability States………………………………………………………..24
2-3 One Bite Rule States………………………………………………………..24
3-1 Five Freedoms……………………………………………………………....43
4-1 Dunbar Bite Assessment Scale……………………………………………71
6-1 Canine Behavior Factors…………………………………………………...96
9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
THE SPECIFIC USE OF EVIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF DOG BITE RELATED HUMAN FATALITIES
By
James W. Crosby
August 2016
Chair: Jason H. Byrd Co-Chair: Bruce A. Goldberger Major: Veterinary Medical Science
Death of a human by dog attack is a rare incident. Due to that rarity, many Law
Enforcement and Animal Control agencies are poorly prepared and lack experience in these specific investigations. Yet these are homicides, the killing of a human beings, and must be investigated as such using evidence rather than being dismissed or regarded as unimportant. Further, some alleged dog bite related fatalities have been later found to be other crimes disguised by dog attack, such as the case of murder documented by Boglioli (2000) Some cases of this sort have not been prosecutable due to inadequate investigation.
The evidence needs of these cases are different than in most homicide cases due to the nature of the instrumentality of death: a domestic canine. This study will examine investigative techniques, tools, and the gathering and use of evidence in dog bite related fatality (DBRF) investigations. Using these tools and techniques the investigator will be able to effectively gather and evaluate the case-specific evidence needed for analysis and potential prosecution and presentation in court.
10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Domesticated dogs are human companions in much of the world. Varying archaeological and ethnographic studies estimate that dogs have lived in close proximity to humans and as some part of human society for between 15,000 (De
Munnynck 2002) and 40,000 (Vila, et al.1997) years. Varying theories of domestic dog origin place the site of early domestication in Central Asia, Northern Europe, and
Southeast Asia (Ding, 2012), with an assortment of "foundations" (Leonard, 2002). No matter where or when they began, domestic dogs have become deeply entwined in human society. Widely based research is underway in the establishment and continuance of the human-animal bond, and domestic dogs are a centerpiece in much of this research.
Dog stories are generally warm and comforting. Veterans are guided to and through physical and emotional rehabilitation by canine companions. Blind persons depend on dogs for mobility. Therapy dogs are recognized in medical, psychiatric and incarceration environments as aiding treatment, improving outcomes, and reducing stress. Yet sometimes things go wrong. According to the American Academy of
Pediatrics (2011), half of all children in the United States will be bitten by a dog before they complete High School. Dog bite injuries are common, and at times life threatening.
Dog bite related fatalities (abbreviated DBRF for this paper) get huge media attention (Jones, 2003) and have profound, wide reaching effects on human communities and their pet owning population. Effects range from restrictive Dangerous
Dog laws to outright bans of particular breeds and sometimes wholesale slaughter programs focused on perceived strays. Surprisingly, one rarely encounters investigators
11 asking "Why?". Why did the dog bite? Was the bite deliberate or an accident? What was the set of circumstance that led to the final outcome? What did the dog see or feel that led him to resort to a bite?
In cases in the past, Law Enforcement has adopted an attitude of "The dog did it.
We are done" which has led to poor investigative techniques and even the occasional use of dog attack to cover up other criminal activity (Boglioli 2000). As an example, during the investigation of the killing of Diane Whipple in 2001, the process of handling the case was a venture into new territory for the San Francisco Police Department. As described in Red Zone, the popular crime book written by Aphrodite Jones (2003, p.13),
"Initially, it wasn't being treated as a homicide case-- there was no evidence of malice, the victim was still alive, and there was this strange fact that the incident was caused by an animal, not a human. It was an odd situation."
Cases presumed to be DBRF cases have at times been found to be more. In
New York a couple claimed that their dog attacked and ate an infant. Further investigation revealed that the couple killed the baby and then sliced it up and attempted to dispose of it by feeding it to the dog. (Boglioli, 2002) This author investigated a case wherein a child was allegedly taken and killed by street dogs in
India. (Case #18) Other “experts” were contacted by local investigators, who claimed that the child must have been kidnapped by exactly two imported, black market, Pit
Bulls from the United States. (Author’s files) An examination of the crime scene photos and autopsy reports indicate that the child was instead killed by some other means and scavenged upon by street dogs post-mortem.
12 Law Enforcement agencies who do recognize that these cases are homicides deserving full investigation are often poorly equipped to handle the specialized needs of investigating a human fatality caused by a domestic dog. These agencies may be unaware of the application of evidence particular to the investigation and ultimate prosecution of a crime that involved a semi-independent, decision making being as a possible instrument of death. Again, we look back to the Whipple case: "There had never been a precedent for this kind of case in San Francisco. There had never been an adult seriously mauled by a dog that Becker was aware of." (Jones, 2003, p.13).
Reinventing the wheel is no longer necessary in DBRF cases. There have been a number of successful prosecution for varying levels of homicide as a result of dog attack wherein humans have been sent to prison (Brewer, 2005, author's files). This paper is an attempt to recommend best practices and resources available for the full investigation of DBRF cases and incorporates techniques and data that the author has developed in over ten years of research and direct investigation of DBRF cases. Our search will be to examine how these cases differ from "normal" homicides, and how they are similar. We will examine existing research in varying evidentiary disciplines, note their application to dog bite fatality cases, and review previous work in dog bite analysis. We will incorporate processes in physical and trace evidence, DNA analysis, bite mark analysis and interpretation, behavior analysis, interview, and interrogation as applied to companion animal history and socialization, and technical processes such as forensic necropsy and autopsy.
History and Quantification of Dog Bites
Dog bite incidents are quite common. In 1994, 1.8% of the U.S. population was bitten by a dog, while 0.3% of the U.S. population sought medical care for a bite (Sacks,
13 Lockwood 1996). Later studies have reinforced that rate of occurrence (De Keuster
2002) determining that, of the approximately 4.7 million dog bites in the United States in a typical year, 800,000 bites required medical attention and 370,000 were serious enough to be treated in Emergency Rooms. In 2008, there were 316,200 ER visits and
9,500 hospital stays related to dog bites (Holmquist and Elixhauser, 2010).
Comparable ratios are found in Europe (De Keuster 2002) with approximately 1% of the population bitten each year. These figures for both the United States and Europe may be underreported due to factors to be discussed later, including owner attachment and familial loyalties. During a study in Spain covering the period of 1995-2004
(Rosado, 2008), the researchers discovered that there was a significantly higher incidence of dog bites in rural areas (71.3 per 100,000 population) than in densely populated areas (12.8 per 100,000 population).
Fatal dog attacks on humans are, in contrast, a relatively rare occurrence. During the period 1989-1994, 109 deaths were identified, giving a rate of 7.1 deaths per 100 million population per year (Sacks, Lockwood 1996). The US Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) (Centers for Disease Control, 2000 and 2011) relates that an average of less than thirty fatal bites occur in the US each year. More people are killed each year in the U.S. by lightning strike. (National Weather Service, 2016) Considering that estimate, the odds of being killed by dog bite are significantly less than the chances of dying while falling in the bathtub or shower (National Safety Council, 2000). During the study period
1995-2004 in Spain there were no fatal attacks (Rosado, 2008).
The victims of fatal dog attacks are often children. One study shows that seventy percent of DBRF occurred in children younger than 10 years old (Overall 2001). More
14 specifically, infants are at extreme risk, with neonates overall two orders of magnitude more likely to suffer a dog bite related fatality than adults (Sacks, Lockwood 1996). The rate of death by dog bite for neonatal humans is 370 times that of adults 30 to 49 years old (Overall, 2001).
In third world countries, infection and death from Rabies (lyssaviruses) is a large contributor to DBRF, resulting in approximately 55,000 deaths per year (De Keuster
2002). Rabies deaths in the United States are extremely rare according to the Centers for Disease Control (Dyer 2014) and will not be included in this paper.
Review of the Literature
Reviewing the literature on dog bites and dog bite prevention reveals that there is tremendous interest in the subject, particularly in popular media. A Google search on
"dog bite" conducted on 15 March 2016 gave 3,810,000 responses. "Dog bite prevention" yielded 423,000 responses. "Fatal dog bite" responses numbered 302,000.
Books regarding fatal dog attacks are relatively few in number. From Red Zone
(Jones, 2003), which detailed the killing of Diane Whipple in 2001 at a San Francisco apartment building, to The Pit Bull Placebo (Delise, 2007), most existing books address the subject either from the view of the crime reporter or address the question of which dog or type of dog is "most dangerous". Books that cover canine aggression issues and treatment, such as Aggression in Dogs (Aloff, 2002) and Pet Behavioral Protocols
(Hetts, 1999) are focused on identification and treatment of problematic aggressive behavior. Fatal dog bite wounds are addressed in forensic odontology texts (Dorion,
2005), articles (Lessig, 2006; Merman, 2006) and briefly in veterinary forensic texts
(Crosby, in Merck, 2nd edition, 2012), while a selection of attacks are documented in
15 Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics (Delise, 2002). A full guidebook on such investigations is, however, lacking at this time.2
Scholarly articles regarding DBRFs are relatively extensive. They focus on several general categories: the incidence of fatal attacks versus perceived or identified breed of the dogs involved (Sacks, 1996; Overall, 2001; Sacks and Lockwood, 2000): the epidemiology of fatal dog bites, searching for contributing factors and characteristics
(Fatjo, 2007; De Keuster, 2009; Wright, 1985): and the actual injuries inflicted from a treatment standpoint (Calkins, 2001; Oshima, 2008):
Sources cited by the media when referring to DBRF cases vary in quality. Often cited as an authority is the website dogsbite.org and various allied sites. The site is billed as "Advocates for dog bite victims", but originally the site was dedicated to the promulgation of anti-Pit Bull messaging. The web site owner, Colleen Lynn, currently residing in the Austin, Texas area, describes herself as a "Pit Bull Attack survivor".
However, Ms. Lynn has no academic, behavioral or forensic credentials: her background is in self-taught web design and a former career as a psychic known as
"Divine Lady, Beholder of the Soul” (Dickey, 2016, p.186). She is supported by Mr.
Merritt Clifton, another anti-Pit Bull activist who self publishes Animal People newsletter and an animal rights news blog titled Animals 24-7 (Dickey, 2016, p.187). Mr. Clifton has published several "studies" regarding dog bite fatalities, focusing on Pit Bull dogs as the primary suspects. His records of fatalities identify a number of dogs as "Killer Pit
2 In 2016 the book "Dog Aggression" will be published by The University of Lincoln Press, Lincoln, England, Dr. Daniel Mills and Dr. Carri Westgarth, editors. In this book are two chapters by this author; one on dog bite analysis and one on investigating DBRF cases. This is the only reference guide to date on these particular cases.
16 Bulls", including dogs identified by this author personally as a Labrador Retriever, a
Doberman, and a scruffy looking Terrier mix that resembled the Hollywood movie dog
"Benji" (Case #3, Appendix) (Figure 1).
On the other end of the spectrum is information distributed and published by the
National Canine Research Council, an organization funded largely by the Animal Farm
Foundation (animalfarmfoundation.org and nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com). The
National Canine Research Council is led by author Karen Delise. Ms. Delise is a former records clerk for the Nassau County (NY) Sheriff's Department who has amassed a large number of DBRF files from police agencies, animal control agencies, and from this author. Although the NCRC reports are more balanced and contributors include recognized academic researchers such as Dr. Karen Overall, Animal Farm and the
NCRC are admittedly Pit Bull advocates.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are providers of dog bite injury statistics, including DBRF (Centers for Disease Control, 2000 and 2011). Their statistics are compiled from hospital injury reports and public health records.
Legal Basis for Accountability in DBRF Cases
DBRF investigations have two distinct but overlapping possibilities for holding the dog owner, if necessary, accountable for their action or inaction that led to the death of another human. These two paths are through criminal prosecution and civil litigation.
Standards for proof and evidence admissibility differ in the two venues, and the investigator should keep these differences in mind.
Either path involves a basic set of assumptions: a dog did something that resulted in the death of a human being. The something that the dog did is to be attributed to the actions of a human, or the failure of a human to act. This supposes that
17 the human had some sort of influence over the dog, or that the human had a measure of control over the actions of the dog.
Commission of a crime generally requires a mens rea or state of mind that allows deliberate, conscious decision making. Jameson notes (1988) "At common law, persons do not incur criminal liability unless the prosecution proves both that a certain state of affairs has been caused by their conduct and that that conduct was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. Both of these elements (often referred to as the actus reus and mens rea) of the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution."
According to Faigman (1997, p. 223) "The legal paradigm is constructed around assumptions of free will and individual responsibility..." Free will is generally accepted to be a human feature, but the status of free will in non-human animals is still under examination. Heidegger (2009) states that "The physiology of how this happens has been little investigated. But there is plenty of evidence that an animal's behavior cannot be reduced to responses." Current legal opinion is that animals themselves lack mens rea and therefore cannot themselves commit a criminal act. Thus we must go to the human caretaker, if any, to assess responsibility.
In the criminal prosecution of homicide there are several basic elements that must exists: 1) a human has died, 2) due to a particular mechanism, 3) that was unlawful, 4) that can be attributed to one or more human actions or inaction, and 5) that the death could not have been reasonably foreseen by the person(s) responsible for the action or inaction. Homicide is the killing of a human being, and can be classified as: justified, excusable, accidental, criminal, or negligent. The degree to which a homicide
18 is found to be neither justified, excusable or accidental establishes the grounds for criminal or negligence prosecution.
The foundations for criminal cases involving DBRF center around two main issues: malicious action and negligence. Dogs may be used in deliberate, criminal homicide. A dog can be trained and directed to injure or kill a specific human under specific circumstances, essentially establishing the dog as a weapon. Cases of the use of a dog to deliberately kill a person are relatively rare. The literature shows a few cases wherein a person intentionally set a dog upon another person to kill the target. The human subject creates a situation where they can direct a dog to attack a specific person, with the human having intent to do great bodily harm or effect the killing of the victim.
Criminal negligence is more involved. In these cases, the prosecution needs to establish that the owner or caretaker:
1. Knew, or should have known as a reasonable person, that behavior the dog had previously shown was potentially or in fact dangerous.
2. Failed to either recognize the danger, remediate the danger, or properly manage and control the danger to prevent injury or death from the potential action of the dog, and
3. That the owner's action or inaction led to the death of a person.
The killing of Diane Whipple in 2001 was an early high profile case of holding humans criminally responsible for their dogs killing another human. Before Whipple cases are relatively few.
The first case on record for such a conviction involving dogs is Munn v. State,
(158 Fla. 892, 30 So. 2d 501 (1947), where the defendant's conviction for manslaughter
19 was upheld for the killing of a woman by defendant's dogs. In that case, Florida State
Statute § 782.12 (1941) provided:
If the owner of a mischievous animal, knowing its propensities, shall willfully suffer it to go at large, or shall keep it without ordinary care and such animal while so at large or not confined kills any human being, who shall have taken all the precautions which the circumstances may permit to avoid such animal, such owner shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter. (158 Fla. at 893)
After Munn in 1947, one has to go to 1988 and Turnipseed v. State (186 Ga.
App. 278, 367 S.E.2d 259 (1988). In Turnipseed, the defendant's three pit bull terriers killed a child. The appellate court affirmed Turnipseed's conviction of involuntary manslaughter based on the underlying misdemeanor of reckless conduct. His reckless conduct was failing to adequately secure the dogs even though he knew that they had escaped on many prior occasions and that they could be vicious.
The other case of criminal negligence prior to the Whipple murder case was
State v. Powell, 109 N.C. App. 1, 426 S.E.2d 91 (1993). In that case two Rottweilers killed a passing jogger in North Carolina.
Apart from Whipple, other modern cases have been successfully prosecuted. In
Kansas (Kansas v. Sabine Davidson, 1997) Sabine Davidson was convicted of manslaughter when her Schutzhund trained Rottweilers killed an eleven-year-old boy. In
2005, this author's investigation of a DBRF in Huntingdon, West Virginia led to the conviction of Donald Brewer for negligent manslaughter in the death of 2-year-old
Arianna Fleeman, the first such case in the history of the State of West Virginia
(Brewer).
These cases have varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some cases, simple negligence has been enough to successfully prosecute. In other jurisdictions reckless
20 disregard must be established. Many jurisdictions provide both options based on the circumstances, with differing levels of penalty based on circumstances.
For instance, Florida Statute 782.07 provides:
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic. --
1. The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Depending on the victim the penalty for manslaughter can be escalated as follows:
2. A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 3. A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
In both sets of circumstances, culpable negligence is the basis for manslaughter.
Florida Statute further provides for criminal penalty for less than lethal results when culpable negligence is involved:
784.05 Culpable negligence. --
1. Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 2. Whoever, through culpable negligence, inflicts actual personal injury on another commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
FindLaw (2016) further clarifies the Statue as follows:
21 Overview of Florida Involuntary Manslaughter Laws:
When a homicide, the killing of a human being, does not meet the legal definition of murder, Florida state laws allow a prosecutor to consider a manslaughter charge. The state establishes two types of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. While voluntary manslaughter describes an intentional act performed during a provocation or heat of passion, involuntary manslaughter does not require an intent to kill or even an intent to perform that act resulting in the victim's death.
To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with "culpable negligence." Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant's recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly.
As such, injury by dog bite may be grounds for criminal prosecution under these statutes. The burden on the prosecution would be to prove that the owner, recognizing his dog's behavior as likely to cause death or injury, failed to follow reasonable and accepted practices or remediate that behavior to the extent that their conduct was reckless or wanton.
Civil standards are somewhat different. In many states there is a doctrine of strict liability: any damage done by a dog is attributed directly to the owner. (Figure 2-1)
Recovery under dog bite statutes usually requires four elements: 1) injury caused by a dog owned by the defendant; 2) peaceable conduct of the person injured; 3) presence of the injured person in a place where he has the legal right to be; and 4) lack of provocation. (Epstein, 2006 p.134)
Civil negligence can be summed up as: “. . . based on foreseeability, and that a cause of action for negligence can be maintained if the owner could have reasonably anticipated his dog could cause harm, even in the absence of the dog possessing dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.” (Epstein, 2006 p.140)
22 The "reasonable person" test applies here. (Miller, 2012) The owner is not expected to be an expert or possess expert knowledge. Neither is an owner presumed to be unaware of expected norms. The standard of a reasonable person is that which is judged as reasonable within the community or society. (Miller, 2012, p.371)
Regarding the burden of proof, in civil actions there are significant differences. To begin, criminal prosecution requires proof to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Civil prosecution only requires a preponderance of evidence, a lesser standard.
In some cases, agencies have been held responsible for failing to take adequate measures to protect potential victims in cases where there was a reasonable expectation that the dog was dangerous. In Fleeman (2006), Huntingdon-Cabell County
Animal Services and the City of Huntingdon, West Virginia were found to have been liable for mishandling a prior bite investigation involving the same dog that killed Arianna
Fleeman, thus allowing the dog Brutus to be present at the Brewer home and able to kill the little girl.
Authority to investigate dog bites is established in many State Statutes. In additional to Health Department rules and regulations that apply to potential rabies transmission incidents, Law Enforcement agencies have the authority to investigate possible criminal acts. Additionally, Animal Control authorities are empowered to investigate animal related cases, such as under Florida Statute 828.03.
23
Figure 1-1. Three “killer Pit Bulls”. Files of author re Case #3.
Table 2-1 Strict Liability Oklahoma Minnesota States. Nebraska Iowa Missouri Louisiana Wisconsin Illinois Michigan Indiana Ohio Kentucky Alabama Pennsylvania West Virginia South Carolina Florida Maine New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New Jersey Delaware
Table 2-2 Mixed Liability States. Oregon Tennessee New York Georgia
Table 2-3 “One bite” states. Idaho Wyoming Nevada North Dakota South Dakota Kansas Texas New Mexico Arkansas Mississippi Vermont Maryland Virginia North Carolina Alaska Hawaii
24 CHAPTER 2 INVESTIGATION
Need for Competent Investigation
In-depth investigation of dog bite incidents has, in the past, been relatively rare.
Especially in the US, Law Enforcement officials have too often adopted the attitude "The dog did it-we are done." This is understandable: when confronted with an apparently mauled victim and a bloody dog, the most common (and probably logical) reaction is to assume the dog is guilty, take the dog, and have it destroyed. No further investment of resources is needed.
Why does the lack of investigation matter? A half-hearted approach fails to address core concerns and needs of trainers, owners, the public, and the legal system.
Clearly if the dog is dead, it will not reoffend, but destruction of the dog does not help us understand why the event happened and so prevent similar events with different dogs.
Behavior experts want to know why a particular dog bit, and why the bite was as serious as it was, in order to design protocols and methods of reducing or preventing such behavior. Owners are concerned as to how to avoid having their dog bite at all, and whether a dog that has bitten can be remediated or whether they should destroy their family companion. The public in general, dog owning or not, wants to know it is secure and safe.
The legal system has its own increasing demands. Criminal and civil liability may attach to even a simple dog bite, and as the bite progresses in severity so do the potential consequences.
One must also consider the disposition of an involved animal(s). Are they just to be killed? Is there a need for or value in training, rehabilitation, or management
25 measures to be applied for public safety? How can we increase public safety and security whilst being humane and fair in a way that is lawful and practical? How do the needs for private and public safety coordinate or conflict with resource allocation?
Dogs have closely existed with us for between 15,000 and 60,000 years. (De
Munnynck, 2002; Vila, et al. 1997) With this kind of extensive history, it is clear that dogs are not, as a matter of course, a constant threat to humans. Although they do bite, dogs typically live out their lives without seriously physically harming anyone, at least to the extent that a victim feels the dog should be disposed of.
Dogs bite for a reason. The reason may not be immediately apparent to us as humans, and must be sought using a dog's frame of reference. To find that reason is part of the duty of the investigator. One must insist on thorough, detailed, and professional investigations into dog bite related injuries and deaths, based on carefully collected evidence. One must establish standards for best practices to give investigators the tools needed to properly investigate dog bite related injuries. This chapter is an overview of general procedures that should be followed to give all professionals involved in an incident the greatest opportunity to achieve their goals successfully. In the past, at times the interests of one or another group have overridden those of professionals to the detriment of progress on this issue.
In the criminal justice system, we demand proof, ideally centered around physical evidence, to build a chain of events that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Homicide is a crime that our society ranks as one of the worst, a crime that may carry the possibility of execution. Homicides of children are cases that many find particularly heinous. A fatal dog attack is a homicide, often with a child victim.
26 Historically, some dog fatality investigations have missed the mark. A person is mauled with dogs found in the house. The common presumption is "the dog(s) did it" and investigation stops there; all animals present are guilty by association. (Case #9,
Appendix) This happens despite the fact that the technology to identify the individual dog, and the individual bite that caused death, are available. Often the dog(s) present are killed on the scene by first responders and the bodies are never processed or given a detailed examination. In other cases, one dog is blamed and taken, failing to consider the possible involvement of other dogs, to the detriment of the investigation. (Case #7,
Appendix) Often no behavioral evidence, a critical part of this puzzle, is collected as no evaluation of the dogs is performed. On the physical evidence side, bite molds are not taken, stomach sampling doesn't occur, and jaws and coats are not processed for blood or other trace evidence-they are disposed of.
In a dog attack fatality, the instrument of death is a living, breathing, semi- independent creature. Dogs have the ability to act with, and without, direction. They behave in patterns that are reinforced, or made more likely, by prior human action, prior experience, and training. Some training and reinforcement is deliberate on the part of a human, some is inadvertent, but both can be just as deadly. An investigator needs to know how the suspect dog(s) were affected by human action before the attack.
To adequately determine the past conditioning of the dog, and the factors that led up to killing the victim, one must do a number of things. First one can have a skilled evaluator put hands on the dog. They can evaluate the dog and see what it does and how it acts under at least limited circumstances. Next we can talk to humans that have previously interacted with the dog. We can interview the owner/trainer as to what they
27 did, or did not do. We should talk to Veterinary staff that may have dealt with the dog.
We need a picture of the factors affecting the development of the dog, physically and behaviorally, and as best we can understand how that dog saw the world. We need to know, or at least try to know, what caused this dog to act this way at this time.
All of these individual pieces of data, and a host of other bits, add up to a specialized case that demands attention. A person died, and that person deserves the best we can give them. That requires a detailed and specialized investigation.
The Effect of Dog Bites and DBRF on Community Perceptions of Safety
"The most difficult and emotive aspect of the public hazard caused by dogs is the fear of dog bites and dog attacks." (Emphasis added) (De Keuster 2002 p. 2)
Individuals suffer stress and emotional damage from dog bites in addition to physical injuries. Studies have shown that dog bite victims have a varying range of reactions to bites, and vary in their perception of why they think they were bitten.
(Westgarth, 2013) These individual reactions contribute to a community's overall attitudes, especially after a serious attack or a DBRF case. (Bathhurst, 2011)
In the last few years, circumstances surrounding dog bite cases, particularly
DBRFs, have changed. Civil claims have grown immensely.
What are the costs of these injuries? According to the Insurance Information
Institute, there were 16,292 dog bite claims in 2011, with an average claims cost of
$26,396. Dog bites reportedly accounted for more than one-third of homeowners’ insurance liability claims dollars paid out in 2011, costing nearly $479 million. The largest writer of home- owners' insurance in the U.S. reportedly paid out more than
$109 million as a result of its nearly 3,800 dog bite claims in 2011. (Smith and Bernier,
2012)
28 Hand in hand with civil litigation is a developing interest in criminal prosecution of irresponsible owners. Reckless owners are, in increasing numbers, being held to account for their action, or lack of action, regarding DBRF with jail or prison time. The case of State of West Virginia v. Donald Brewer, in which this author conducted an investigation and evaluation, set a new precedent for prosecution of DBRF in that state.
Prior to Brewer. the West Virginia State Statute regarding criminal negligent homicide (17C-5-1) had only been previously applied to cases of fatalities caused by impaired drivers. In Brewer, due to the fact that the statute at that time did not contain language limiting its application to death by impaired drivers only, the prosecution team applied the statute to the killing of a 2-year-old child. The Defendant in this case knew that the dog had seriously bitten at least five (5) separate times, inflicting serious wounds. The Defendant permitted the victim, her mother, and another child free access to the Defendant's home wherein the subject dog was free and unsupervised. In doing so Defendant violated the requirements of the home quarantine imposed on the dog due to a serious bite to an adult male one week prior to the fatal attack. The Defendant also admitted "training" his dog to be "protective" of his home.
The defendant pled guilty, but then appealed the conviction to the West Virginia
Supreme Court. (Brewer) The Appellate Court upheld the use of the negligence statute in this case.
In Brewer there were wide effects upon the community. Due to the combined effect of the DBRF and the perceived lack of adequate protection of the community, members of the community pressed local legislators and State Legislators to initiate breed bans based on the perceived breed of the subject dog. Others made efforts to
29 strengthen both local and State Dangerous Dog laws. The resulting civil lawsuit
(Fleeman v. Huntingdon/Cabell) resulted in action against the local Animal Control authority for failure to adequately confine and address the dog in light of the series of serious past bites.
30 CHAPTER 3 CANINE AGGRESSION
What is Aggression?
One textbook definition for "aggression" is behavior that: 1) defends against perceived threats, 2) establishes access to or protects resources, or 3) establishes or alters social standing. (Overall, 2011) Other definitions expand aggression to include attributes such as intent to do harm and other emotional contexts. (Wilde, 2008)
This author views aggression in functional terms. In dogs, as in other organisms, aggression is one type of behavior that allows a dog to alter his environment in order to increase its chances of survival. Aggression is not a specific action. It encompasses a range of behaviors and the content in which they occur. Any individual action or behavior, such as grasping an object with teeth, can have multiple connotations.
Context of the action and its place among surrounding actions is critical to properly understand the behavior. As Overall (2011, p.1930) states, "Aggression is best defined within a particular context as an appropriate or inappropriate threat, challenge, or contest that is ultimately resolved by combat or deference." As such, aggression can be looked at as an adaptive behavior - behavior that allows an organism to adapt and survive. Aggression or aggressive behavior in dogs is, in this author's opinion, best viewed in the absence of applied human motivation or emotional baggage.
Lindsey (2001) breaks aggression into a large number of specific types. These range from territorial aggression to affective aggression, with fine distinctions made between these specific classes of aggressive behavior. In this author's experience, breaking aggressive behavior and display in dogs into a host of compartmented classes overly complicates the issue.
31 For investigative purposes, this author breaks aggressive behavior into three larger classes; fear/threat response, resource protection, and manipulation of social environment. As a practical matter in the investigation of dog bites and DBRF, the actions of dogs involved in incidents appear to revolve around these three core causes.
A biting dog tends to bite from a position of fear, resource protection or social interaction.
We must also discard some terminology commonly used in reference to
"aggressive" dog-human or dog-dog encounters. Applying the term "aggression" to any negative dog-human or dog-dog encounter fails to address the spectrum of canine behavior. Words like "mauling" or "attack" are too vague and lack quantifiable characteristics. As an example, "A dog attack may mean a dog rushing or charging without any bite or physical contact at all." (De Keuster, 2002)
Aggression as a Response to Welfare Issues
In 1965, the Brambell Commission in the United Kingdom established proposed standards for the humane treatment of animals. (Brambell, 1965) Although this was initially focused on farm animals, the standards have become widely recognized as proper, humane standards for the keeping of all animals. The Commission established the "Five Freedoms". (Table 3-1)
Consideration of the Five Freedoms and application of factors regarding the health of a dog involved in an incident is of evidentiary value and should be assessed by a Veterinarian. The first set of factors to examine are overall physical well-being and defects. Problems such as eyesight, hearing, limits to mobility, and injury need to be documented. Any deficits should be identified as being acute or chronic. Chronic, untreated pain can establish certain patterns of aggressive behavior (Barcelos et al.,
32 2015), whereas acute onset of a painful condition such as an ear infection or injury can increase the risk of an aggressive response in a normally placid individual. Illness can cause discomfort, disorientation, or sensitivity to noise or light.
Chronic problems such as hyperthyroidism, possibly related to diet, can underlie inappropriate expression of aggressive behavior. (Kohler et al. 2012) A full blood chemistry panel with toxicology can reveal whether a dog has been administered analgesics (possibly for or as a result of fighting) or given hormone supplements
(steroids) to achieve body condition, strength, or an aggressive predisposition. A dog's reproductive status also affects behavior. An intact male may act aggressively to protect his reproductive access to an in-estrus female, or be affected by the scent of a nearby receptive female.
As an adjunct to the veterinary examination of the dog to collect evidence, the dog's condition and the environment in which it is kept must be evaluated considering welfare impact, since they may affect the dog's aggressive behavior. Does the dog appear adequately fed? A malnourished dog may be more willing to take risks over accessing food. Is it properly sheltered? Does it have access to adequate, fresh water?
The investigator will need to discover if the dog has been allowed appropriate exercise, social interactions, and expression of normal behavior. Has the dog received required vaccinations and does the dog appear free from discomfort or disease? How have the dog's needs been met, and is the standard of care shown in accord with recognized minimum standards?
In many incidents deficits are discovered upon investigation. Poor nutrition, substandard veterinary care, and lack of socialization with conspecifics or humans all
33 contribute to creating a situation where the dog cannot show healthy, placid behavior.
These deficiencies must be recognized, documented, and considered when evaluating the human responsibility attached to an event. How did these deficits play into the circumstances of the incident?
Welfare conditions are, in this author's experience, contributory factors to severe animal attacks. As we will discuss particularly below, nutrition (Case # 10) and reproductive access (Case #11) have clearly set the stage for DBRF. Poor housing and socialization issues (Case #12) have also contributed to severe attacks.
Defense Aggression
In my experience with bites and dangerous dogs I have to say that fear, in one form or another, is a major contributor to aggressive behavior. We may dress it up by calling it "lack of socialization" or "situational anxiety", or worse "dominance", but the bottom line is that it is fear.
Many times, dogs are placed in situations where they become fearful, and as a result of the fear react violently. They resort to aggressive display. Why? Because aggressive display is a perfectly valid method a dog has to remove a threat, real or perceived. Animals have three basic responses to perceived threats: freeze (stand still and hope the threat passes), flee (RUN AWAY!), or fight. This is the “fight or flight” response. The response is the immediate physiological reaction that occurs when a danger or a threat to survival is perceived by an organism. (Milosevic, 2015) This "flight or fight response" applies to all animals, including dogs and humans.
The world of a domestic dog is split along some very general lines: Threatening
Things and Not Threatening Things. Threatening Things initiate the flight or fight response. Threatening Things are, in survival terms, Things That May Eat or Hurt Me.
34 When a dog is presented with a Threatening Thing, a perceived threat, he chooses a response based on three main factors; context, his perception of the level of threat, and the potential avenues to relieve that threat. Dogs that simply run from a threat do not present concerns to investigators-they are absent from conflict. Freezing is likewise a benign response. Unless a dog in freeze mode escalated her actions into flight or fight, the freeze behavior is best seen as a warning sign, not as an overt aggressive action. The choice to fight, the situation of "Contest that is ultimately resolved by combat . . ." (Overall 2011, p. 1930), brings conflict with humans, and the involvement of an investigator.
A dog that becomes openly violent may have been placed in situations where the only way to feel safe is to manipulate their environment through violence. A perceived threat approaches - the dog shows aggressive signaling – and the perceived threat goes away. The dog has achieved success, in behavioral terms. Defense against perceived threats is probably the most common factor that initiates aggressive displays toward humans.
A dog that chooses an aggressive response is not limited to a fight to the death.
Fight, as a response to a perceived threat, is moderated based on the level of threat perceived. Social behavior has evolved to produce a range of postures, vocalizations and actions that other animals perceive as defensive and help avert an actual physical fight.
The initial level of response to an initiation of conflict is a physical display. For dogs this can include a frontal, squared-off body position, raised hackles, eyes focused and narrowed, exposed teeth, and growling. (Abrantes, 1997; Rugaas, 2005) This may
35 proceed to making initial feints toward a target. If this display mitigates the threat and makes it go away, the dog deescalates and the situation returns to neutral. If the display does not effect a solution or successful negotiation, then the dog perceiving the conflict must make a choice: escalate or not, based on an evaluation of the physical ability of the aggressor and the continuing presence of the perceived threat.
Aggressive displays, like any behavior, are reinforced by success-if the display results in the departure of a Threatening Thing the dog will try it again for the next
Threatening Thing. Continued success reinforces the behavior. Behavior that is reinforced will, by definition, increase. (Chance, 1998 p.99) Thus, if the behavior is successful it is more likely to be repeated.
Success is strongly based on trial and error, on the dog's perception of the chain of cause and effect. That perception may not reflect human perception. The perceived validity, or lack thereof, of a threat is strongly based on the dog's socialization and perception. This will be discussed later in the section on perception.
Aggression in Resource Protection
The concept of protecting resources is easy for humans to understand. All animals need certain basic resources; food, water, shelter from adverse environmental factors, and reproductive access (if the species is going to survive). In times of plenty, resource protection may be relaxed somewhat. In times of scarcity, resource protection is vital and can be a life and death struggle. Aggressive displays are one means of getting or maintaining access to resources, or preventing others from accessing the same resources.
Our pets generally operate in an atmosphere of plenty. Except in rare cases
(post-Hurricane Katrina for instance) domesticated pets do not have to fight for food
36 access. Normal needs are usually met. But these drives still exist, and can affect day to day interactions. Many people have observed a dog that growls when someone approaches while they have a favorite toy or food item. This favored item is a resource, and the dog in question is guarding that resource.
The drive to protect resources is powerful. Some dogs react to the presence of a resource as if they are likely to be in a scarcity situation and therefore, to protect that resource, use an aggressive display. Audible signals such as growling combined with visible cues such as raised hackles and bared teeth serve to warn an approaching animal that the resource is not for sharing. (Abrantes, 2004) This warning may not be dependent on the true likelihood of scarcity or pending removal of the resource; the key here, as always, is the perception of the dog at the time of the incident.
Ideally, warning cues progress from a low level warning (initial level visual/postural cues followed or accompanied by an audible growl), through a forceful audible warning (bark and loud, overt growl/snarl), to a full frontal bare teeth snap and lunge. This may ultimately culminate in contact and a bite. If the initial contact does not deter the perceived resource threat then a full fight may ensue, depending on how attached the initial possessor is to the resource.
This sequence may be interrupted by several occurrences. The possessor may, depending on the size and status of the intruder and the perceived value of the resource, decide that the resource is not worth defending and withdraw. The intruder may similarly evaluate the size and status of the possessor and decide the resource isn't worth fighting for. Withdrawal of either party may occur after an exchange of communication signals that result in a mutual appraisal and agreement over this
37 particular resource. The survival of a species is not served by every conflict devolving into a fight over every resource. That would likely result in a population of injured or dead animals that would not be viable long term. (Miklosi, 2007 p.171)
The sequence of negotiations and postures make sense to the dog and are part of its behavior. (Abrantes, 1997) A human target of a dog's warnings may not be able to respond quickly enough to avoid escalation. Alternately, the human may not understand dog signals and may fail to either redirect their behavior or adequately negotiate with the dog. The dog follows the (to them) logical "use of force matrix" and an aggressive response, perhaps escalated into a dangerous situation, follows.
Resource protection goes beyond food and toys. Protection of territory is a version of this, as the animal's territory is often the source of food, water, shelter, and in some cases his/her breeding stock. Humans may not perceive the limits of a dog's territory. Physical boundaries, such as fences and brush lines may define a territory visibly, but that is not an absolute indicator. An individual dog may regard a smaller area inside an otherwise physically delineated area as his actual territory worth defending - or may consider an area outside the physically defined space as territory.
This is one way humans such as utility workers, meter readers, and others get bitten; a particular dog may let the worker into the larger fenced yard, but when the worker violates the dog's personal territory the dog's demeanor changes and a confrontation ensues.
Is an attack or confrontation in such a resource guarding situation potentially a type of aggressive behavior? Yes, as defined - aggression is a strategy to affect the environment for survival by protecting resources. To adequately evaluate aggression as
38 a survival strategy the investigator must consider the potential of resource protection from the dog's point of view. Was the bite victim within the dog's perceived resource territory? Was the human perceived to be threatening the dog's access to one of the key resources? In such a situation the aggression may be an appropriate and logical response. Should this response have been anticipated and guarded against by the owner through training, socialization, and even management? That determination is a central portion of the investigator's job.
Critically needed active resource seeking (predation) occurs in rare DBRF cases.
In New York City in 1976, a German Shepherd dog was left in an apartment with a newborn infant while the child's mother went out to buy drugs. The mother later, during the investigation, admitted that she had not fed the dog in at least six days. While gone the mother left the infant within the reach of the dog. When the mother returned to the apartment, the dog had killed and partially consumed the infant. (Case # 10) The dog did, according to the investigation, kill the infant. But the reason for the predation can be understood clearly when considered as an animal seeking critically needed nutrition.
The dog utilized an available nutrition source for its own survival.
Reproductive access has been the root cause of at least one documented DBRF.
In San Francisco, CA, a boy named NF was killed in his home by dog attack. (Case
#11) Public reports indicate that NF's mother had left him in the home with a male and a female dog, both identified by the owners as American Bulldogs, with the female in active estrus and breeding. The reports state that NF's mother instructed NF to remain in a basement room while she was gone, and that she then used a shovel to brace the basement door shut from outside to keep NF in the room, and presumably to keep him
39 separated from the dogs. When she returned from shopping, NF had escaped from the room and was dead from dog bite injuries. A reasonable presumption in this case was that NF interacted with the dogs and, protecting his reproductive resource, the male dog killed NF.
Aggression and the Social Contract
The third prong of our working definition of aggression is behavior used as a means to secure or change social standing in the dog's environment. Social standing in a group of dogs is important because it is a way of distributing resources among group members. (Miklosi, 2007, p. 57)
Social aggression is a highly stereotyped set of behaviors. According to Miklosi
"Aggressive behavior consists mainly of ritualized behavioral units which evolved for signaling the inner state and physical potential of the contester, and does not aim at causing damage in the other." (p. 57)
As detailed in the section "Defense", body position, posture, and other visual indicators are used between dogs and between dogs and other animals to communicate levels of threat. (Abrantes, 1997) These indicators, or signals, can serve to provide less violent methods of protecting the dog or his resources, or can be used to calm or escalate a social interaction. (Rugaas, 2005; Abrantes, 1997)
Human Factors Influencing Domestic Dog Aggressive Behavior
For the dog bite investigator there is a fourth dimension to aggressive behavior: the human factor. How, and to what extent, did/does human action or inaction affect the aggressive behavior of dogs, and what part does this human interaction play in determining responsibility for or provocation of an attack?
40 According to Dr. Karen Overall, "An extensive review of the literature concerning dog bite injuries reveals that the one robust data are those supporting the following conclusions: there is a substantially greater injury and fatality rate for children when compared with adults; male children are injured and killed more often than female children, indicating that human behavior may be a major factor; and there is a preponderance of owned family dogs involved in bites and fatalities." (Overall, 2001, p.
1931)
Domestic Dog Aggressive Behavior as a Clinical Abnormality
In the view of some researchers, aggressive behavior from a dog is a clinical abnormality. According to Dr. Karen Overall, "Most aggressive dogs are clinically behaviorally abnormal; the abnormality is usually progressive and is influenced by the social environment, so the signs noted by the client and clinician have been changing."
(2001, p. 1929)
This author would argue that, as stated earlier, aggression and aggressive display are one of many behaviors available to a dog to influence its environment, and is one instrument for survival. As defined earlier in a functional sense, threatened animals have three generally available behavior patterns: freeze, flight or fight.
An aggressive display provided by a dog in defense from a perceived threat, especially in the absence of space to retreat, is not abnormal at all. It should be, in fact, expected. The tolerance that domestic dogs display in restraining themselves when presented with a reasonable perceived threat is likely an extraordinary circumstance among animal species.
41 Instead, aggressive behavior patterns must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances present at the time of the encounter before assuming that the dog acted out of clinical abnormality. Factors to be considered include:
1. As seen from a dog's perspective, was the precipitating event reasonably perceived by the dog as a situation appropriate for producing a bite response.
2. Was the severity of the dog's response, in light of prior experience and the immediate situation at hand, a reasonable response to the level of perceived threat, challenge, or other trigger.
3. Did the dog specifically target a specifically vulnerable area (consistent with canine predatory motor sequence behavior) or was the bite was to a "target of opportunity", that being the closest target to the dog's jaws at the time of the trigger.
If the behavior of the dog was consistent with normal and reasonable reactions of a dog, then we cannot consider this behavior to be clinically abnormal. Instead, we must look to the actions of the human victim or to the action on inaction of the owner or caretaker of the dog.
Domestic Dogs and Perception of Threat and Challenge
Dogs only have their own limited worldview and experience to work with, and don't seem to have the higher cognitive powers we grant ourselves. They live through experience. Dogs see the world as a series of sensory experiences-sights, sounds, smells. They perceive their surroundings as pictures, snapshots, patterns of visual, auditory and scent information. (Grandin, 2005; Grandin, 1995) They categorize experiences, and are very specific about those categories: A dog may be sensitive to being approached by a male carrying a stick, but may have no problem with being approached by the same male without the stick-unless he is wearing a white hat. Dr.
Temple Grandin has done groundbreaking research into animal perception as a picture
42 based experience from her position as an autistic person who thinks, and perceives, the same way. (Grandin, 2005)
Perception of threat is affected by a number of factors, including experience, training, environment, and adaptability to novel situations. Dogs and humans perceive threats differently. One's place on the food chain has a lot to do with that perception; for instance, prey animals may tend to perceive threats in innocuous situations.
Pack Behavior
In 2000, Sacks et al. examined 238 DBRF cases to assess breed and circumstances of the attacks. In the data examined, "Four hundred three dogs were responsible for these attacks. There were almost twice as many dogs involved in off- owner-property attacks, compared with attacks occurring on the owners' properties. In
160 human deaths, only 1 dog was involved; in 49 deaths, 2 dogs were involved; and in
15 deaths, 3 dogs were involved. Four and 7 dogs were involved in 3 deaths each; 5, 6, and 10 dogs were involved in 2 deaths each; and 11 and 14 dogs were responsible for
1 death each." (p. 838)
In the sample examined during that study, of the 238 DBRF cases, 160 (67%) were the result of an attack by a single dog. A total of 94% of the attacks were by three or fewer dogs. This would seem to strongly indicate that mass "pack attacks" of dogs resulting in human DBRF are rare.
This examination of hard data is greatly at odds with previously cited opinion that dog pack attacks were inherently more likely to kill than single dogs. According to a
1985 "Pack attacks have a greater probability of resulting in serious injury than attacks by a single dog. Not only do a pack inflict a greater number of wounds, there is also a likelihood that social facilitation and pack instinct will prolong or escalate the attack."
43 (Kneafsey, 1985) In this article, Kneafsey claims that "It is well recognized that marauding packs of domestic dogs kill sheep needlessly. We believe that the same canine frenzy operates when a number of dogs attack a human."
Table 3-1. Five Freedoms as established by the Brambell Commission, 1965. Freedom from hunger or thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
Freedom from pain, injury or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
Freedom to express (most) normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind.
Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.
44 CHAPTER 4 DOG BITE EVIDENCE
Definition of a Dog Bite
There are currently many ways to define "dog bite". In some jurisdictions, any contact between a dog and a human that causes a break in the skin is considered a
"bite" for rabies control purposes. To quote the State of Florida “A rabies exposure is any bite, scratch, or other situation in which saliva, cerebral spinal fluid, tears, or nervous tissue from a suspect or known rabid animal or person enters an open wound, is transplanted into, or comes in contact with mucous membranes of another animal or person.” (Florida Dept. of Disease Control 2014, p.19)
Other definitions include ""A bite is defined as any break in the skin caused by an animal's teeth, regardless of the intention..." (De Munnynck 2002, p1)
De Keuster (2002) reflects the same for considering a dog bite. "...while a bite generally results in the bruising or breaking of skin because of contact with the dog's teeth. In Australia for example, no burden of proof is required to substantiate a dog attack: councils can declare a dog dangerous with one disputed allegation."
For the purposes of this paper we will agree with De Munnynck (2002) and De
Keuster to generally regard a dog bite as "When teeth touch skin with a discernible effect on the skin” and, as the American Board of Forensic Odontology defines the human cutaneous bitemark “An injury in skin caused by contacting teeth (with or without the lips or tongue) which shows the representational pattern of the oral structure.”
(Bernstein, 2005, p.59) This definition may not be absolute, as heavy or protective clothing may deter discernible effect whilst the dog still applied significant pressure (and
45 evidence may be gathered from such clothing), but for general purposes this paper will look to skin defect as the defining criteria.
Again, to quote De Munnynck (p.298):
The injuries caused involve a combination of biting, crushing and tearing that results in a characteristic pattern of punctures, lacerations and avulsions of skin and soft tissue. Forensic pathologists noted multiple torn wounds with adjacent puncture wounds, the so-called hole-and-a-tear combination. The puncture wound, a round hole, is made by the canine tooth of either the upper or lower jaw on one side that serves as an anchorage, while the other teeth cut into the flesh causing stretch lacerations in the process of biting, shaking and tearing. . . In conclusion, to identify a lesion as a dog bite wound it should have ragged and irregular wound edges, show multiple, parallel, linear scratches or drying scuff abrasions, include a puncture wound and sometimes an avulsion with irregular borders resembling a dental arch print.
We must also consider that a physical bite is not necessarily the same as aggressive behavior. Much of the behavior included in aggressive display is outside the classification of "dog bite". There is a spectrum of behavior that comprises aggression.
A full bite or fight is the final stage of that spectrum. (Rugaas, 2005)
There are also non-aggressive behaviors that involve the use of teeth against skin with possible discernible effect that. We will discuss those situations later in Section
4.3 as to the range of purposes for a dog bite.
Defining Bite Mark Evidence
A bite mark can be generally defined as a pattern made by teeth in a substrate.
(Bernstein 2005, p.59) A dog bite injury is a patterned injury. Patterned injuries represent an injury that results in the transfer of a pattern from one medium to another.
The physical dimensions and characteristics of the injury can assist in determining not only the source of the injury, but can impart details such as direction and intensity of force produced by the injury-producing instrument.
46 In a dog bite, the instruments causing the injury are the dog's teeth-and to a lesser extent the jaw and skull as the framework that supports the teeth. Adult domestic dogs typically have 42 teeth: 20 upper and 22 lower. These teeth engage in varying ways, depending on the angle and depth of the engagement. They also engage differently, due to morphology, from human bites. Dorion (2005) describes the engagement of canine dentition by saying "Tooth alignment along the dental arch from canine to the last molar does not follow a straight path...the dentition penetrates unevenly as a result of the different sizes of teeth, different horizontal heights of teeth, and the uneven anteroposterior alignment of teeth." Thus, the examiner must keep in mind that a dog's dentition may penetrate irregularly depending on where in the dental arch primary contact occurs.
For analysis purposes the dental arch is broken into several groups of teeth:
From the center there are six incisors each top and bottom. Incisors are generally elongated side to side, wedge-shaped front to back, and are designed for cutting and shearing.
Next in line are four canines, two each top and bottom. The canines are rounded or oval in profile and extend approximately twice or more the length, gum line to tip, of typical incisors. The canine teeth perform several functions. As the longest teeth these are usually a dog's initial physical contact point with whatever object or item they encounter. The sharp, circular profile of these teeth allows a dog to pierce the target. The extension of the canine teeth beyond the level of engagement of the incisors allows the dog to moderate and control the level of damage done to a target. This limitation of damage is well illustrated by the Level 3 or moderated warning/communication bite (see Ian Dunbar's dog bite severity scale – Appendix 5)). In this type of engagement there is a brief, inhibited contact with a target that results in either no puncture of the skin surface or at most limited, shallow puncture wounds that are unlikely to cause significant physical damage, though they may transmit infection.
Past the canines are the premolars and molars. These teeth are generally for ripping and chewing food. In severe bites the forward-most of these teeth may engage the target. This usually involves the engagement of a limb such as an arm or smaller-diameter leg that a dog may get deeply into its grasp. A large bite to softer, looser tissue such as in the abdomen where fat and loose skin may be
47 available may also show deeper grasping and tearing, although most contact will still be centered on the forward teeth.
Bite marks can be documented by detailed photos that include a reference scale.
A common reference tool is the ABFO #2 (American Board of Forensic Odontology) photomacrographic scale (Figure 2-1). (Hyzer and Krause, 1988) This tool is commonly available and provides a reference that, when included in evidentiary photographs, allows proper measurement and alignment of the target that can be supported in court testimony.
Bite marks can also be documented by using the techniques of tool mark casting.
Flesh can retain the patterns of bite engagement, as can underlying bone if the bite is deep enough. Dams of malleable material can be placed surrounding a bite on a cadaver and casting material then poured to capture the detail. Casting material, whether to capture the profile of the bite or to document the subject dog's dentition, should be material that sets to a solid, inflexible state to maintain proper alignment and size measurement. Many orthodontic and regular dental casting materials are suitable.
Multiple bites do not all occur at once. Bites to a substrate, a victim, occur one after another unless there are more than a single biter. The sequence of bites can sometimes be determined by examination of the substrate and the effects of repeated bites on that substrate. For example, tissue distorted by an initial bite may remain intact, but shearing from another bite from a different direction may be observed. (Case #8)
Bite marks inflicted ante- or post-mortem can potentially be distinguished due to a lack of discernible vital reaction. Identification of ante- or peri-mortem injury vs. post-mortem scavenging will be discussed later, but can be vital in establishing whether the case is truly a DBRF or whether other factors are involved.
48 Bite mark evidence, therefore, consists of the documentation and collection of these patterned injuries, and if possible the pattern, sequence, and timing of injuries.
Purpose of a Dog Bite
Dog aggression is seen as dangerous by humans because, although dogs and humans have converged socially for a long time, behavior patterns only have a partial overlap. The differences are pronounced when one addresses aggressive interactions.
In very simplified terms: humans hit, dogs bite. "Biting is only the last resort when it comes to aggressive interaction among humans, who prefer to use hitting as a form of physical deterrent. In contrast, the hitting element is missing from the repertoire of most dogs, but biting occurs relatively often. In addition, the mostly (or originally) thick fur of dogs provides some protection against the effects of a bite which can cause unexpectedly dangerous injuries in furless humans." (Miklosi, p.58)
Miklosi continues: “Aggressive behavior in dogs consists mainly of displays that have a signaling function.” (p.171)
Dogs do not all bite at the same level of arousal or provocation. Differences in the threshold of arousal at which individual dogs choose to engage, and the strength at which the engagement occurs, vary based on several interacting factors, as explained by Sacks, et al. (2000): "Several interacting factors affect a dog's propensity to bite, including heredity, sex, early experience, socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), reproductive status, quality of ownership and supervision, and victim behavior." From the perspective of the dog, triggers may include:
1) Space and defense. Dogs, like people, have a sense of personal space that varies from dog to dog and with the situation at hand. Where a trusted owner can approach their dog closely, the same dog may not be comfortable with the close
49 approach of a stranger. As discussed before, any organism that is uncomfortable or feels threatened has three possible responses; the organism can freeze in place; they can flee, or run away, avoiding the threat; or they can stand and fight. Of the three the typically favored response is to run away.
Space and the defensive instinct are central to many dog bite cases, including some DBRF. Example cases are found within the author's research. Dogs that are approached by strangers may react as if they or their caretakers are threatened. (Case
#6) In domestic canine encounters with humans, the escalation of lower level signals through body position and posture may be unsuccessful: the signals dogs give asking for space fail to be respected or understood by the humans. If they are approached quickly by children, can react with a single engage-and-release bite to establish space between them and the approaching perceived threat.
2) Protection of resources and manipulation of social standing. As discussed above protection of resources is an important function of aggressive display. Factors that can mitigate the level of conflict are 1) the value of the resource, 2) the level of threat presented, and 3) mutual assessment of the risk of fighting vs lack of that particular resource.
Closely allied here is the manipulation of social standing. Social standing can affect access to resources (It is presumed that an animal of higher social standing will get preferential access to some or all resources or territory.
Social issues are often resolved between canines through postural negotiation, but can devolve into physical altercation. For reasons explained above that physical altercation is most often in the form of ritualized combat involving the use of teeth and
50 biting. The bites may be moderated, or the situation may escalate into causing serious or life threatening injury, depending on the intensity of the combat and the value of the resource.
3) Species appropriate play. Dogs actively show play behavior. (Horowitz, 2009, p. 197-205) This play is often a modification of other behavior patterns such as stalk and chase or bite and hold. The behaviors are typically moderated in play circumstances, and in healthy play there is a ready exchange of roles. A dog may use teeth in a moderated manner to play with their human companions. Inhibition and control of a dog's biting ability are central here. A dog with defective inhibition may cause physical injury while participating in appropriate play.
4) Utility and other communication. A dog's primary manipulation and utility tool is their mouth since they lack the ability to efficiently grasp with their limbs or tails. Herding dogs use controlled bites to move livestock many times larger than themselves. Mothers may use their teeth to carry pups from one location to another or to discipline them when they show unwanted behaviors. Objects, including shared food, must be carried by the dog in their mouths.
5) Pain response. Dogs cannot use their limbs to gain space effectively unless used to flee. A dog reacting to a painful stimulus may react to gain immediate space and relief from pain, and often snaps at the object or individual causing the pain to warn them away.
6) Feeding and predation. Quite obviously a dog uses its teeth to eat. A dog also, when needed, uses its teeth as both capture tools and as weapons to kill prey.
Feeding and predatory behavior are the result of higher level bite behavior.
51 Severity of Bites
This author's studies have found there are three things that contribute directly to the severity of a bite: Frequency (how many times did Fido bite), Intensity (how hard did
Fido clamp down) and Purpose (did Fido mean to warn or injure).
When one examines those factors the bite analysis comes together, giving a solid platform from which to judge whether the specific behavior is dangerous.
One must discriminate between the target of a bite and purpose. For instance, a bite to a child's face may not be so clear. One must determine the relative positions of biter and target at the moment before engagement. Was the target, the child's face, closest to the dog's mouth? In many child facial bites, a child suddenly approaches a dog. When the dog reacts the child's face is the closest target. Beware of making location-related assumptions. See the section on case analysis for a more detailed discussion of target location assessment.
Assessment of Dog Bite Injury
The description of dog bites can be a highly emotional issue, with perceptions of severity replacing objective standards. Establishing and applying consistent standards for the physical evaluation of a dog bite based on quantifiable, reproducible criteria is essential.
In assessing a bite wound there are two separate sets of criteria: the medical assessment of a bite as that determines treatment, and the severity of the bite as seen from an investigative standpoint. These serve different purposes. The medical decisions are made to best benefit the patient. The investigator is attempts to determine the need or plan for treatment or safe management of the dog in question.
52 The number of surgical sutures used by the attending surgeon to close the wound, or the presence of broken bones, has been used to establish severity of a bite, but comparing bites by comparing treatment ignores a vast range of factors. Different physicians may have differing protocols for dog bite treatment. The treatment strategy can be dependent on factors beyond the dog.
Different institutions may have differing levels of staff available. Placement of the wound (face vs. buttocks, for instance), age of the victim, likelihood of permanent scarring, infection, and others may well affect the clinical decision regarding sutures or reconstructive surgery. Instead of using medical decisions to assess the severity of a bite, comparison based on similar identifying characteristics, coupled with related behavior, gives us a clear, common reference to evaluate a dog attack. For assessment and to dispassionately compare separate bites, a quantifiable tool and analysis must be adhered to apart from medical treatment decisions.
The severity of an attack depends on three factors: the intensity of the bite, the frequency of the bite, and the intent of the bite. In other words, how hard did the dog bite? How many times did the dog bite? What was the purpose of the bite? Did the dog bite once, with relative restraint, to gain space to flee from a frightening situation? Did the dog bite repeatedly but still hold back? Or did the dog bite once but very hard, with firm grip and tearing, shaking motions?
Assessment of bites based on quantifiable criteria is the purpose of Dr. Ian
Dunbar's Bite Assessment Tool. (Table 2-1) This assessment tool ranks dog bites on six levels. The six levels, with the exception of Level 6 which is defined by result, are
53 defined by the measurable engagement of teeth-how many, how deep, and how many bites.
To this can be added behavioral notes, useful to the investigator. The purposes of bites are varied. They include establishing distance; settling social disagreements; control of the dog's environment; manipulation of objects; defense from a perceived threat; and predation. The behavioral purpose of the bite can be related to the outcome scale of the bite as described below:
1. Dunbar suggests that Level 1 is a form of intimidation behavior. This behavior is often the initial negative contact between a human and a dog, and is probably the most common. A person, friendly or not, approaches a dog and the dog responds by growling, barking, and possibly lunging, and in general scares the target. Said human typically backs off immediately. This is a perfect example of clear and concise interspecies communication. For whatever reason, the dog is alarmed by the human's approach. The dog gives external signals, audible and visible, that he/she does not want any further advance by the human. The human acknowledges those signals and retreats.
2. Level 2 is the slightest level possible of physical contact between dog and human. Probably most "aggressive dog" incidents never proceed past this point. Engagement of the dog's teeth is avoided. Scratches and/or bruising may be the result of the dog pushing back off the target, or from simple blunt snout contact.
Dr. Dunbar's comments regarding Level 1 and 2 incidents: (Dunbar scale)
Levels 1 and 2 comprise well over 99% of dog incidents. The dog is certainly not dangerous and more likely to be fearful, rambunctious, or out of control. Wonderful prognosis. Quickly resolve the problem with basic training (control) -- especially oodles of Classical Conditioning, numerous repetitive Retreat n' Treat, Come/Sit/Food Reward and Back- up/Approach/Food Reward sequences, progressive desensitization handling exercises, plus numerous bite-inhibition exercises and games. Hand feed only until resolved; do NOT waste potential food rewards by feeding from a bowl.
3. Level 3 may best be termed "engage-and-release". In the "engage-and-release" bite there is a single, very fast bite that is limited in force and usually strikes the closest target: a hand, an ankle, or a face in the case of a small child. The dog bites to drive back, or make a space to flee past a perceived threat.
54 The substantive difference between a Level 2 bite and its escalation to Level 3 is the presence of clear, tooth-related injury. One or more canine teeth actually pierce the skin of the target. There is no tearing or slashing, no clamping down; the victim is not dragged, pulled or shaken. There may be some surface (upper levels of the epidermis) tearing from a rapid withdrawal of the target, but it is strictly limited in depth. Withdrawal also shows clear directionality-the tear marks are directly in line with the removal direction of the limb or flesh.
Dogs have a remarkable ability to control the strength of their bite. Pups appear to learn bite inhibition and control in the litter, both from their dam and from their litter mates during play. This attack shows either less inhibitory control over a Level 2 attack, as the skin is broken, or an intentionally more serious bite aimed at achieving escape from the situation. Reduced inhibitions may arise from inadequate socialization or medication (Hetts 1999), but a more serious bite may reflect a higher level of arousal or fear due to the circumstances, perhaps as a result of temperament, which is also affected by early experience. This dog may perceive the threat to be greater, or that earlier signals have been ignored. This is believed to be the most common type of dog bite encountered as related by Animal Control authorities.
A Level 3b is more than a single engagement of teeth at Level 3; the dog makes significant contact, but does not hold.
According to Dunbar, and many others with relevant experience, animals involved in a bite at Level 1, 2, or 3 are those with the best chance of being safely retained by their owners. "Level 3: Prognosis is fair to good, provided that you have
55 owner compliance. However, treatment is both time-consuming and not without danger.
Rigorous bite-inhibition exercises are essential." (Dunbar, Bite Scale)
4. A Level 4 bite is a major bite incident. More than just the canine teeth engage, and engagement is deep. There is likely tearing, grasping, and shaking. It is believed that a dog involved in this level bite intended to inflict significant damage. This may be extreme defensive behavior from a threatened animal, or relate to predatory behavior that might ultimately lead to a kill. This dog may have learned to manipulate its owners and others through the use of aggression and force, or may be a habituated biter. (Dunbar)
Although a dog who inflicts this type of injury may never bite again, if it does, it is believed that there is a high likelihood that it will be another major bite. This level of a bite requires a detailed investigation, both physical and behavioral. A full account of the bite and the circumstances leading up to the bite is essential. This may be a dangerous, or potentially dangerous, dog. Simple control measures and obedience classes are likely not sufficient to allow this dog to remain in the general population. For the owner to be allowed to retain this dog clear measures must be taken to insure that the dog does not pose a threat to the safety of the public. Stringent, legally mandated levels of liability insurance, secure containment, closely supervised public contact and measures such as mandatory muzzling are appropriate.
An investigation into a Level 4 bite must examine whether the bite was provoked.
If provoked, the dog must still be managed with full protective measures for the community.
Dunbar is clear about his concerns with Level 4 animals:
Level 4: The dog has insufficient bite inhibition and is very dangerous. Prognosis is poor because of the difficulty and danger of trying to teach bite inhibition to an adult hard-biting dog and because absolute owner- compliance is rare. Only work with the dog in exceptional circumstances, e.g., the owner is a dog professional and has sworn 100% compliance. Make sure the owner signs a form in triplicate stating that they understand and take full responsibility that: 1. The dog is a Level 4 biter and is likely to
56 cause an equivalent amount of damage WHEN it bites again (which it most probably will) and should therefore, be confined to the home at all times and only allowed contact with adult owners. 2. Whenever, children or guests visit the house, the dog should be confined to a single locked- room or roofed, chain-link run with the only keys kept on a chain around the neck of each adult owner (to prevent children or guests entering the dog's confinement area.) 3. The dog is muzzled before leaving the house and only leaves the house for visits to a veterinary clinic. 4. The incidents have all been reported to the relevant authorities -- animal control or police. Give the owners one copy, keep one copy for your files and give one copy to the dog's veterinarian.
5. Multiple Level 4 bites are inflicted in a series of full force engagements. This dog is not expressing any socially related inhibition of the biting. This is the proverbial "chain saw with feet". The animal in this type of incident is attacking with the purpose of massive damage to its intended target. An animal engaged in this sort of attack, (unless it is a trained police dog that is apprehending a combative suspect, which is a completely separate subject), is clearly a danger to the public, and to its owners. Prognosis for any sort of meaningful recovery for this dog is extremely poor, and if considering possible treatment of this dog, first consideration must be given to public safety and for the safety of owners or caretakers. Quality of life issues should also be a consideration in this case.
6. When considering a Level 6 bite, one diverts from quantifiable measurements of the bite itself to the outcome of the incident. This level is not necessarily composed of Level 5 attacks that go on, unabated, until the human dies. These attacks are those that directly result in the death of a human.
There are those that would argue, possibly from a biological perspective, against grouping all fatal incidents together. A single bite by a dog that happens to nick a major blood vessel could conceivably directly result in that person's death. In examining the cause of death in human fatalities due to dog attack, "...three patterns have been observed: non-fatal dog bite wounds that can be light, severe, or life threatening, dog bites that directly or indirectly (through infection and sepsis) lead to the victims' death and post-mortem lacerations of the victim's body." (De Munnynck 2002, p1) Yet legally, and societally, we must consider these bites separately due to the extreme nature of their results.
57 In almost all Level 6 cases in the United States the dogs are, by law, destroyed.
A few cases exist wherein the dogs were allowed to be relocated to secure sanctuary, but those are extremely rare. In one case, when a dog named Onion killed one-year-old
Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan in the western US (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2013 and
Lapan, 2013), the incident was thought to be due to many factors. Converging circumstances projected to be involved included time of day, lighting, and the stress of the events prior to the bite. The fact that it was a single bite with immediate release differentiated this attack from those with multiple engagements, shaking, and tearing.
Onion was relocated after a protracted legal battle (Keller v City of Henderson), but will never be permitted to live in a private home.
Dr. Dunbar's comments reflect his concerns:
Level 5 and 6: The dog is extremely dangerous and mutilates. The dog is simply not safe around people. I recommend euthanasia because the quality of life is so poor for dogs that have to live out their lives in solitary confinement. (Dunbar scale)
Disposition of these animals presents additional difficulties. Although some would prefer to save all animals from destruction, one must consider liability. If after a fatal attack the dog was returned to the owners by a government agency or publicly or privately funded Humane organization, and if that dog was ever involved in another incident, the releasing agency would undoubtedly be faced with litigation. This litigation, even if unproductive, would be costly both in dollars and in public trust.
Another problem with these animals is that there are those persons who would proudly adopt a dog involved in a fatal attack. The attraction to these dogs by some segments of our population is undeniable, with an incalculable potential cost to the rest of society. Dog fighters could be drawn to a dog with enough "game" to have taken
58 down a human, and violent criminals could see these dogs as tokens of their personal power. (Harding, 2014) Dogs involved in human fatalities have shown by their behavior that they are simply unsafe around humans.
Even though these dogs are destroyed it is essential that the incidents are thoroughly investigated, in order that we may learn from them. This may mean keeping the animal alive for a time after the incident to allow a professional behavioral evaluation of the animal first to see if there are any outstanding biological or psychological factors relating to the animal's behavior that might help prevent a similar incident in future with another dog.
The question of can certain dogs be rehabilitated and should certain dogs be rehabilitated will be examined later.
Parameters of Dog Bite Comparison
Dog bites as patterned injuries have several parameters that can be examined, quantified, and compared.
The number and positioning of teeth. Spacing of teeth varies based on age, physical size, breed, and individual differences.
The breadth of the bite, the depth, and spacing of tooth marks are all bite characteristics based on dimension. Obviously, while keeping concerns such as tissue deformation in mind, simple dimensions are solid elimination criteria. A dog with an inter-canine distance of 2 cm cannot make a pair of holes that are 5 cm apart.
Overall morphology establishes more class characteristics. The hourglass shape of a generalized dog bite is clearly different than the typical bow shape of a human bite. When comparing them side by side the rounder arc of a human bite is clear.
In addition, if the bite is clear enough to distinguish, a simple count of incisors can easily differentiate human and canine bite. The typical human jaw has four incisors between the canine teeth, whereas a dog has six (Figures 2 and 3). This difference has been a clarifying characteristic in a number of alleged dog bites over time, including the case of a dog named Phineas accused of biting a
59 Missouri (US) child in 2013. (Patrick and Amber Sanders vs City of Salem, Missouri) Examination of clear documentary photographs of that bite was sufficient to eliminate Phineas from the pool of possible candidates, and the morphology of the bite strongly indicated that the bite mark introduced as evidence in the case was human caused.
Positioning of maxilla and mandible, and gross alignment of the teeth engaged in a bite involving both upper and lower teeth engagement can assist in inclusion or elimination, since some dogs have teeth that are heavily misaligned, such as the English and French Bulldogs. Individual defects are more specific: these characteristics result from wear, damage, and injury. These include height above the gum line, broken edges and tips, missing or extremely worn teeth, and teeth that have broken longitudinally but remain in place.
Alignment of individual teeth may also be influenced by injury or damage as they get twisted, pushed to one side, or shoved forwards or rearwards in relation to the surrounding teeth. Height, misalignment and angle of attack may reduce or obscure the engagement of observed oral dentition. (Dorion, 2005) As stated in Lessig (2006), "The state of the dentition, the degree of breakdown and/or repair of the teeth may create a bite mark with a high level of individuality." Note that Lessig reports that the bite may create a "high level of individuality": individuality, based on the individual characteristics of wear, damage, or developmental differences, are less than the standard imposed upon fingerprints as identifying characteristics. As previously discussed, identifying characteristics are required to be unique and permanent.
Examination and evaluation of a bite mark must also consider the possibility of stretching or deformity of the substrate, in most cases skin and underlying tissue:
Stress from the force of the bite may compress or distort the bite pattern. In a subject that survives the bite, swelling and treatment may distort the pattern.
If the victim is fatally wounded, there may be post mortem changes due to decomposition and degradation of the tissue.
60 Likewise, underlying decomposition may produce swelling and deformation of the surface skin e.g. prior to the release of built up subcutaneous gasses. After dissipation of decomposition gasses the surface skin may retreat with drying, further complicating measurement and comparison.
Cautions in Bite Mark Interpretation
Current literature shows a divide in the field of forensic odontology, and in forensics generally regarding bite mark evidence. The National Research Council 2009 report "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward" raised a number of questions across the field of forensics regarding reliability of forensic testing, the value of certain forensic practices, and standards to be applied in forensic science.
Bite marks and forensic odontology were addressed in part of the report. The report makes the observation "...there is continuing dispute over the value and scientific validity of comparing and identifying bite marks." (NRC 2009)
The American Board of Forensic Odontology has issued guidelines to be applied in the forensic use of bite mark evidence. (ABFO Guidelines 2016) The NRC (2009) report states "The guidelines, however, do not indicate the criteria necessary for using each method to determine whether the bite mark can be related to a person's dentition and with what degree of probability. There is no science on the reproducibility of the different methods of analysis that lead to conclusions about the probability of a match."
One must keep several points in mind when examining bite mark evidence.
There are two classes of evidence when it comes to items such as bite marks: class characteristics and individual characteristics. Class characteristics are those that allow the assignment of evidentiary items into rough groups with characteristic common traits.
Individual characteristics allow a piece of evidence to be attributed to a particular individual. For instance, the morphology shown in a bite mark can establish whether a
61 bite was inflicted by a dog or, for instance, a fox, a class of animal. DNA recovered from tissue at the scene may allow the identification of exactly which dog-or fox- was involved.
The collection of class characteristics and individual characteristics lead to the production of identifying evidence or exclusionary evidence. Identifying evidence is evidence that is identifiable to a single individual or item. Identifying characteristics must be permanent and unique. Examples of types of evidence that are considered identifying are fingerprints and DNA. In human cases, it is strongly suggested that bite mark comparison only be used as exculpatory evidence. (Pretty 2005 and Pretty 2001)
Serious debate exists as to whether a human's jaws, although they accumulate individual characteristics over a lifetime, are considered to be unique. Differences in jaw and dental morphology are not permanent; these details can change over time through a number of natural processes such as aging and natural wear. Although there are many potential points of comparison between dentition and bite marks, the question is if there are enough unique, permanent characteristics in a jaw, or a bite, that limit the marks produced to only a single, unique source for individual identification. Due caution would indicate that the potential uniqueness of a dog's dentition be subject to the same consideration.
Bite marks should be, instead, considered exclusionary evidence. Individual characteristics can, depending on the potential pool of possible candidates, serve to include, or exclude, individual members of that pool if the size of the pool of candidates is sufficiently small, we may be able to exclude particular suspects from the ability to have produced those particular marks. Whether bite mark evidence is positive
62 identification should be considered under the light of being direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. According to Cavanaugh (2012) "There are three forms of identification evidence: positive identification as direct evidence, positive identification as circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial identification evidence." Under these criteria, although bite marks may not be direct, identifying evidence that the bite was inflicted by a particular dog, one may certainly introduce the bite marks as circumstantial identification evidence. Are the bites either consistent with, or not consistent with, the physical characteristics of one or more dogs within the possible pool of candidates?
Bite marks are also cited as failing to meet one more criteria necessary for the acceptance of evidence as identifying: they are not permanent, they are not persistent, and they are not distinctive. (Maltoni, 2009) The dentition of an animal changes, through growth, wear, damage, and other natural causes.
The ABFO Diplomates' Manual (March, 2016) clearly illustrates these cautions.
In human bite mark comparison, the Manual states that there may be three acceptable conclusions reached on bite mark comparison: Inconclusive, Excluded, or Not
Excluded. (p.102) Although the ABFO does not specifically address animal bites, it would be logical to apply the same standards to forensic examination of dog bites. This means that, if there are sufficient distinct markers, given a limited pool of potential suspects, hopefully restricted by circumstance, witness testimony, or other physical evidence, comparing a dog's bite mark to a wound should produce a similar range of conclusions: inconclusive, not excluded (the animal(s) examined cannot be excluded to a degree of certainty from having inflicted the bite mark) or excluded (the animal(s)
63 examined can be eliminated from having inflicted the wound based on comparison of class characteristics such as measurement, presence/absence of certain teeth, etc.).
As an example, in 2012 a Siberian Husky was accused of killing a three-day-old infant in a home. (Case #7) Although there were four dogs in the home at the time, only one dog was seized and accused. This author was called in to investigate the case.
After examining the physical evidence, including details of the accused dog's dentition and the autopsy documentation, this dog was excluded from having inflicted the bite wounds on the infant based on significant differences in measurement and morphology of the bite wounds versus the accused dog's jaws. The other three dogs were "lost" by the local authorities and no further examination was possible. The Court, after hearing arguments and examining the expert findings, ruled that the accused dog was not the dog responsible and allowed the dog to be removed from the jurisdiction and placed in safe sanctuary.
In the experience of the author, such categories appear applicable and have been supported in the limited sample of cases examined. In one case (Case #1) a stray dog had been captured and assumed to have killed the victim. There was another dog that lived in the victim's home, and a third dog that lived next door. To try and establish if any of these candidates had caused the fatal bites, the dentition of the three different dogs was examined and specific characteristics documented. All three of the dogs examined had significantly differing measurements between canine teeth, different depths of reach, and differing widths of the jaws at the rear of the molars. Additionally, one of the dogs examined had unusual and distinctive deficits in their dentition (missing and broken teeth) that separated them clearly from the other two candidates.
64 The dentition of all three dogs was compared to the bite marks documented on the victim. The physical examination of the bite marks led this author to clearly exclude all three dogs from the identified bites. (Case #1) DNA recovered from the victim's wounds by the Medical Examiner was submitted for laboratory analysis. Canine DNA was identified as distinct from the victim's DNA. The sample of canine DNA examined was compared to DNA samples collected by the author from the three dogs examined.
The laboratory analysis was able to positively exclude the canine DNA from the victim's wounds from matching the individual reference DNA samples collected from the subject dogs. The exclusion of the three candidates by bite mark analysis was thereby confirmed by an independent and quantifiable test.
As stated above, bite marks can indicate directionality and force applied against resistance, and by doing so they can help indicate the number of animals involved in an attack. In one case (Case #8) the severe lateral abdominal bites showed clearly that at least two dogs were directly involved. The direction and depth of tearing showed that the sets of bites were opposing each other and the wounds were far beyond what would be consistent with simple resistance against gravity. The victim was found clear of any obstructions against which a dog could have pulled strongly, and there was no evidence that the child's body had been wedged or trapped to allow applying lateral force against the body.
In a second case, two distinctly different sets of bite marks were identified. (Case
#3) One set of bites was to the lateral portion of the top of the infant victim's head. That set of bite marks showed initial engagement, distal slippage, deeper engagement, further distal slippage, and final deep engagement that resulted in the piercing of the
65 cranium. On the opposing upper arm, there was a single bite that showed clear punctures and some minor distal tearing, opposing the grip of the cranial bite. There were distinct characteristics to the bites that allowed exclusion of each bite from one of the two dogs, indicating that one dog had the upper arm and the other dog the victim's head.
The consideration of this evidence produced the opinion that the two dogs had both grasped the child as if they were grasping a toy. The dogs pulled against each other, behavior fully expected from two dogs playing with a toy. In this case, as the dog with the child's head applied increasing pressure to hold on, the teeth penetrated deeply enough to cause the fatal brain injury.
Unlike the established system of identification of fingerprints by specific "points", and a quantification of concurrence of points required to include or exclude points of comparison as consistent with a particular subject, bite mark identification science is still evolving.
Reliability in human cases is under examination. (Pretty 2005) Hard statistical agreement on consistency is not present, so each evaluator will have to make the best argument in each case. As case law develops, and examination science progresses, we can hope that standards will be established and accepted. Until then a forensic bite evaluator can best develop their opinion based on whether the bite mark in question is consistent or inconsistent with the pool of potential subjects established by other means. This opinion should be heavily influenced by supportive, hard evidence such as
DNA, physical observation, blood, tissue recovered from the gastrointestinal tract, and other factors.
66 Ante-mortem, Peri-Mortem, and Post-Mortem Bite Injury
There are occasions when authorities are called to a location, usually a residence, in which a person is discovered deceased and has pets, particularly dogs. If the person has been unattended for a period of time the dogs may have inflicted wounds to the decedent. The question arises whether the dogs were the cause of death, making the case a DBRF, or whether the dogs scavenged the decedent as a source of nutrition. (Steadman, 2007)
This has also occurred in bodies found in outdoor settings. In these cases, again, the issue is whether a DBRF has occurred or whether natural, post mortem scavenging not related to attack has occurred. The incident may be a survival strategy, not related to aggression, but a use of an available protein source.
A further complication may be cases where the decedent is discovered, dogs have investigated the body, but there is neither scavenging nor an attack. A high profile case in Los Angeles occurred where the dogs belonging to actor Vingh Rhames were accused of mauling to death a caretaker on Rhames' property. (Whitcomb, 2007) A spokesman from the Los Angeles Police Department went on television news to state that the attack "...was the worst he had ever seen", and the public was led to believe this was a DBRF.
Further investigation, however, revealed a different story. According to autopsy reports, the caretaker's death was from a heart attack. The dog bite marks were inflicted post-mortem. The bites were confined to extremities, were generally low level, and were consistent with the dogs investigating the inert caretaker. (Lee, 2008) The high exposure of the initial claims obscured the later facts, and this case is still cited by some as a DBRF.
67 Prior to classifying such an incident as a DBRF, full and careful evaluation of the victim and of the incident is required. In the case of a victim discovered deceased with apparent dog bites, especially if substantial time has elapsed between the time of death and the discovery of the body, the Medical Examiner and/or Forensic Pathologist will, with a complete, competent autopsy and pathology reports, make their best recommendation as to the timing of the bites and the proximate cause of death.
Identifiable bites may be inflicted on a victim post mortem by a dog that did not participate in the original attack. This distinction can be crucial, as a dog that feeds on carrion as a survival need should not be considered in the same light as a dog that attacks a live human. To a dog, dead human flesh may only represent a food source.
The difference between a dog that consumes a deceased owner and a dog that attacked and killed that owner is behaviorally important. The first animal is most likely a candidate for rehoming, whereas the second animal is a potential public safety threat.
68
Figure 2-1. ABFO #2 Photomacrographic scale. Photo courtesy author.
Figure 2-2. Human dentition mold. Author’s collection. Photo courtesy author.
69
Figure 2-3. Canine dentition. Example from author’s collection, canine sample from DBRF dog, Case #13. Photo courtesy author.
Table 2-1 Dunbar Dog Bite Assessment Scale. Level 1. Obnoxious or aggressive behavior but no skin-contact by teeth. Level 2. Skin-contact by teeth but no skin-puncture. However, may be skin nicks (less than one tenth of an inch deep) and slight bleeding caused by forward or lateral movement of teeth against skin, but no vertical punctures. Level 3. One to four punctures from a single bite with no puncture deeper than half the length of the dog's canine teeth. May be lacerations in a single direction, caused by victim pulling hand away, owner pulling dog away, or gravity (little dog jumps, bites and drops to floor). Level 4. One to four punctures from a single bite with at least one puncture deeper than half the length of the dog's canine teeth. May also have deep bruising around the wound (dog held on for N seconds and bore down) or lacerations in both directions (dog held on and shook its head from side to side). Level 5. Multiple-bite incident with at least two Level 4 bites or multiple-attack incident with at least one Level 4 bite in each. Level 6. Victim dead.
70 CHAPTER 5 BEHAVIOR
Behavior Evaluations
Behavior evaluation of dogs has a relatively short history. Most evaluation tools such as Assess-a-Pet, SAFER, Pet Match, B.A.R.K., and others, are designed to either allegedly predict the suitability of a dog for adoption or identify the best type of adoptive home for a particular dog in need of placement. Other tools have been used to try to predict the future abilities of working dog puppies.
Some of these tools, as they have been applied to placement of dogs and suitability for adoption, have been used to decide if a dog should be offered for placement or killed as unsuitable. The Assess-a-Pet tool, for instance, has been used in some venues as a live-or-die test. Those dogs that “failed” were put to death in the shelters using that tool.
The job of the investigator in a DBRF, or other biting incident, is not to determine whether a dog lives or dies, or whether a dog can/should be adopted; the investigator is looking for:
1. Triggers for the particular incident
2. Deficits for treatment
3. Assessment of the dog's current situation for the purpose of placement suggestions with clear cautions.
Ideally the investigator should seek the possible triggers for the incident at hand in an environment closely simulating the attack. This may not be practical or safe to recreate. Therefore, the investigator should realize that the dog may not show a typical
71 response during evaluation. The dog is, after all, in an unusual environment, surrounded by strange people and animals. The dog may be suffering stress from his/her dislocation and confinement. The tester/target person may also be acting differently from the subject of the bite and that may impact the dog's reaction.
A caution one must keep in mind as the investigator looks for the storm of factors that caused a particular attack: humans can't really see into each other's minds clearly, much less into a dog's mind. Certainly, dogs and human share a cooperatively evolved social relationship that has developed over thousands of years. But one must remember that dogs see the universe differently than humans do. They have a different range of visual input (Horowitz, 2009, p.127) and a different range of auditory input.
(Horowitz, 2009 p.92-94) Above all, they have a completely foreign sense of olfactory input. Dogs use smell as their primary sense, in contrast to humans who depend most heavily on vision. (Horowitz, 2009, p. 87-88)
Ultimately, these factors add together to make dogs an alien intelligence. Not better, or worse, not lesser or inferior, but profoundly different.
Yet due to our long cooperative history, an investigator can make some inferences based on our imperfect understanding of behavior. And one can, by recognizing the clear differences, use general human states to compare their behavior across incidents. That is not to assign human emotional states to dogs. The emotional lives of dogs and the emotional states they are capable of are the topic of much current research. As more research regarding canine cognition and emotions life occurs, the investigator will be able to improve the reference points and commonalities, and differences between dog emotional states and the human analogs. Until then the
72 categories we use are rough parallel constructs, not absolute similar values, one can use them to reach some basic conclusions.
To clarify: humans say in common conversation that a dog is jealous, or acts guilty, or is mean or vicious. These categories are descriptive to the speakers, and are useful fictions, but may not reflect the complexity of emotions or the actual motivation behind a dog's behavior. The comparative analog that "Fluffy loves his owner" gives one a good feeling and establishes a category of behavior that makes sense to humans.
Yet one must analyze further than just the analogous label "love" to make sense of behavior. Fluffy may seem to "hate" a particular person, but there are quantifiable factors behind the label that the investigator must seek to adequately identify the source of the specific behavior.
One of the tools that an investigator of bites and fatalities can use is a behavioral evaluation.
There are many forms of behavior evaluations, with a variety of different designs and purposes. Some claim to be predictive of adoption success. Some are comparisons of various temperament factors. Some are puppy tests intended to predict the best puppy for particular tasks such as working dogs, showing, obedience, or field work.
The tools can be useful, but the value-and limitation-of those tools must be considered when evaluating a dog's behavior.
Poulsen, Lisle and Phillips (2009) studied the evaluation of shelter animal behavior in an RSPCA shelter in Fairfield, Brisbane, Australia. That study encompassed
236 dogs over a period of slightly more than two months. The dogs were given a single
73 testing by a randomly rotating pair of evaluators. Of the 236 dogs the shelter assessed during this time, a total of 130 dogs passed, yielding a 55% pass rate. 82, or 34.7% of the tested dogs failed and were destroyed with no further action. 24 dogs were placed into a behavior modification and training program.
The evaluation process was described thus:
The assessors initially monitored the dog's behavior on entering an assessment arena from a standing position in the middle of the arena, noting any signs of caution in its behavioral response to the environment or the assessors, and any excitement/agitation, friendliness or unsafe behaviors which might necessitate termination at that stage. The assessor did not engage in interaction with the dog at this time. Thereafter the dogs were subjected to 28 individual tests, described below, each of which had a numerical score from 0 to 5 (Table 1). These scores were designed to reflect the dog's state in response to the stimuli: a relaxed dog would receive a low score and an anxious or unsociable dog would receive a high score. The first two tests assessed how a dog responded to being touched by a stranger in a strange environment. The movements were rigid and there was a brief pause between each. The first test was three back strokes from head to tail, the second was five head pats and a score was allocated for the dog's response during the stimuli, during the pause in stimuli and after the completion of the stimuli. The third test assessed the dog's tolerance of the assessor attempting to open the dog's mouth (five attempts of increasing vigour, each of 5 s). The fourth test was designed to simulate how the dog might be handled in a situation where it was examined by a veterinarian, and involved holding of the dog's ears, feet, tail and body. The remaining tests were (5) holding the dog to simulate a hug for 15 s, with the response assessed during and after the hug; (6) rolling the dog over onto its back and holding it there for 15 s, with the response assessed during and after the roll; (7) presentation and retrieval, using an artificial hand, of a bowl of pet food and a piece of rawhide; (8) response to noise and movement (claps, hitting a metal bowl with a spoon, and the assessor jumping into the air, spreading arms and legs upon each repetition, three of each); (9) attempting to engage the dog in play using a rope toy, a tennis ball and a squeaky toy; (10) leaving the dog alone for 2 min, and (11) meeting the dog with two other dogs (one small and one large of different sex, if possible) both on and off the lead. (Poulsen, Lisle, and Phillips 2009 p. 2)
The reasons given by assessors for initial failure were as follows:
22 dogs failed for fearfulness 20 dogs failed for aggression toward other dogs 11 dogs failed for aggression to humans 11 dogs failed for excessive vocalization/escape behaviors 9 dogs failed for "untrustworthiness"
74 8 dogs failed for "Dog too forward or rough" 5 dogs failed for resource guarding
Of the 130 dogs that passed the testing, only 39 were available for retesting approximately 65 days post-placement, a number representing16.5% of the dogs initially tested, and only 30% of the dogs that passed the initial evaluation. Those 39 dogs were retested in their new home environment. Test results were compared and gave the following summary of results:
There was no significant correlation between the first and second assessment scores in tests that involved direct contact with the assessor: back stroking, head patting, muzzle opening, touching ears, feet, tail and body and hugging. There was a significant correlation between first and second assessment tests which did not involve direct contact between the dog and the assessor: food guarding, reaction to noise and movement, toys and play attempt. The dogs' responses after, but not during restraint were also correlated between assessments. (Poulsen, Lisle and Phillips 2009, p. 5).
The results of this study, although presented as positive, show significant questions best dealt with in another publication. However, it is significant to note several issues. First, the sample size of dogs retested after homing to assess "success" is very small. Second, the dogs that "failed" were simply eliminated rather than being followed to see if the negative predictions were accurate. Any significant departure from 100% accuracy on predicted failure introduces the possibility of false positives, with no known error rate. In that case, 82 dogs were killed without further examination or attempted treatment. Further, reasons for failure were unclear. The data shows that 11 dogs were failed for "excessive vocalization/escape behavior" (listed above). No definition of
75 excessive vocalization is given, and no explanation of escape behavior vs. Fearfulness is provided.
Lastly, in the "Materials and Method" section of the study, the authors explain the scoring system thus: "These scores were designed to reflect the dog's state in response to the stimuli: a relaxed dog would receive a low score and an anxious or unsociable dog would receive a high score." Yet one of the criteria for failure listed is "Total score too low", which failed 10 dogs, 12.1% of the failures. Yet one could assume from the explanation that a "perfect" dog would have an absolutely minimal total score. This contradiction is not explained.
There is further research that indicates that the predictive value of pre-adoption testing is limited. Again in Australia, a study was conducted by Mornement, Coleman,
Toukhsati and Bennett (2015) examining the use of the Behavioral Assessment for Re- homing K9s (B.A.R.K.). The study addressed the evaluation of 102 dogs in five
Australian shelters over a 12-month period. All 102 dogs had already passed the various shelters' existing testing. Of those 102 dogs, 74 were adopted. 73 dogs were assessed for the study as one owner was unavailable to participate. The follow-up examined the validity of B.A.R.K., focusing on a set of three subsets of target factors:
"fearful/inappropriate toileting", "problem behavior", "aggression". The subset
"fearful/inappropriate toiling" was found to have a strong correlation with the fearfulness scores found during the B.A.R.K. process. "Problem behavior" and "aggression" were found to have no such significant indicators in the follow up study. According to the authors;
While it appears that the B.A.R.K. protocol may be an effective tool to predict a general measure of friendliness and fearful behavior exhibited in
76 a number of contexts post adoption, the protocol does not appear to be a good predictor of problem behaviors, such as aggressive and destructive behavior, in shelter dogs. (P.40)
Once again, several issues arise. First, these 102 dogs had already "passed" the assessment test for adoptability in these shelters. Dogs that had not passed the initial shelter evaluation were not included as comparisons. Yet even within this preselected population the factors of "problem behavior" and "aggression" were poorly predicted.
An added concern in the administration of a behavioral evaluation is the potential presence of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency for a researcher to find what they are looking for. In the course of a behavior evaluation, a tester could subtly alter their interaction to produce a pre-determined result. For instance, using body position and posture coupled with facial expression, an evaluator seeking to confirm that a particular dog exhibited aggressive displays towards human targets could present clear challenge signals to a dog, precipitating what would to an outside appear to be dangerous behavior. Full video recording of an evaluation, documenting both the actions of the dog and of the evaluator, may assist in dispassionate review of the evaluator’s conclusions.
Based on these, and other more detailed concerns, to this author, the purpose of a temperament test is not to predict what a dog might do someday. It is an assessment of what the dog is doing right now. It is a tool one can use, with caution, to help determine what may have led a dog to make a behavioral choice in the recent past.
The interaction of environment, training, owner skill, relationships with other animals, potentially diet, medical conditions, and a host of other factors large and small conspire to affect a dog's future behaviors in ways evaluators are only beginning to understand.
77 This conspiracy of influence makes prediction the guess in the dark that is has been for as long as human memory has existed.
But investigators are asked to evaluate dogs, and to make recommendations from that evaluation. To do so effectively one must ask themselves before test "Why are we testing this dog?" and "What is the intended outcome of this test?" The evaluator has to have a goal in sight, a purpose in mind.
A behavioral evaluation is NOT a contest between human and dog to see who can intimidate who. It is not a battle of wills. It is not to see if the evaluator can get submission from the dog or bully it into reluctant compliance.
Neither is an evaluation a contest to see who can "handle the baddest". No responsible evaluator should be trying to rack up points in a contest to see how
"aggressive" a dog they can manage. Bite scars from severely aggressive dogs are not trophies; bites result from the evaluator making mistakes. These mistakes are most often from failing to pay attention and missing clear warnings that the dog was about to react with a bite. That failure is serious, because failure on an evaluator's part not only results in injury to the evaluator, but in many jurisdictions is a death sentence for the dog.
During evaluation for a dangerous dog, or potentially dangerous dog, there are things the investigating evaluator is not doing. They are not examining a dog for possible adoption. They are not evaluating to "save" the dog.
So what is a behavioral evaluation? A behavioral evaluation for a dog is a map, a documentation of everything about the dog's behavior at that time and in that place, noted fairly and with understanding of what dogs are. The evaluator is trying to
78 determine what, in the dog's behavior repertoire, may have contributed to the incident at hand. How did the dog's past, the owner's actions, the surrounding environment, and even the dog's diet, add up to create the incident at hand? The investigator is looking for triggers, how the dog responds to various stimuli. These stimuli are, ideally, related to the actual circumstances discovered during the investigation. To paraphrase Arthur
Conan Doyle, what was the curious incident of the dog in the night time? What did he see? How did he come to act as he did?
In some cases, evaluation is performed to see what path rehabilitation might best take, with potential recommendations to be considered in matching the dog, as it behaves presently, with treatment and/or placement options. One can compare these evaluations with scholastic and psychological testing done by school systems on children identified as having learning or behavior deficits. The tests are to find the child's strengths, and weaknesses, behaviorally and intellectually. The school uses these tests to tailor the child's learning program to address deficits. If there are psychological difficulties, the school works with the parents and medical experts to treat these issues so the child can succeed as well as that child has the ability.
Dog evaluations for rehabilitation should, in this author's view, be the same; a tool to find deficits and a way of mapping out rehabilitation by identifying the issues.
Unfortunately, some use the testing of temperament to be a live-or-die test, choosing to cull those that fail to meet the sometimes artificially determined objective on a certain day in a certain environment. This, as illustrated above, is serious cause for concern.
79 Risk Assessment
Based on recent research, the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology
(De Meester, Mills, et al., 2011) has released a position paper on the assessment of risk posed by a given dog.
In this paper the ESCVE defines five stages that are considered best practices for behavioral evaluation as predictive of potential risks. They are 1) identify the hazards (risks), 2) decide who might be harmed or at risk and how, 3) evaluate the risks and decide on precautions, 4) record your findings and implement them, and 5) review your assessment and update if necessary.
The risk assessment of a dangerous, or potentially dangerous, dog requires the incorporation of physical and behavioral factors coupled with the available environmental controls. Regarding identification of hazards;
This should not only an assessment of the animal's physical and behavioral characteristics but also its physical and social environment . . . with particular attention paid to the availability of necessary resources, ability (physically, psychologically, financially, et cetera) and willingness of the owner/environment to implement these measures. The assessment should be reviewed periodically as it will only relate to the circumstances at that time and these may change.
80 CHAPTER 6 EVIDENCE
There are a number of specific types of physical evidence that must be examined in DBRF cases, some of which is particular more to these cases than any other. Those include:
Environmental: paw marks, drag marks, blood spatter, foot prints.
On the dog: blood and blood staining, recovered DNA from the victim or other dogs, stomach contents, bloodwork that examines the overall health and presence or absence of medications, steroids, or illegal drugs, other body fluids observed on the dog’s fur, existing injuries, and injury present before the incident that may indicate contributing causes.
Other types of evidence are environmental evidence regarding the scene as far as lighting, temperature, and presence or absence of other animals (canine or non- canine).
Level of activity, both by the dog and the humans, should be documented. In
Case #8, the activity of humans and dogs before and at the time of the attack was a major contributor in setting up the “perfect storm” (Lockwood) that resulted in the victim’s death as documented in the next section.
Circumstantial or Situational Evidence
The direct activities of both dog(s) and humans prior to an attack may be a contributory factor and is part of the circumstantial evidence as it applies to both human and dog activity during the incident. Miller (2012) suggests that a dog may reach a state of "self-control depletion" that contributes to an aggressive display or an attack. Miller's research suggests that, if a dog is pressed to control itself in the time immediately
81 before being presented with a possible aggressive response trigger, it may be more prone to producing that response. "This pattern of behavior suggests that initial self- control exertion results in riskier and more impulsive decision making by dogs." (Miller, p. 539)
Miller expands upon this concept.
Research with human and nonhuman animals suggests that self-control relies on a limited resource (Baumeister & Heatherton, 2004; Miller et al., 2010). Exerting self-control depletes this resource, and once depleted, subsequent efforts to control behavior become impaired. (p. 539)
This pattern of highly active behavior requiring an extended period of self-control by the dog, followed by a sudden release of aggressive behavior, has been observed by this author in cases of DBRF. In the case of CP in the southeastern United States (Case
#8), three dogs were present in a residential backyard, tethered, during a period of excited human activity. The dogs were familiar with all of the humans present and had regularly played with the humans, including the child victim CP, appropriately. No prior aggressive behavior was officially reported, although CP's non-residential parent had expressed concern regarding the dogs prior to the incident.
The residents, including CP, were riding four wheeled motorized vehicles around the yard for several hours and playing actively. The dogs were tethered during this period and became highly excited during the activity. The tethers were small gauge cables, attached to lightweight poles stuck in the ground, along with small gauge polypropylene rope that was frayed, either before the day of the incident or perhaps by chewing during the excitement phase of the activities.
The adults eventually went into the home and allowed victim CP to return to the back yard, unsupervised, to jump on a trampoline. During the time the child was
82 unsupervised the dogs broke free of their tethers and, in the immediate vicinity of the trampoline, attacked and killed CP. Injuries to CP were extensive, and examination of wounds to CP's torso indicate that at least two of the dogs grasped CP in mid-torso from opposing directions and pulled CP between them, causing severe laterally opposed severe tearing injuries. (Figure 4)
This behavior echoes the conclusions made by Miller and by Sacks.
Confinement is not fail-proof in the natural world, and it is quite possible that a confined aggressor could escape and attack. Mail carriers are often attacked by presumably confined dogs, as are children, and a significant percentage of pet-related human fatalities result when a restrained aggressive dog is approached. (Sacks et al., 1989; U.S. Postal Service, 2016)
The tethering of the three dogs in CP's case, coupled with the extended period of activity and inadequate security of the tethering for the extraordinary circumstance, created a situation of high arousal and depletion of normal levels of self-control. This resulted in the severe release of aggressive behavior.
The situational information regarding the behavior of both humans and dogs before the attack gave clarity to the developing situation and assisted this author searching for precursor behaviors in this particular attack.
Other situational evidence may be established by a physical examination of the entire crime scene. TM was an adolescent male living in a rural area of the southeastern United States. TM was found in the front yard of a neighboring residence by two other adolescent males being actively bitten by six (6) dogs. One of the dog was observed by the witnesses standing over the top of TM's body as if "protecting her kill.”
(Case #2)
83 At the time the attack, it was established that TM had been visiting a friend and was walking along the dirt road at the scene towards his home. The time of day of the attack indicated it was dusk, and visibility was decreasing with time.
Detailed examination of the crime scene by this author discovered that there were a series of shoe prints in the dirt at the side of the road consistent with the shoes worn by TM at the time of the attack. The shoe prints proceeded from in front of a bush at the edge of the property where the dogs lived, down the road past the property. At first, the shoe prints were even and consistent with a person walking calmly. The shoe prints then altered shape consistent with a person running. The running prints were accompanied by what appeared to be running prints consistent with a dog. Other dog prints came from a separate area of the yard. All dog prints and the shoe prints converged in an area directly in front of the drive of the residence. At this point apparent blood spatter and staining began.
From the engagement point there were drag marks in the dirt, coupled with blood stains and portions of TM's clothing. One shoe was located upon the drag mark path.
The drag marks, blood stains, and portions of clothing and tissue terminated at the point where the partially consumed body of TM was discovered.
The physical evidence of the shoe prints, the paw prints, the blood stains and the drag marks, all consistent with a dog attack, led the prosecution team to the conclusion that TM had been walking along the dirt road when he was startled by a dog from the suspect property. TM appears to have run, with one or more dogs in pursuit. TM was taken down to the ground in the road by a group of dogs, and was then bitten severely while being dragged to the final resting point. During the process substantial portions of
84 TM’s face, chest musculature, arm muscle, and substantial skin were consumed by the subject dogs. The point of takedown was located outside the legal boundaries of the dog owner's property and TM was dragged back onto the property. The dogs were therefore off property and not adequately confined. This case was prosecuted and the owner of the dogs was convicted of negligent homicide.
Without the summation of the physical evidence creating a scenario and establishing the circumstances of the attack prosecution would have been much more difficult as the presumption could have been made that TM had trespassed on the dog owner's property.
To properly assess and investigate an incident, full use of situational evidence as possible supporting facts must be utilized. In the above attack, not only did the footprints give a good picture of the moments before and during the attack, but outside information gave further support for the conviction of the dog owner. The owner of the dogs claimed to have been driving a truck in the central US at the time of the attack.
Examination by Law Enforcement of the owner's cell phone records indicated that the owner's cell phone had activated a tower, with an outgoing call, less than 1/4 mile from the attack scene. This indicated that the owner was indeed within the residence when
TM was killed in the front yard and did nothing to intervene. This information assisted conviction of the subject for negligent homicide.
As a result, the investigator should pursue evidentiary options past the confines of the initial scene. Such information as cell phone records, private and public security cameras, dash-cam videos from responding personnel, and possible video or statements from passersby or neighbors should be sought. Search warrants for
85 evidence in these cases should include provision to search for digital or photographic evidence to be as inclusive as possible.
Witness Interviews
Witness interviews will be a substantial portion of the evidence gathered in many
DBRF investigations. Cautions must be observed by the investigator gathering and applying such interviews like in any investigation.
All witnesses have differing experiences, perception, and potentially personal agendas. These add up to create biases, and the investigator must sort through the bias to reach a factual account.
During a witness interview the investigator should use concrete terms, avoiding words like mauling, vicious, threatening, etc. The investigator should ask for concrete descriptions of particular observed behavior. The goal is to obtain information on specific, observable markers of behavior, such as raised hackles, bared teeth, frontal posture, tail position, etc. An appropriate question is not "Were you frightened?" The ultimate question is "What did the dog do?"
The witnesses must be asked what they actually saw, not what they think they saw. For example, if a person saw the dog retreating after they heard a person exclaim, the witness didn't see a dog bite - the witness presumed a dog bite.
The cautious investigator must examine the scene and determine if the witness could have physically seen what they claim from where the witness states they were located.
The investigator should ask the witness what they heard. Did they hear the dog growling or did they see the dog bowed down with hackles up and head turned and
86 assume it growled? After evaluating the scene, can the investigator establish if the witness was close enough to hear what they claim with background noise?
There are usually differences between what the witness saw and what they think they saw. The investigator should leave interpretation out of the equation at this stage.
The investigator needs observations, not opinions.
With that considered, the investigator must consider whether the witnesses’ statements are consistent with the physical evidence discovered. Contradictions between what a witness thinks they have seen, or what they report they have seen, do occur. Misperceptions caused by excitement, lighting issues, the speed of an event, or other outside factors must be considered. Although witness testimony is important, the details should be supported, or at least explained, by the physical evidence.
There is also the question as to whether a particular witness is credible. What is their base of knowledge, bias, experience with dogs, exposure to ideas of proper behavior? How familiar are they with aggressive displays in dogs? Do they understand and recognize normal dog-dog and dog-human interactions?
The investigator must determine environmental factors. In the case of TM, the growing darkness likely impacted the victim's ability to see the dogs before he passed the yard, potentially depriving TM of the opportunity to take another path. Lighting and weather can also affect witness perception. What was the lighting, weather, and the potential view of the witness? Were the witnesses impaired or affected by other factors, such as vision deficiencies?
The investigator must determine the basis for identifying the particular dog. How distinctive is the subject dog, and how well does the witness know the dog? Was the
87 dog captured at the scene? Was the dog contained before capture, and did the dog ever leave the witnesses' sight?
In appraising witness testimony, the investigator must estimate how long the incident lasted, and was there enough time for the witness to have seen all that they think they saw? Was the incident long enough for the witness to accurately assess the situation or were there just fleeting impressions? Was the incident recorded some way?
Did the witness observe any of the precursors to the actual bite (lead up) or just the instant of the contact?
Was there more than a single dog involved in the incident, and if so can the witness discriminate between the dogs? Did the witness see all of the dogs involved?
Did all of the dogs actually bite, or did some of the dogs, for instance, circle, bark, snap without contact, etc. The dog(s) responsible must be able to be identified and quantified as having bitten. Guilt by mere presence is not an option. The investigator cannot condemn a group of dogs because one individual bit a human.
Behavioral Evidence
Dog Behavior
The basic behavior may seem to be obvious: a dog bit a person and caused injury. But the why behind the bite affects both prosecution and public safety considerations. Was this a "dangerous "dog or was this an accident? Did this dog act
"on his own" or was the dog's behavior shaped by the action, or inaction, of a human?
Can, or should, such a human be held responsible?
In the context of a dog incident investigation, the investigator is not looking to predict what a dog may do in the future. The investigator is looking for behaviors that may be diagnostic in determining what the dog did in the past. Total reconstruction of an
88 incident is usually impossible, but an evaluator can look for sensitivities and triggers that may have contributed to a particular action by the dog. To do this an investigator needs to gather detailed information of how the dog lived and acted before the incident. This information is part of the testimony gathered. How did the dog behave on a daily basis?
What level of socialization with humans and other animals did the dog have? What was the purpose of the dog? Was it a family member or a "resident dog"? Had the dog received training, if so from whom, and what training methods were used? This information gives us a general structure; a perception of what behavior was expected from the dog.
Background witness statements are valuable in determining the past behavior of a dog. Neighbors may not have filed formal complaints but may have observed the dog interacting with other dogs or people. They may have knowledge of past conflict.
Veterinary staff may have experience with the dog and be able to provide observations and documents of both the physical condition and behavior of a dog as seen in their setting. There may be local trainers, groomers, veterinarians or other professionals that have had contact with the subject dog. All of these pieces add up to a more detailed picture of the dog, just as background witnesses add to the profile of a human offender.
In a dog inflicted injury case these factors can help establish whether the owner could have reasonably anticipated dangerous behavior from the dog and can show whether remediation was attempted.
Direct behavioral evidence is essential. As said before, the investigator is not looking to predict future behavior. The investigator is looking to assess behaviors and triggers present, documented with quantifiable, direct observation, to establish the dog's
89 behavior post-incident and thereby attempt to reconstruct causes or contributing factors to the actions of the dog at the time of the incident. This is imperfect: experiences may have occurred since the incident that have changed the dog's reactions to circumstances, including the effects of the incident itself. Yet clues can be gathered that help the investigator look deeper into the dog's reasons for action. Is this a dog that startles easily? Did the victim of the incident surprise the dog and approach suddenly?
Is the dog unusually sensitive to approach by a specific class of person (such as children)? Was the victim an unfamiliar child?
The investigator should be looking for some specific behaviors as they apply to the incident. Some of these specific behavioral factors are listed in Table 6-1.
Any behavior evaluation used should possess certain qualities. The evaluation must be reproducible, be consistent, and should go from general to specific behaviors.
One begins with overall observed behavior-what is the dog doing? How does the dog respond to the evaluator's approach? These general observations lead to more specific situations, and ideally lead closer to the actions and environment reported immediately before the incident. If possible and safe, after a general evaluation an attempt to recreate as much of the situation that preceded the bite may reveal other specific behaviors. If the target of the incident was an infant, the use of a crying baby doll may elicit a notable response, but may not be a reliable predictor alone. Caution should be used in assuming that a recreation will produce an identical response: the recreation is not likely to exactly reproduce the entirety of the situation, especially since involving real victims and the real owner are not advisable. With that in mind, a reasonable approximation of the incident may be useful.
90 During an examination an ultimate single cause may not emerge. What the investigator may discover, though, is that a number of individual factors added up to produce a particular reaction. This is called "trigger stacking" in popular dog training literature. The concept is that individual triggers or stimuli may be, in isolation, insufficient to produce an overt reaction. However, as they are added together, the effect is cumulative. A dog that, for example, is not socialized to children, has high levels of prey/toy "drive", and has a protective predisposition may face each of those factors individually without reaction. However, if a small child runs loudly and quickly at the dog on the dog’s property past the dog's food bowl, the additive effect of the separate risk factors may precipitate a strong response. Assessing all of the factors and determining the parts of the additive result is one purpose of evaluating triggers.
The other purpose of determining triggers has to do with accountability and prosecution. Were the risk factors evident to the owner/caretaker? Were the triggers created or reinforced by the owner? Were attempts ever made to minimize the risk associated with the triggers or risk factors, or did the owner properly manage the dog to reduce the risk? Did the owner, or should the owner, have perceived that the triggers and resulting behaviors were likely to result in the injury or death of another person?
A behavior evaluation must be recorded. Multi-viewpoint video has proven best to establish both the actions of the dog and the interplay between the dog and the evaluator. Fine details such as eye contact and facial expressions matter since these details are basic to canine communication. Further, an evaluator may not directly observe quick signals, or may be distracted by safety and other concerns. Observing
91 video post-evaluation has often revealed signaling that the author has missed while in the midst of an evaluation.
A behavior evaluation should occur as soon after a DBRF incident as practically possible. The longer the time that lapses between the incident and the evaluation, the greater the chance that other influences have changed the dog's behavior. A dog originally mistreated may respond profoundly to humane and kind treatment in a shelter, and behavior after some months of positive treatment may change the dog's responses.
Although remediation of problem behavior is generally a good thing, this change may obscure triggers that were causally linked to the apparent bite incident.
Human behavior
The behavior of humans, victim or others, contributes to the circumstances preceding and surrounding a DBRF. The behavior of the human that initiates the incident may be deliberate, unintentional, or other.
In the case of female victim APA (Case #16), the victim was an experienced dog rescuer. APA was known in the dog community as a good rescuer but was also known to use physically forceful training and handling methods.
APA had taken into the home two adult Presa Canario dogs. One was a reproductively intact male that had presented human focused aggressive behavior, of which APA was aware. This dog was kept muzzled, but was allowed to mingle freely with the multiple other dogs in the home. The muzzle used was a secure "basket type" muzzle that secured behind the dog's head and was designed to prevent tooth contact with targets. The muzzle was constructed of a hard material, and had a distinct pattern to the "basket" portion of the muzzle.
92 On the date of the incident the victim had returned home from a social engagement. The victim, according to toxicology testing during autopsy, had been consuming alcoholic beverages and had a significant blood alcohol level, possibly impairing APA's judgement.
After returning home an incident occurred that resulted in APA being fatally mauled by the male Presa Canario. The dog was discovered by authorities with his muzzle hanging loose from his face, with substantial blood on him, the muzzle, and blood spatter across the walls and ceiling of the residence kitchen.
Responding personnel observed that the male dog's muzzle had somehow become detached, but investigators found no clear defect in the muzzle or the fastening.
This author was in contact with the local Medical Examiner and determined that the victim was left handed. At the author's request the Medical Examiner observed the dorsal area of the victim's left hand. The Medical Examiner observed a pattern of bruising that was consistent with the pattern of hard material from with the muzzle was constructed.
Based on the observed bruising, the pattern of the hard portion of the muzzle, and the attribution of physical methods of control of dogs to the victim, the conclusion was reached that the victim had most likely struck or punched the male dog in the face and dislodged the muzzle. That freed the dog to respond to a perceived or actual attack by the victim without the victim being protected by the muzzle. This response led directly to the victim's death from multiple serious dog bites. This incident was actively precipitated by the behavior of the human victim.
93
Figure 6-1. Severe abdominal tearing from dog bite. Photo courtesy author’s files, Case #8.
Reaction to startle (sudden noise) Recovery from startle Reactivity to other dogs Reactivity to non-canines Resource guarding (food, toy, person, location) Reaction to "friendly stranger" Reaction to "threatening stranger" Reaction to classes of people Reaction to physical contact Social contact with humans-willing or reticent? Ability to respond to redirection when aroused Territorial behavior Table 6-1 Canine behavioral factors to consider in DBRF evaluation.
94 CHAPTER 7 EVIDENCE COLLECTION
Human Sample Collection
The investigator should ask the Medical Examiner to take swab samples of the interior areas of the bites found. Canine DNA can be identified to a particular individual, just like human DNA, and this matching may identify, or exclude, particular animals.
This, coupled with bite analysis, can establish exactly which dog inflicted exactly which bite, and if that bite was the proximate cause of death. This identification is crucial in homicide prosecution.
Ensure that the Medical Examiner takes detailed photos of the bite wounds, both before and after cleaning, including a scale marker in the photos. These photos can be matched against molds of the dogs' teeth and jaws to identify, or at least exclude, particular dogs from participating in the attack. Further, bites can show directionality, so as an investigator you can establish whether the animal attacked from the front, rear, or side, possible giving clues to the behavior of the dog and victim during the attack.
Scratches, dirt marks, and other non-fatal wounds may also indicate defensive action by the victim, or the displacement of the victim's body at the scene.
Behavior by the victim at the time of the incident must be considered as part of the entire picture. A victim can, intentionally or inadvertently, affect the behavior of a dog.
As an example, if confronted by an anxious or a high-chase drive dog, a child that runs away screaming will likely precipitate a response from the dog. That response can range from simply pursuing to grabbing with teeth, latching on, and even dragging the child down. In the case of victim TM (Case #2), the initial flight response of the
95 victim triggered chase by a single dog, which then resulted in the chase by the group of six dogs. The six dogs took the victim to the ground in the street and dragged the victim into their yard. During this process the multiple bites and general frenzy of the dog group led to the victim’s death and ultimate partial consumption by the group of dogs.
Was this a case of provocation? In human terms, the victim did nothing to initiate an attack. The response of the dogs involved was, however, at the start within normal expectations. Other factors contributed to the final outcome, but the initial fear response and flight of the victim certainly had an effect.
Victim appearance may have an effect. This author has observed dogs that were sensitive, for instance, to persons wearing hats. The putting on or taking off of a hat may precipitate, in sensitive or poorly socialized fearful dogs, a reaction that can include flight or fight.
A victim that is impaired or under the influence of intoxicating substances or illegal drugs may create or contribute to circumstances that cause or exacerbate a dog attack. In one case cited (Case #16), the victim appears to have made poor choices prior to the attack which may have been influenced by the victim’s prior consumption of alcoholic beverages. In Case #6, the adult victim was under the influence of more than one controlled, illegal substance at the time of the attack. That influence may have affected the victim’s choices and actions, precipitating the catastrophic attack by the dog. In that case the dog may have also been affected by its own consumption of illegal drugs.
96 al or emotional/psychiatric issues in victims may also play a significant factor in a dog’s reaction to a human. In a case in the Southeastern U.S., three large dogs killed a six-year-old male. The victim had been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from autism disorder. The victim was non-verbal, only capable of making high pitched squeaky sounds. The victim also suffered from motor disorders that made their motions jerky and uneven. The combination of these factors, with a lack of parental supervision, contributed to the attack to and death of the victim.
In another case, the victim suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. That victim’s mental state may have led to actions that precipitated or exacerbated the dogs’ behavior. (Case #13)
Age of the victim may contribute to both cause and results. Infants are small and relatively fragile. Injury inflicted by a large dog to a small infant can be catastrophic, where a healthy adult may have survived the encounter. (Case #3) Likewise, other health issues presented by a victim, apart from the injuries themselves, may contribute to the result. An adult died from a minor dog bite in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. due to an infection of common bacteria present in the mouth of dogs. The adult victim, however, was immunocompromised due to a past splenectomy. In that case the medical condition of the victim, and the victim’s failure to seek medical treatment immediately after the bite, contributed to the fatality. (Case #17)
Sample Collection from the Animal
Animal(s) may have to be sedated to safely handle-if so document type and dosage of sedative. Photograph the animal from all sides-full body shots and close ups of pertinent areas. Once animal(s) is safely restrained and docile, collect DNA swabs of upper and lower jaw area of each animal. Examine animal for visible signs of blood or
97 fluids on fur. Use swabs to collect or cut and collect fur in the stained areas. If possible, re-examine for stains or fluids using UV lamp. Have a veterinarian evacuate the stomach of each animal and save the contents separately for testing. Document any pieces of tissue visible in the stomach contents-suggest labeling as "potential tissue-unknown origin"-the tests will positively identify it later. Collect blood samples from each dog and preserve for testing. Take blood samples of the animals even if deceased.
Once samples are collected from the animal they must be securely identified.
Use microchip numbers to label all samples for continuity.
Even if the owners request or permit euthanasia, keep the animals alive for evaluation by a behavior expert. Observation and evaluation of the animals may give valuable information regarding recreating the incident.
If the animal is deceased at the scene and rabies testing is needed, please request that the State Lab retain and return the animal's head, keeping chain of custody, so that bite impressions and comparisons can be made or verified later. The animal's brain may be examined by a skilled veterinarian for evidence of lesion or physical abnormality that may have affected the animal's behavior.
NOTE: If Law Enforcement personnel are forced to destroy the animal at the scene for safety reasons, they should shoot for center of body mass, not the dog’s head. Heads are a small, moving target, well armored, and damage to the brain and jaw of the dog may limit information needed for full investigation.
Once the scene is secured and evidence collected it is time to transport and process the animal. This processing should be done at either a Veterinarian's office or
98 in your facility. If the dog is fractious or aggressive, have your Vet sedate the dog for safe control. Record the person administering the control drug and the type, dose, and time of any tranquilizer or sedative administered. Ensure that the animal is placed on a freshly cleaned table or work surface and that you, or anyone handling the dog, is gloved. Remember that it is important to guard against outside contamination, either from human contact or from previous animals.
The first step is weigh and measure the dog (height at withers, length nose to base of tail, width across broadest portion of chest, breadth of head at ears, length of head nose to rear of occiputs). At the same time, you can take full, well-lit documentary photos. Your camera should be set to imprint the correct date and time of the photo session right on the frame. This will enhance their value in court, and will document any changes over time.
Documentary photos should be from both sides, top, bottom, front, and rear.
Take close up shots of the dog's face and muzzle from both sides. Shoot close ups of all four paws. If there is visible blood on nails, pads, tail, etc. take shots of that. Also take specific overall and close up shots of any visible bloodstains on the dog.
Document any visible injury or scars, no matter how small. Take more photos than you think you may ever need. Today's cameras are digital and there are no processing costs.
Whenever possible include an evidence ruler/scale in the picture to illustrate size and exact location on the dog of any visible evidence. Also, on as many of the photos as possible, to include a marker, tag or title board in the pictures that includes the microchip number of that dog and the case number. This is especially important in
99 cases where there are several similar dogs. Dogs look surprisingly alike in photos days later, and you will not be the only one having to make that distinction. Get the identification number in the frame.
Once the physical characteristics of the dog are documented it is time to take initial samples. Begin with samples of any apparent blood stains on the dog's fur.
Swab these with a clean, sterile cotton swab. If the stains are dried the investigator can dip the swab into a bit of water from a previously sealed bottle of drinking water or sterile saline from a small bottle of contact lens water. Take similar swabs from under the toenails if there appears to be blood there. Examine the dog's coat with a Woods
Lamp (ultraviolet light source) to see if there are any other body fluids on the dog-some body fluids fluoresce under UV light. If there are, they should be sampled. While swabbing the fur, if there is any possibility that the dog was in an environment where the subject was using or producing methamphetamine, take an additional, non-blood swab to test for the presence of the drug.
Next, take a DNA swab and separately swab the dog's upper and lower jaws. Be certain to swab between the teeth. You are looking for traces of human DNA from the bite. While you are taking these take a separate swab from the dog's cheek and label it as a base sample for this particular dog. Canine DNA is as identifiable to the individual dog as with human DNA being able to positively identify a single person. If canine DNA is recovered from the bite wound by the Medical Examiner, it can be matched back to a specific dog and help identify whether a particular dog took part in the attack or perhaps just licked blood off the ground.
100 After the DNA swabs of the jaw are taken, the investigator should get a
Veterinarian to obtain samples of the dog's stomach contents. With a live dog this involves inserting a tube down the dog's esophagus into its stomach. Save any contents in a fresh sample jar containing preservative that won't degrade DNA present.
This sample may include not only human DNA but may contain bits of human tissue.
Seal and label this for evidence.
The Veterinarian should collect several tubes of blood. These blood samples should be analyzed; first, a full blood chemistry workup should be requested to ascertain the dog's health. Several medical conditions, such as thyroid irregularity, can contribute to aggressive behavior.
The blood samples should be checked for foreign substances such as cocaine, methamphetamine, pain killers such as Demerol, or unusually high levels of testosterone or steroids. These compounds are more common in fighting dogs, but may be present in dogs taken from environments wherein illegal drugs are used. The presence of these substances may lead to clues regarding the trigger for the attack, or may give probable cause for cruelty prosecution.
A human urinalysis kit may be used to test the dog's urine for the presence of illegal drugs. These are fairly inexpensive and are available over the counter at a pharmacy or drugstore. Notation of any and all sedation and control drugs used by the capture officer and the agency on the animal should be included with any samples sent for analysis for lab reference.
Next, particularly if the dog is sedated, the investigator should make a mold of the dog's bite, upper and lower or have the Veterinarian or forensic dentist do the same.
101 This step can wait until after euthanasia if needed. If there will be a delay ensure that the dog does not chew on any hard objects (kennel, wire, etc.) to avoid any change or damage to the dog's teeth.
Once physical samples are collected the dog may be placed into secure holding and fed/watered. Many agencies want to euthanize an attack animal quickly, but there is no need to be in a hurry. Behavioral information can be gained from observing the live dog that can help to establish triggers for the attack. Owners or the public may want the dog destroyed quickly, but the dog is evidence in a possible criminal case.
The agency should not dispose of the dog until the investigation is complete. This author suggests that no dog be destroyed in a human fatality until the State Attorney authorizes the dog's destruction.
On a note of caution, one needs to insure that the dog is held securely and unavailable to the public or others. Suspect dogs have been stolen from Animal Control facilities after fatalities. These dogs are highly attractive to some segments of the population and must be considered high value targets, especially if the dog is of a fighting breed. This author recommends agencies take aggressive measures to secure
DBRF dogs: that may include at a minimum secure, covered and locked kennels in restricted areas; moving dogs to undisclosed locations; or even labeling the kennels of unrelated dogs "Warning-Fatal Attack Dog" to misguide any potential thieves.
Document the true location of the dog in the case preparation, but in most cases there should not be a legal requirement to reveal the location of the dog until the investigation is complete. Do not discuss the location of the dog with media. This author recommends that media not be permitted to film the dog until the investigation is closed,
102 and then only with the consent of the State Attorney. Video of a calm, passive dog in a kennel may well misrepresent the actual character of the dog and may be used against prosecution, especially if that prosecution depends on the owner's presumed knowledge of the dog's past aggressive actions.
When the dog is euthanized, the investigator should be prepared to collect certain samples even if it has been some time since the event. The case Veterinarian should conduct a necropsy to look for possible disease or physical contributing factors.
With the assistance of the Veterinarian or Medical Examiner the dog's skull and teeth should be preserved in place for bite analysis, even if bite molds have been taken.
If the dog in question is killed at the scene, one still must take the same samples as for a live dog. When the responding officer first arrives at the scene, insure that no one moves or disturbs the dog. Take documentary photos and then collect physical evidence. If you need to cover the dog to prevent contamination use a clean sheet from
EMS or a sealed emergency "space blanket". This will allow one to insure that no contamination is introduced.
When ready to transport the carcass, the investigator should use either a new human body bag (from EMS or the police) or use a fresh, unopened full sized plastic trash bag. While still gloved, the investigator should place the dog into the bag along with any adhering debris. They should then seal the bag with evidence tape and transport to a secure storage. Since the dog is deceased, processing can wait until business hours at the case Veterinarian’s clinic or the Animal Control facility.
If there must be a delay in processing, the investigator or agency should ensure that the dog's carcass is not frozen but stored in a locked cooler as the chain of
103 evidence must be maintained. Even a dead dog should be microchipped at the scene for positive ID later. The investigator collecting the dog should log the transport of the dog, storage place and times, and transport to the Veterinarian for necropsy on the evidence log. It is best if the same officer that collected the dog transports and delivers to the Vet to keep as few people possible in the evidence chain.
When the investigator arrives at the Veterinarian with the dog be sure that the investigator remains with the dog personally during all processing. The dog should be placed, in the bag, on a clean examination table, just like with a live dog. The bag should be cut open, preserving the original seal, to remove the dog. The investigator and/or Veterinarian should process the exterior as they would a live dog, including examination for any external wounds or scars. The collection of stomach contents can be done by the Veterinarian during necropsy. If the dog's head is to be sent to a facility for rabies testing due to a surviving victim, bite molds should be collected before sending the head for testing. Ensure chain of evidence and request the testing lab to try and leave the jaws and teeth undamaged and return them to you after the brain tissue is removed. Request that the lab examine the dog's brain for visible lesions or physical abnormalities. If the head is not sent off for testing, the case Veterinarian should examine the dog's brain during necropsy. The jaws should be recovered undamaged.
A dog’s brain can be completely removed without affecting the jaws or teeth by accessing through the top of the skull.
Blood samples will also need to be collected for analysis.
Once the dog is processed, check with the State Attorney before disposing of the body. If there is likely to be any prosecution, the agency should retain at least the
104 complete jaws and teeth of the dog. The local Medical Examiner can advise as to the best way to clean the skull of tissue and preserve the bone and teeth in place. An intact head and bite is a powerful exhibit in a trial, and retention of the skull can help insure that the bite analysis is allowed in court as the original is available. Be sure to mark the skeletal exhibit permanently. Use microchip and case number to positively identify the exhibit.
To summarize the above:
Observe animal(s) demeanor while handling immediate tasks. Take notes. How are they acting towards EMS workers? Watch for unusual behaviors. Prevent animal(s) from eating or drinking before capture and testing.
Physically capture/secure the animal(s) and separate. MAKE SURE YOU ARE FULLY GLOVED BEFORE YOU TOUCH THE ANIMAL TO AVOID CONTAMINATING WITH HUMAN DNA. Do not secure multiple animals in same kennel. Insure they are placed in clean kennel.
If animal(s) vomited or defecated at the scene collect for analysis.
If animal is alive then transport and secure properly at Animal Control facility. These animal(s) must be securely and separately contained. Keep them apart from other animals and each other.
If the animal is deceased at the scene, use a clean body bag to transport the animal after external samples are taken to avoid contamination. Avoid using simple trash bags, blankets, etc. If the animal must be covered during scene processing, use a clean sheet or other covering material and retain the sheet with the body after transport.
Media Relations
Initial crime scene filming by the press should be restricted, if not completely eliminated. A shot of officers, loading up a snarling, snapping dog into a truck may be dramatic, but may not be an accurate portrayal of the dog. The dog may be panicked by being put on a catch pole or other factors at the scene. On the other hand, a dog may appear calm and easy going as an experienced dog handler gently leads the dog to the
105 truck. That picture will define the dog. Damage to the case later by such video may be profound. The responding authorities should keep the media secured at a safe and workable distance from the actual scene and capture/load the dog(s) out of general view.
The agency should avoid permitting a staged kennel shot of the suspect dog.
The dog may appear calm and relaxed, or the presence of media personnel may, on the other hand, cause a disruption of normal conditions and get an uncharacteristically active response from the dog. The case at hand will revolve around the dog's behavior in a completely different setting. If the media requests a picture, provide a still shot taken after the dog has been cleaned of any blood or other debris. That will provide media a visual image without prejudicing the case.
If the investigator is permitted to deal with media, there are terms to try and avoid. These include:
1. Vicious 2. Dangerous (unless referring to a legally defined declaration) 3. Mauling 4. Horrifying 5. Torn apart
In regard to identifying a suspect dog’s breed identity, unless the investigator has clear evidence to the contrary such as specific owner identification or papers, breed identification statements should be non-committal until the investigation can either confirm or deny any breed suppositions. Even though the media will be clamoring for a breed label, avoid making blanket statements may require amendment or retraction later.
106 One common statement to avoid is "The worst I've ever seen". This statement is often blurted out by an official representative at the scene. Considering the rarity of fatal dog attacks in the US, the probability is high that any individual jurisdiction has seen relatively few fatalities. The likelihood of any individual responding officer to have ever witnessed a fatal dog attack is slim at best. This statement is emotional fuel for a news agency looking for a dramatic sound bite. The characterization is meaningless and may impede the process of investigation.
Such claims may also may make an investigator look foolish. In one high profile case the local police spokesman said that the attack "Was the most horrifying" that he had ever seen. (Whitcomb, 2007) In reality, the victim died of a heart attack. The dogs were labeled 'killers' before the evidence was in and the spokesman and agency were less than well perceived when the real cause of death was shown. (Lee, 2008)
When speaking with the media, keep the message on topic and avoid drama. A professional statement would be "The victim received numerous apparent bites. The
Medical Examiner will be conducting an autopsy to determine cause of death." Until there is a solid, evidence-based set of facts, an investigator should keep from making assumptions. A group of animal bites may appear to be dog bites, but many animals can produce injuries that appear similar, particularly to a non-expert. (Case #15) Other injuries may present as similar to animal bites but be the product of an incident unrelated to animal attack. Bites may be post-mortem. Offenders have also concealed other crimes through use of the allegation of dog attack.
Once the investigation is at a stage where a fuller statement can be made to the media, the investigator or spokesperson should keep statements fact-centered and as
107 professionally detached as possible. The public statement should avoid dramatic portrayals. For instance, "The victim received multiple bites to the throat and upper chest. The bites were from both front and rear and caused the severing of the carotid arteries and jugular veins, resulting in fatal loss of blood." The spokesperson or investigator should avoid statements like "The dog almost tore the child's head off".
Although the media and the public may be pressing strongly dog to be killed immediately, there is, as we have discussed, evidence, physical and behavioral, to recover from the dog before taking final action. There is no hurry. The dog is in custody. The public is safe. The investigator is a professional. The agency is expected to be able to handle any dog it comes across. There is, somewhere at the agency's disposal, the facilities to hold the dog safely.
Even the rabies question does not place a rush on getting the dog tested; unless other have been bitten by the same dog, the victim is dead already and cannot contract rabies. If there are surviving victims, most health regulations and recognized advice on rabies vaccination give a fairly wide window in which to make the decision to vaccinate those potentially exposed. There is a typical ten-day bite quarantine in bite cases.
If the subject dog doesn't die within ten days, rabies virus, if present, was not being actively shed. If the dog does die and test positive, there is time to vaccinate the victim.
In the case of strong media or public pressure to kill the dog, the public should be advised that the dog is being processed and evaluated for evidence and behavioral evaluation before being destroyed because the dog is evidence in the case. Prior to destruction of the dog, the local prosecutor should approve, possibly with court
108 agreement, to destruction or disposal of the dog or its remains just like any other case evidence. The investigating agency may need to preserve the body (at least the skull and jaws) until the case is disposed of. Evidence lost can never be recovered.
Dogs that kill humans are typically destroyed. The legal liability of releasing such a dog would be formidable. It is most likely that such a dog, if ever returned, would be a magnet for litigation.
109 CHAPTER 8 CASE ANALYSIS
In every bite case there are three main factors to examine in order to determine what happened:
1. What did the dog do? 2. What did the victim do (or not do)? 3. What did other humans/owners do (or not do)?
When you add up all of these factors a full picture will start to emerge. You are not only looking for the immediate precipitating event, but you are looking for the back story, the series of events that led to this final outcome.
The investigator on a DBRF will receive criticism. They may be attacked by the dog owner claiming one is trying to blame them or blame their dog. They may be attacked by others for “trying to blame the victim”, especially if the victim is a child or a sympathetic adult. They may be attacked by dog advocates claiming that one’s intent is to demonize a particular breed. They may be attacked by breed and dog haters that the investigator is trying to excuse the dog.
But the investigator’s duty is clear-even if not simple. The investigator’s responsibility is to find out, as objectively as possible, what really happened. They are present to look at the evidence; physical, behavioral, and historic. They are trying to see what drove a particular attack. Their duty is to take the information available to develop a reasonable sequence of events that fits the evidence and makes behavioral sense.
110 One distinction that the investigator must make is the difference between factors that caused and event and those that contributed to the event. This especially becomes an issue in attacks on children.
Most jurisdictions place a bottom age limit on the ability of a child to commit a deliberate act for which they can be held responsible. Children under eight years or so are commonly held to be unable to commit a crime because they have no appreciation for the consequences of their actions. Within such a legal framework, regardless of their actions, small children cannot be held to have deliberately provoked an animal attack because they, in human terms, cannot understand the consequences of their actions. That does not mean that provocation does not exist when viewed from the dog's point of view. One duty of the investigator is to see whether the dog's actions make sense in the dog's world.
In DBRF investigations there is a distinction between cause and contribution. As an example, in a fatal attack on an elderly male in the Midwestern United States, three dogs attacked and killed him in a basement setting. (Case #14) The evidence showed that the dogs were loose in the basement at the time of the attack. The victim's medical history showed that he was a dementia patient and was not competent to make rational decisions. The medical records showed he was prone to erratic violent outbursts.
Physical evidence showed that the man did, at some point either before or during the attack, use a broken piece of furniture to strike one or more of the dogs. Anecdotal reports indicated that the dogs were not well socialized.
A contributing factor to this attack was dementia, with symptoms of violent, irrational behavior. Contributing also was the lack of adequate socialization of the dogs.
111 Another contributing factor was the failure of the owners/caretakers to adequately separate the victim from the dogs in secure kennels. The size of the dogs played a part; smaller dogs may have been able to inflict as many bites, but would have been easier for the victim to fight off.
In this case, although the victim's actions likely precipitated the actual incident, the victim is not responsible. He cannot be "blamed" and the investigation should not say so. Instead, the ultimate cause of the attack was the confinement of the mentally disabled victim in a locked basement with three unconfined animals without adequate supervision. Neither the victim nor the dogs can be blamed here. The victim was incapable of regulating or understanding his actions. The dogs, supposing they were attacked by the victim as suggested by the physical evidence, reacted like dogs. Their lack of socialization added to the mix.
The investigator evaluated the evidence and circumstances and found that there were contributing factors that led to an outcome that could have, or should have, been anticipated by reasonable humans. The actual cause of any attack is a combination of all of these factors, or as has been stated, a "perfect storm" of individual actions and inaction (Lockwood, personal communication and discussion).
This particularly plays out in child attacks. A baby in a swing is attacked by a dog. The parents blame the dog. The public blames the dog. The media wants to know if the breed of dog is vicious to children. But when the investigator evaluates the scene, they find that the child was left unsupervised with the dog while swinging back and forth in a powered swing, unsupervised by an adult. What are possible contributing causes? The dog may have not been properly introduced to the baby and may not
112 have had clear limits set. The dog may have strong play drive, or prey drive, and may well have been reinforced in the past for either pulling on a swinging tug toy or chasing a toy in the yard. The dog finds these activities rewarding-they are activities that dogs enjoy. When a dangling squeaky thing (the baby) swings back and forth, with no adult around to intervene, the dog does what he has been taught-he grabs the swinging toy.
The toy then makes noise, so the dog plays with it more.
There are a series of contributing factors. Ultimately the cause of this attack was lack of parental supervision and a normal canine behavior pattern.
When one investigates these cases the investigator must follow the evidence.
The investigator must discover and recognize contributing factors. The investigator must show how those factors added up to produce a particular event. The investigation should give a sense of what could have been changed, if anything, and whether a responsible, competent person should have recognized the likely outcome.
Once all of the evidence is collected and the subject dog(s) has been evaluated it is time to assemble an overall picture of the incident. Physical evidence, testimony and behavioral evaluation all help assemble the picture that answers the investigator's questions: what happened, why it happened, and whom (if anyone) is responsible.
What did the physical evidence show? The sheer number of bites is always of prurient interest to media, but more pertinent to the investigation is where, when, and from what direction they occurred. Did the dog pursue a fleeing victim? Where does the issue of provocation enter?
Does the investigating agency have the right dog? Are there other "suspects" at large? Is there a risk to public safety beyond the incident at hand? Is the testimony
113 received consistent, and does the physical evidence back it up? Does this particular incident make sense in the context of prior behavior by this particular dog, and if so should have, or did, the owner know there was a problem? What if any remedies did they pursue, and were these strategies reasonable considering the prior behavior seen?
The use of case analysis should be to:
1. Find the cause of the attack. 2. Determine accountability and potential liability regarding civil litigation. 3. Assist in examining possible criminal prosecution. 4. Inform and educate dog owners and others to prevent future incidents.
Dogs, although capable of independent action, do not usually depart far from prior behaviors. As owners and caretakers of domestic dogs, humans are held responsible for their care and supervision. Failure to appropriately supervise dogs' actions and monitor problematic behavior and the results of said failures must be borne by the responsible humans. Only a complete investigation will provide the data needed to fulfill that duty.
Warning and Provocation
One hears claims that a dog "snapped" without warning. Our examination of the testimony may allow us to see if warnings were given, and/or if the human failed to appreciate them. This takes detailed questioning of the humans who may have witnessed the incident-or if none survive, testimony of past incidents may prove illuminating.
Dogs have an extensive vocabulary of communication tools. Some of these are audible, but many are nonverbal. The signals that a dog uses to convey fear or frustration can seem similar to humans. Growling, snarling, barking-these are all audible signals whose true richness of content may not be fully appreciated. (Pongracs
114 etl al. 2006) Superficially someone may not distinguish a bark saying, "You are bothering me" from "You are threatening me / You are frightening me" and may even erroneously perceive it as a direct challenge to be responded to with greater human force, when non-escalation and withdrawal would be the sensible option.
The investigation questioning must focus not only on the overall chain of events, but the events immediately before the incident. What was happening a minute before?
Thirty seconds? Ten seconds? When given general "what happened" questions witnesses tend to give general answers. "Nothing", or, "The dog just snapped" is a common answer. By dissecting the incident moment by moment we often pull out information that otherwise would have been lost in the overall fog of the crisis.
We also have to address concerns of provocation. Normally one considers provocation from a human perspective. Did someone poke, hit, torture, or otherwise mistreat a dog to precipitate an incident? Might the person be perceived to "deserve" the attack? Although subjective, examining the perceptions and beliefs surrounding an incident can shed light on how (and if) the bite may have possibly been prevented; however, it must be noted that human perceptions of blame and provocation in regards to dog bites may have little to do with how events actually occur and more related to perceived knowledge/experience levels and relationships between the individual animals and people involved. (Westgarth et al 2015)
There is also a need to discuss provocation. Provocation tends to have been litigated in civil cases. The definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in some cases have no relation to the actual situation in a DBRF. There are factors that have to
115 be considered when we look at whether there was provocation involved in a bite incident:
1. If, as seen from a dog's perspective, the precipitating event triggered one of the drives responsible for producing a bite response.
2. If the dog's response, in light of prior experience and the immediate situation at hand, was a reasonable response to the level of perceived threat, challenge, or other trigger.
3. If the dog specifically targeted the victim or a vulnerable area (as in predation) or if the bite was to a "target of opportunity", that being the closest target at the time of the trigger.
4. Whether the dog was responding to a particular provoking experience (that individual had tortured him in the past) or whether the dog has generalized a response to targets similar to situation of prior provocation, such as a generalized response to all children after torture by others.
A common example is the excuse that a child provoked a bite by teasing or torturing a dog. Although, as we have said above, children cannot be held responsible for deliberate actions due to their lack of understanding consequences, the actions of a child may well be perceived by a dog as provocation for an attack. That does not sit well with the public. Parents understand that their kids don't understand the consequences of their actions, and look to excuse the bad behavior because of that.
Dogs don't understand that. Dogs perceive a threat as such, regardless of size or nature. We are fortunate that our dogs have been selected for tolerance of actions that non-domesticated animals constantly perceive as threats-postures, facial expressions, invasion of territory and personal space. Our long, close bond with dogs has led to extreme tolerance. Our dogs are very forgiving, especially when properly socialized and trained. Our children can tug and pull on their ears, poke them in the eyes, yank their tails, and the usual reaction is to walk away. They even protect our children from outside hazards while tolerating bad behavior from the child. I am sure that I am not the
116 only person who has had a dog place themselves between a child and harm while the toddler pulled, poked and yelled at the dog to move out of the way.
Sometimes this tolerance breaks down. A dog regularly tormented by a child that throws things or hits them with objects can develop an aggressive posture towards a child, especially if that strategy is successful. The child pokes at the dog through the fence. The dog charges the fence and tries to defend himself. The child is protected by the fence, but sooner or later the child walks away. The dog doesn't think that the child got tired of the sick 'game'; the dog thinks that the aggressive display was finally successful in driving away his tormenter. This repeats and the dog is reinforced for the aggressive, child-focused display.
Sadly, the dog may generalize this aggressive display towards children that are not tormenting the dog. The dog sees a child outside the fence and, in anticipation of a tormenting, begins an aggressive display. This child, with better manners and sense, avoids the dog by crossing the street. The dog's strategy has worked-this child has been driven away.
If the dog finally bites the tormenting child, is the dog at fault? No. This child's behavior is the ultimate cause of the attack, even though the child cannot be held responsible. This is clear provocation, and with witness testimony of the child's behavior the incident can be relatively easily dealt with.
Imagine a situation where the facts are not so clear. One day the gate of the fence is left open. A child, perhaps not the tormenter, approaches. The dog reacts in the manner that has been reinforced in the past-he gives an aggressive, child focused
117 display. The fence, however, is not there to contain him. The child runs, and the dog's defensive behavior, coupled with prey drive, kicks in and he chases and bites.
Did this child provoke the dog bite? No. This child did not provoke the bite. But the dog was set up by previous torment, and the dog's behavior is a logical consequence of the prior instances. Is the dog "to blame"? No. The behavior makes sense to the dog. This is when a detailed investigation of the entire incident and back story brings the truth to light. The test is whether a reasonable person (the owner) should have seen the past behavior and intervened in some manner to stop the behavior escalating.
There are some who claim that this investigative strategy "always excuses the dog" or some similar statement. This is not correct. Just like in human cases, sometimes there is a case wherein the factors don't add up. The normal collection of issues is missing. That is because, in the canine world, there are the equivalents of Ted
Bundy and John Wayne Gacey - cases where the attacker is deeply mentally ill and for whom the triggers may be illogical, or nonexistent. There are a very few cases where a dog does "just go off", although they are, like their human counterparts, very rare. In this author’s investigations I have seen a few dogs like this. Background, owner treatment, medical history, previously observed behavior; none of it adds up. Perhaps we simply don't know enough to make sense out of the attacks by these damaged animals, and perhaps there simply is no explanation.
Interpreting Attack Severity
When Interpreting causes and contributing factors behind a dog attack, the investigator has to apply caution to the process and conclusions. One must recognize the value of the analysis as a diagnostic tool, not as a tool to decide solely if a dog lives
118 or dies. The morphology of the wound is only one of many factors, albeit the most obvious.
One must be aware that the level of bite damage may not have been within the dog's sole control. An injury may be worsened by the actions of the victim. Withdrawal from a biting dog is logical and expected, and tearing and avulsion may be a result of that withdrawal rather than the original bite. A panicked victim may exacerbate the conflict.
There may be defects in the particular dog's bite inhibition mechanisms. Some medical conditions and medications may affect the intensity of a bite, and must be considered. (Overall, 2011) Failure to examine these issues may lead to an over- assessment of the bite without consideration of possible mitigating factors. A dog may be a hazard, but the hazard may be reduced by addressing an underlying condition.
This is not to claim that a dog is never in control in a high-level bite scenario. Most dogs have clear and reliable control over their biting.
Another caution is that one cannot directly know what is in any person or creature's mind at any time. Observe any human’s behavior. One can construct educated guesses about thought processes and decisions, and, with enough experience and prior observation, may project a reasonable chain of likely events based on the observation and an understanding of their background, etc. But one can never really know what their interior life is.
Extend that to a non-human entity like a dog. Humans can only see a fraction of what a dog perceives in the course of a day. Their sight, smell, and hearing is not better or worse, but different. (Horowitz, 2009) Their senses interact with the world differently
119 than humans. The information they process is fundamentally altered from human perception. This sensory information is being processed by a brain that is non-human.
One cannot completely interpret a dog's behavior based on human perceptions or thought patterns. Dogs do not, to the best of our knowledge, proceed propelled by human motivations. Humans and dogs are both life forms seeking to survive long enough to perpetuate their species, but the "higher" motivations that humans claim do not seem to be the same in dogs.
Certainly there are perceived analogs to human qualities on the behavior of our pets. Dogs seem to have a rich emotional life (Udell, 2015), but these emotional states are seen as analogs to human emotions.
In the terms of behavior analysis, as discussed before, behavior is composed of three things: antecedent (what happens before), behavior (what action takes place), and consequences (what resulted from the action). (Chance, 1998) The investigator should use care to assess the linkage between antecedent, behavior and consequences from the dog's point of view, not from human perspective.
An investigator must also consider whether they are reaching conclusions based on complete facts. Consider a case wherein an investigator responds to a dog bite to an infant. Infants are small, have limited mobility, and very little physical strength. The public may assume that the dog is dangerous and a threat to public safety.
But the investigator must examine all of the data. In an example case the subject dog had not shown any aggressive behavior in the past. The dog was properly nourished and showed no guarding behavior. The dog had chased and caught squirrels.
The dog had also shaken and dissected soft squeaker toys.
120 The infant had only been in the home a few days, and no introduction was done between baby and dog. The infant was left unattended for a short period of time, and the parent returned to find the infant being shaken by the dog and then the dog started to eviscerate the child.
From the perspective of family and many humans, this is a vicious dog. But what behavior did the dog actually show? The dog approached a new object within reach.
The dog grabbed the object, the baby, shook it hard, and began to dissect it.
The initial interpretation of the incident was colored by human perception and values. A detailed set of interviews with the owners identified a behavior the dog had shown before: toy interest, shaking and dissection of the toy, and an unfamiliarity with infants. With this full information the investigator formed a hypothesis. That hypothesis required detailed and complete data.
The investigator must not confuse target with intent. A dog that, for instance, chases down a person and grabs them to force them to the ground and rip them apart shows behavior that we would assess as having predatory intent.
A bite to a child's face may not be so clear. One must determine the relative positions of both the biter and the target at the moment before engagement. In many child facial bites, the child suddenly approaches the dog. When the dog reacts, the child's face may have been the closest point of contact. Hands, faces, and legs are often these types of targets.
Investigators, evaluators, trainers, and consultants need to remember that no one can guarantee a dog's future behavior. There are too many factors that are out of the evaluator's control. Those include, but certainly are not limited to, environment,
121 additional training (or lack thereof), the behavior of humans, and behaviors humans tolerate or encourage. As a result, one cannot ever say for certain that a particular dog will bite again. One may make a general projection of how that particular dog might act in a situation identical to the past incident, provided nothing changes in surroundings or behavior, but that only a projection. One can never say that any dog is completely safe.
A checklist for investigators and trainers regarding the dangers of interpretation and cautions in analysis:
1. Don't apply human motivations (anthropomorphism). 2. Recognize that humans only see part of the dog's world. 3. Examine the perception of the incident-the human view vs. the dog view. 4. Beware making assumptions based on incomplete data. 5. Beware reflexively blaming the dog/victim/owner/other. 6. Do not mistake the target of the bite for the intent of the bite. 7. Don't make guarantees of future behavior.
122 CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS
Investigation
Investigation of DBRF cases to date has been irregular in quality. Cases have been treated casually; cases have been misidentified as dog attacks obscuring the true nature of the incident; cases have failed at prosecution time due to inadequate understanding of the special evidentiary needs of these events. Overall education and training regarding DBRF cases appears to be the root of securing better documentation of these homicides, and one can suspect that full gathering of investigative data may s how commonalities currently unavailable due to the spotty nature of the data collection.
For an investigator or agency to do the best job, multiple avenues must be pursued and better collection of detailed, dog-attack-specific evidence must take place.
Guides do exist that have begun setting the framework for these better investigations.
De Munnynck was an early source of specific procedures that have not been dispersed to Law Enforcement agencies. In 2002, in De Munnynck’s article Forensic
Approach of Fatal Dog Attacks: A Case Report and Literature Review, the following appears:
A forensic approach to a fatal dog attack should include a detailed assessment of the scene, the victim and the dog. The examination of the dog may in fact involve more time and effort than the post-mortem study of the victim. The dog should be examined for trace evidence that can link it to the victim (e.g. blood, hair, clothing fibers) and that can help to reconstruct the event (e.g. soil, grass etc.). Infectious diseases should be excluded, especially rabies but other pathological conditions such as brain neoplasms, encephalitis, diabetes mellitus, etc. also have to be considered because they can alter canine behavior. A urine sample must be examined for the presence of stimulating substances. It is also worthwhile examining the oral and gastric contents of the dog, the latter during autopsy, for blood, tissue or clothing. For obvious reasons this has to happen as soon as possible after the attack. If the dog cannot be put down, it can be anesthetized in order to allow examination of the oral cavity, dentition and if bite mark analysis is necessary to make a dental cast. Detailed photography and body diagrams of the dogs as well as photographs of collars, scars and evidence of prior veterinary
123 therapy are useful when the identity and owner are unknown. If the identity is known, past behavioral patterns have to be established because more and more dogs are trained to attack and protect the property of the owner. (p. 299)
Rehabilitation
There arises the question of rehabilitating a dog identified as having critical behavioral problems, particularly those involved in human focused aggression or that have been the product of dog fighting.
This breaks down into two questions: can dogs with serious problems be rehabilitated, and should those dogs be rehabilitated.
The answer to the first question is that many dogs may be rehabilitated with time, talent, and dedication. Fighting dogs have been re-conditioned, over time, to accept the presence of other dogs. Dogs from the Michael Vick dog fighting was have successfully been rehabilitated to the level of performing as companions, therapy dogs, and have successfully competed in various athletic events. Others, although not as successful, are safely living out their lives with a combination of management, patience, and support.
Prognosis for and disposition of dogs involved in fatalities or serious aggressive behavior against humans is more clouded. With non-fatal attacks there may be a possibility of successful rehabilitation, provided the legal liabilities in releasing these dogs are not insurmountable. Such dogs may require long term, careful management to insure that no one else is injured.
Risk assessment requires consideration of all relevant physical and behavioral characteristics of the dog, as well as all relevant environmental triggers that alter either the risk associated with the severity of any injury, or the risk of recurrence. (De Meester 2011)
124 In the case of fatalities, legal restrictions usually prevent the dogs' release. Most states forbid the release of a dog that inflicts a human DBRF (Florida Statute 767.13 for example). In the arena of civil liability, government agencies are unlikely to be willing to accept the liability that one of these dogs presents. Even if the dog is released to a skilled rehabilitator or sanctuary, any future incident involving the dog places significant possible liability on the originating agency.
Another problem in seeking rehabilitation of these animals is access to qualified trainers and adequately prepared sheltering. Rehabilitation is more than just housing a dog securely. Dangerously aggressive dogs require long, skillful deconditioning and retraining if they are to be acceptably safe in society again. Thus, a dog with serious aggression issues requires skilled handling. The trainer must be competent with aggressive animals, and willing to take on an often long-term project. Not all trainers are qualified, and even some board certified Veterinary Behaviorists will not work with a dog that has severe human aggression issues.
Then one must examine the should issue. This addresses the question of whether it is better to save a single dog than to use the same resources to save, ten dogs, or a hundred dogs. Which is morally or ethically right? In most jurisdictions in the
United States, currently dogs are property. Shelters have many dogs that need placement, and many of those need remedial training. Shelters have to make decisions as to who lives and who dies. Often those decisions are made based on resources.
Truly dangerous dogs are resource intensive and may or may not ever be able to integrate into a common pet situation.
125 The Breed Question
There has been great interest and effort in the past to assign responsibility to a particular breed or breed complex when it comes to dog bites, especially to those bites that result in DBRF. Every year lists are compiled of those dogs "most likely to bite" in popular media. Other sources have attempted to classify the "most dangerous" dogs by compiling a list of DBRF and the alleged breeds responsible.
The seminal peer reviewed work done on dog breed versus DBRF in the US was the study "Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989-1994" (Sacks, Lockwood, Hornreich, Sattin 1996) followed by "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998." (Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, Lockwood 2000) Both of these studies examined reports from the media reports and data provided by the
Humane Society of the United States regarding the identification of breed in human
DBRF cases.
The 2000 study has been oft cited. In that study the authors examined data from
238 individual DBRF that included some breed information. Regarding completeness of information, the authors issue the following qualification: "For the 20-year study, we excluded 4 human deaths from attacks by guard or police dogs "at work" and approximately 90 deaths when breed information for the attacking dog was unavailable; thus, this study included approximately 72% of cases of human DBRF and is not exhaustive."
In the cases examined, a total of 67% of the recorded cases of DBRF wherein the authors were able to assign some breed identity involved dogs identified by news and HSUS reports as Rottweilers and Pit Bulls. The authors indicate that crossbred dogs were more problematic, and that they counted apparent breeds involved in
126 crossbred dogs as follows: "When crossbred dogs were involved in a fatality, each suspected breed in the dog's lineage was counted once for that episode." This resulted in more dogs per breed being reported than the total number of dogs. "We allocated crossbred dogs into separate breeds and counted them similarly (e.g., if 3 Great Dane-
Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under cross- bred, and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under cross- bred)." (Sacks, Sinclair,
Gilchrist, Golab, Lockwood 2000)
Breed was also determined in the studies as described by the media accounts and HSUS data. With the exception of registered purebreds this data was based on appearance-based breed determination. This, according to the authors, presents difficulties in both collection of data and in informing authorities regarding which dogs are more likely to cause DBRF. "In addition to issues surrounding which breeds to regulate, breed-specific ordinances raise several practical issues. For optimal enforcement, there would need to be an objective method of determining the breed of a particular dog. Pedigree analysis (a potentially time- consuming and complicated effort) combined with DNA testing (also time-consuming and expensive) is the closest to an objective standard for conclusively identifying a dog's breed."
Breed claims of inherent viciousness and danger vary as to year and location of the reported attacks. In the early 1980s in the UK, greyhounds were identified as the most likely to attack and kill human targets, especially when in packs. "We would suggest that in dogs originally bred and trained to hunt, such as greyhounds, this hunting instinct is reinforced by group behavior. A pack frenzy is thus of major significance in many serious cases of dog attacks." (Kneafsey, 1985) This was in
127 contrast to the fact that other breeds, from Rottweilers to German Shepherd Dogs and
Pit Bull-type dogs were part of the companion dog population at the time. During the period studied by Sacks et al, no greyhound human DBRF were recorded. (Sacks et al,
2000)
Environment must also be considered in relating perceived or actual breed and incidence of DBRF. According to Langley (2009) "A recent national survey did not find a geographic difference in dog ownership. Dog ownership parallels the US population at large. However, when evaluating by rate of deaths from dog attacks, differences are apparent." The study cited in Langley's article (Castrodale, 2007) indicates that the highest number of DBRF per population was in Alaska, where "Alaska had the highest death rate of all the states. Castrodale found the hospitalization rate for dog bites was higher in Alaska than the national average and higher in the native vs nonnative population. Reasons to explain these differences require further research."
Yet some figures seem to indicate trends. According to Dr. Karen Overall, "There is a preponderance of owned family dogs involved in bites and fatalities." (Overall,
2001) Yet integration into these families may be an issue. A difference has been observed between what are termed “family” dogs versus what are termed “resident” dogs. (Delise, 2002) Family dogs are those who are identified as being an integral part of a family unit. They are typically well-socialized, live closely with their human families, and participate regularly in positive interactions with family members. Resident dogs, on the other hand, are dog who live on a property but often live outside or on a chain. They tend to be less well-socialized and do not participate in family activities. In this author’s
128 experience and cases, resident dogs comprise a significant portion of dogs involved in
DBRF.
Assignment of likelihood of a DBRF based on breed, and even evaluating the likelihood of dog bite based on breed is problematic. To accurately establish these likelihoods one must account for the number of dog bites overall and the number of dog bites per breed. As mentioned above, figures for dog ownership are not consistent. Only a portion of all dogs are registered purebreds, and among the general population licensing saturation varies greatly across communities. Determination of “predominant breed” is difficult as DNA analysis is not available for most of the domestic dog population. Counting of mixes creates errors in reportage:
First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases. Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more news- worthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog's breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by cross- bred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more than once. (Sacks, et al. 2000)
The issue of actual number of dogs of a particular breed as a referent to the likelihood of attack is also addressed by Pinckney (1982):
Beyond size, however, it is difficult to incriminate any particular breed as more dangerous than another, because there are no reliable population figures for the various
129 breeds. German shepherds were involved in more deaths than any other breed, but German shepherds have the highest registration of any large breed according to the American Kennel Club. The greater number of deaths may simply reflect a larger population. In relation to its small registration the bullterrier (pit bull) was responsible for the highest number of deaths, but the popularity of this breed may be increasing and, therefore, its population might not be reflected by its registration. (p. 195)
This subject is expanded upon by Voith (2009 and 2013):
Adding to the confusion, data are often published in a manner that combines dogs identified as purebreds with purebred crosses, e.g. the German Shepherd Dog and German Shepherd cross would be depicted as German Shepherds; all dogs identified as pit bull breeds and pit bull hybrids would be categorized as a pit bull. Although such publications may include cautionary statements that the breed identifications were unverified, potentially inaccurate, and that data on the numbers and breeds of dogs in the source population were unknown, breed frequencies are still included in the publications. (Voith, 2013 p. 17)
Issues and myths also abound regarding the alleged propensity of certain breeds, or groups of dogs assessed as being “breeds” based on appearance, towards human focused aggression and dangerous behavior. Research has indicated that less than 1% of the canine genome comprises those alleles responsible for canine morphology as relates to breed appearance. Thus, for instance, a German Shepherd mix that is genetically a 50/50 mix could have less than 50% of the appearance genes for the German Shepherd Dog phenotype. (Voith, 2013, p. 24) Further, the most detailed studies acknowledge that there are more factors in play than just breed, biologically determined or as perceived:
Because (1) fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of all dog bites annually,
(2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite
130 regulations are promulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dog bite prevention.
Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner- related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds. (Sacks, et al. 2000)
Human choice of breed and human personality characteristics have been examined in a study that sampled a population that completed a personality survey coupled with a questionnaire regarding dog ownership. (Ragatz, 2009) In that study,
“Findings revealed that vicious dog owners reported significantly more criminal behaviors, and were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy compared to all other groups”. Those with higher scores in traits such as lack of respect for authority or lack of impulse control preferentially chose breeds perceived as more likely to show aggressive or dangerous behavior. These results beg the question: is it the dog or is it the owner. Epstein (2006) expresses the necessity to distinguish between the actions of a human and the nature of dogs in legal considerations as follows:
Dogs are presumptively companions, not abnormally dangerous animals.
Therefore, courts and legislatures should abandon strict liability laws in dog bite cases and apply a negligence standard. Unlike the current state of most strict liability statutes in which claims and defenses rest on the psyche of the dog, a negligence standard would encompass an evaluation of the owner-dog relationship. Courts would focus on the owner's knowledge concerning his dog's behavior and consider whether, in light of
131 that knowledge, the owner's supervision and control of his dog was reasonable. In essence, the jury would ultimately decide whether there is a bad owner, not a bad dog.
More research is definitely needed in the correlation between human behavior and personality and the behavior of dogs.
Prosecution
The issue of prosecution in DBRF cases can be complicated. Most people would agree that a person that deliberately sets a dog upon another person should be held accountable under the law. Cases of clear negligence, particularly if the victim is a child or presents a sympathetic figure, are often acknowledged as viable prosecution targets.
But when a victim is a family member, especially a child, opinions and actions are varied. In these cases, the question arises "Haven't they (the parents of a child or family of an older victim killed by a family dog) already suffered enough?" As an investigator, or a prosecutor, it is not a matter of suffering. The parents of any child that dies suffer. Relatives of older victims suffer. The question is accountability. Did the dog's owners cause the person's death by action or inaction? The Court certainly does not use the suffering excuse if the parent(s) kill the child by holding its face under water in the tub, or shaking it violently causing brain damage and death.
A prosecutor has to evaluate the issue of prosecution based on likelihood of conviction and on whether prosecution serves the public interest. The culture of the community within which a DBRF occurs, and the culture of juries within that community, often affects prosecutorial decisions.
Judicial culture also affects the likelihood of prosecution. In a jurisdiction where animal issues are taken seriously prosecution seems to be more likely. In other
132 jurisdictions, however, the attitude remains that “The dog did it” and once the dog is killed the case is closed.
The opinion of this author regarding DBRF cases, whether the owner or caretaker is a family member or not, is that if the responsible person or owner/caretaker was, after all is evaluated and documented, negligent, then appropriate accountability should be applied.
133 APPENDIX A IMMEDIATE ACTIONS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
Immediate actions for First Responders 1) Secure the scene from contamination. Exclude unnecessary personnel.
Identify condition of victim and of suspect animal(s). If animal(s) are alive, contain safely.
2) Identify and secure potential witnesses. Separate them from each other and from the immediate scene.
3) Exclude media from filming victim or actual scene until after all processing and removal is complete.
134 APPENDIX B RESPONSE CHECK SHEET-ANIMALS
1) Observe animal(s) demeanor while handling immediate tasks. Take notes.
How are they acting towards responders? Others? Each other? Are they aggressive, fearful, or quiet? Watch for unusual behaviors: excessive salivation, chewing on selves or unusual objects. Vomiting? Try to prevent animal(s) from eating or drinking before capture and testing.
2) Physically capture/secure the animal(s) and separate. MAKE SURE YOU
ARE FULLY GLOVED BEFORE YOU TOUCH THE ANIMAL TO AVOID
CONTAMINATING WITH HUMAN DNA. Do not secure multiple animals in same kennel.
Insure they are placed in clean kennel.
3) If animal(s) vomited or defecated at the scene collect for analysis.
4) The next priority is sample collection. Animal(s) may have to be sedated to safely handle-if so document type and dosage of sedative. Once animal(s) is safely restrained and docile, collect DNA swabs of upper and lower jaw area of each animal.
Examine animal for visible signs of blood or fluids on fur. If any is seen, either use swabs to collect or cut and collect fur in the stained areas. If possible, re-examine for further stains or fluids using ultraviolet lamp. Have a veterinarian evacuate the stomach of each animal and save the contents separately for testing for human tissue or DNA.
Document any pieces of tissue visible in the stomach contents-suggest labeling as
"potential tissue-unknown origin" unless you are absolutely sure it is human tissue-the
135 tests will positively identify it later. Have blood samples from each dog collected and preserved for testing. Two five-milliliter tubes for each animal should be sufficient.
5) If the animal is deceased at the scene, the same samples must be collected. A veterinarian or medical examiner can dissect the stomach for contents, etc.
Use a clean body bag to transport the animal after external samples are taken to avoid contamination. Try to avoid using simple trash bags, blankets, etc. If you have to cover the animal during scene processing, use a clean sheet from EMS and retain the sheet with the body after transport. Blood samples must also be collected from each animal and should be gathered by a veterinarian or technician using care to prevent contamination of the sample.
6) Once samples are collected from the animal they must be securely identified. Check for micro chipping. If animal is not micro chipped, have veterinarian immediately microchip each involved animal and use chip numbers to label all samples for continuity. Simple photos are not enough.
7) If animal is alive, transport and secure properly at the appropriate facility.
An animal involved or implicated in a fatality must not be allowed to remain in the custody of the owners during the investigation. These animal(s) must be securely and separately contained. Keep them apart from other animals and each other. Only a limited number of experienced personnel should be allowed direct contact with these animals.
136
8) If at all possible, even if the owners request or permit euthanasia, keep the animals alive for evaluation by a behavior expert. Observation and evaluation of the animals may give valuable information regarding recreating the incident. Don't be in a hurry to destroy the animals.
9) If the animal is deceased at the scene and rabies testing is needed, please request that the relevant laboratory use only the minimum brain tissue needed for their testing and return the rest of the brain. Also ask them to retain and return the animal's head, keeping chain of custody, so that bite impressions and comparisons can be made. The animal's brain should be examined by a skilled veterinarian for evidence of lesion or physical abnormality that may have affected the animal's behavior.
a) NOTE: If Law Enforcement personnel are forced to destroy the animal at the scene for safety reasons, please instruct them to shoot for center of body mass, not a head shot. Heads are a small, moving target, well armored, and damage to the brain and jaw of the dog may limit information needed for full investigation.
137 APPENDIX C RESPONSE CHECK SHEET-HUMAN VICTIMS
1) Treat the scene like any homicide: control access, protect evidence, prevent contamination. REMEMBER-HUMAN HOMICIDE SUSPECTS MAY USE A
DOG ATTACK/DOG ATTACK RELATED INJURIES TO CONCEAL OTHER CRIMES.
2) Take as many samples as possible on the scene before the body is disturbed. Seek blood, tissue, hair, and other fluids in the immediately surrounding area.
3) Limit access to the body and the general scene until after photos have been taken. The disturbed ground around the scene may give clues to the event, such as fleeing footsteps, initial impact with the ground and subsequent dragging, etc.
Document the physical scene in detail. Look for evidence that may indicate an additional animal involved, such as blood stains going up to a fence, etc.
4) Collect samples of fluids, tissue, hair and fibers from the surrounding area.
A person may actually be killed in one place and then dragged, sometimes by an animal that did not participate in the actual death.
5) Have the medical examiner take swab samples from within the wounds.
Canine DNA can be individually compared and identified, so the dog that inflicted a specific bite can be identified.
138 6) Have detailed photos, including reference measurements, taken of all bite wounds. Such photos can be compared later with bite molds and documentation to determine which dog bit where.
7) Ask the medical examiner to identify, as far as possible, the bite(s) that are the proximate cause of death, along with which bites are ante-mortem, and which tissue damage was post-mortem. A dog may have inflicted damage after death that did not participate in the actual killing. Cases have occurred wherein people were murdered, the body was placed with dogs and they were induced to bite the dead person to confuse or obscure the actual mode of death.
8) Document any scratches, dirt marks, or other non-fatal wounds to determine whether they are indicative of flight, defense, etc.
139 APPENDIX D DOG BITE INVESTIGATION WORKSHEET
Agency Case number
Bite level classification Date Time
Location of attack. Number of dogs involved in the attack
Nature of location (inside, outside, etc.) Lighting.
Weather at the time of the attack. Dog name
Breed (If known) Sex
Age Color, markings
Height Weight
Owner name, address Owner Race
Owner Sex Disposition of dog
Source of dog-name/address
Type of source of dog (breeder, pet store, etc.)
Original home? Number of previous homes.
Parents of dog known? Y/N Parents owners full information
Parents available for exam/interview? Y/N Parents source-name/address
Parents source type Siblings known? Y/N
140 Sibling owners name/address of each Siblings available for exam/interview?
Y/N
Use supplemental sheet if necessary
Reproductive status of dog Ever bred? Y/N
If female, is dog in estrus/recently been Identity/location of progeny in/expected to be in soon? Y/N
Use supplemental sheet if necessary
Illness/injury? Y/N Describe if yes.
Vaccine history Is dog currently on any medication? Y/N
If yes describe Hearing?
Eyesight? Hip conditions?
Blood tests; Samples taken - Date:
Time:
By whom? Fresh or post mortem?
Chem/CBC
Thyroid
Steroids
Testosterone
Amphetamines/stimulants
Hormones
141 Body condition score Parasites (if noted)
Has dog had training? Y/N By whom, when, where, type.
Any earned titles? Y/N If yes list:
Guard dog Y/N
Military dog Y/N
Police dog Y/N
Schutzhund Y/N
Living conditions-
Type of neighborhood
Type of residence
Containment: Fence, chain, tether, pen, indoor, none
Primarily kept indoors or outdoors
Sleeping arrangements
Diet
Fed by
Where, how often
Who disciplines dog Usual method
Who has most frequent interaction with Does dog have regular contact with other
dog dogs? Y/N
142 Type, duration, frequency, location Has dog shown aggression toward other
dogs/animals? Y/N
Describe fully
Owner family:
Type/ Family makeup- Quantity of contact with human
adults/children/infants family/quality
Aggression toward family members? Y/N Contact with other humans:
How often? Where?
Adults, children, infants? Differing races?
Disabled persons?
Aggression towards non-family:
Adults Y/N Children or infants? Y/N Races Y/N
Disabilities? Y/N Males vs. females?
Bite incident victim information;
Name
Address
Sex Race
Height Weight
143 If female, was victim menstruating at the Y/N
time of the attack.
Relationship of victim to owner: Relationship of victim to dog.
Was victim disabled or ill? Victim under treatment for mental
disability?
Victim unusual physical attributes? Describe.
Does victim have a history of seizures? Does victim have a history of heart
disease?
Victim dress at the time of the attack? Victim's actions immediately before the
attack.
Was victim known to the dog? Did victim have contact with the dog prior
to this incident?
Prior aggressive contact with victim?
Witnesses (use additional sheet if necessary)
Name Address
Telephone
144 Details of the attack (sequence of events, response of victim, dog, and w itnesses).
145 Exact injuries to victim. Order of injuries if established.
Details of any injuries to the dog including when in the course of the attack injuries occurred.
Was the attack on dog's home territory or Were there other animals present or in a place familiar to the dog? involved in the attack?
146 Full information and actions of each animal present.
Relationship of other dogs (if any) to the victim and to the primary dog.
147 APPENDIX E DOG BEHAVIOR EVALUATION WORKSHEET
Date, time, location of evaluation:
Dog name______Breed ______
Sex_____ Age _____ Height _____ Weight_____ Reproductive status ___
Color, markings
______
Vaccines? _____ Is dog currently on any medication? Y/N
If yes describe______
Hearing? ______Eyesight?______Hip condition?______
Has dog had training? Y/N
By whom, when, where, type. ______
Aggression observed towards humans? Adults Y/N Children or infants? Y/N
Races Y/N Disabilities? Y/N
Physical demeanor of dog at initial contact
______
______
Responses of dog to stimuli:
KEY:
GR-growl RR-retreat/run away BT-bare teeth
SR-submissive roll/urine LU-lunge/charge AG-evacuate anal gland
SB-snap/bite/release PR-Positive reaction BF-full bite
148 NR-No reaction NC-not conducted
Tested actions:
Pet dog Bend over dog/demand down
Hug dog Enter or leave room
Kiss dog Reach toward dog w/o leash
Call off furniture Reach toward dog w/leash
Push/pull off furniture Put on/take off leash
Approach on furniture Put on/take off collar
Disturb while resting/sleeping Place in crate/pen
Approach while chewing/playing Remove from crate/pen
Approach while eating Leash restraint
Touch while eating Collar restraint
Take dog food away Bathe/groom dog
Take human food away Trim nails
Take toy/chewy/bone Response to obedience command
Verbally correct Veterinary clinic visit
Stare at dog Strange adult enter house/yard
Response to familiar dog on leash Strange child enter house/yard
Response to strange dog on leash Familiar adult enter house/yard
149 Response to familiar dog off leash Familiar child enter house/yard
Response to strange dog off leash Stranger sudden approach
Familiar person sudden approach
OTHER NOTES:
______
______
______
______
______
______
150
APPENDIX F DUNBAR SCALE
Dr. Ian Dunbar's Dog Bite Scale (Official Authorized Version)
An assessment of the severity of biting problems based on an objective evaluation of wound pathology
Level 1. Obnoxious or aggressive behavior but no skin-contact by teeth.
Level 2. Skin-contact by teeth but no skin-puncture. However, may be skin nicks (less than one tenth of an inch deep) and slight
bleeding caused by forward or lateral movement of teeth against skin, but no vertical punctures.
Level 3. One to four punctures from a single bite with no puncture deeper than half the length of the dog's canine teeth. Maybe lacerations in a single direction, caused by victim pulling hand away, owner pulling dog away, or gravity (little dog jumps, bites and drops to floor).
Level 4. One to four punctures from a single bite with at least one puncture deeper than half the length of the dog's canine teeth. May also have deep bruising around the wound (dog held on for N seconds and bore down) or lacerations in both directions (dog held on and shook its head from side to side).
151 Level 5. Multiple-bite incident with at least two Level 4 bites or multiple-attack incident with at least one Level 4 bite in each. Level 6. Victim dead.
The above list concerns unpleasant behavior and so, to add perspective:
Levels 1 and 2 comprise well over 99% of dog incidents. The dog is certainly not dangerous and more likely to be fearful, rambunctious, or out of control. Wonderful prognosis. Quickly resolve the problem with basic training (control) – especially oodles of Classical Conditioning, numerous repetitive Retreat n' Treat, Come/Sit/Food Reward and Back- up/Approach/Food Reward sequences, progressive desensitization handling exercises, plus numerous bite-inhibition exercises and games. Hand feed only until resolved; do NOT waste potential food rewards by feeding from a bowl.
Level 3: Prognosis is fair to good, provided that you have owner compliance.
However, treatment is both time-consuming and not without danger. Rigorous bite- inhibition exercises are essential.
Levels 4: The dog has insufficient bite inhibition and is very dangerous.
Prognosis is poor because of the difficulty and danger of trying to teach bite inhibition to an adult hard-biting dog and because absolute owner-compliance is rare. Only work with the dog in exceptional circumstances, e.g., the owner is a dog professional and has sworn 100% compliance. Make sure the owner signs a form in triplicate stating that they understand and take full responsibility that: 1. The dog is a Level 4 biter and is likely to cause an equivalent amount of damage WHEN it bites again (which it most probably will) and should therefore, be confined to the home at all times and only allowed contact with adult owners. 2. Whenever, children or guests visit the house, the dog should be confined to a single locked- room or roofed, chain-link run with the only keys kept on a
152 chain around the neck of each adult owner (to prevent children or guests entering the dog's confinement area.) 3. The dog is muzzled before leaving the house and only leaves the house for visits to a veterinary clinic. 4. The incidents have all been reported to the relevant authorities -- animal control or police. Give the owners one copy, keep one copy for your files and give one copy to the dog's veterinarian.
Level 5 and 6: The dog is extremely dangerous and mutilates. The dog is simply not safe around people. I recommend euthanasia because the quality of life is so poor for dogs that have to live out their lives in solitary confinement.
The Association of Pet Dog Trainers 101 N. Main Street, Suite 610, Greenville,
SC 29601 www.apdt.com •[email protected] • 1-800-PET-DOGS
153 APPENDIX G EXAMPLE CASE REPORT
Dear Detective X:
Re: Case number 123-45, 20xx
On 3 June 20xx, I traveled to L to assist with the investigation of a serious dog bite injury that occurred on xx June 20xx. The attack involved two dogs, identified as a male named B and a female named S. There were injuries to a total of three (3) adult females. One female was airlifted to hospital with life threatening injuries, while the other two victims were treated and released.
After conferring with your local staff I accompanied your officers to a residence located at 53 B Street, L. The location, also scene of the attack, is a single family dwelling arranged on two floors. The residence is accessible by a main door located to the side of the building, set partially down a narrow alleyway. The alleyway is surfaced in concrete and is bounded by the home on one side and a brick perimeter wall on the other. The location of the physical attack was directly outside the main entrance door in the alleyway between the exterior house wall and the brick perimeter wall.
At the home I met with D S and her daughter K S. D S, the property owner, is mother to K S and the two adult males in residence there, A S and K S. Ms. S allowed K to take me to the back garden area to observe the area in which they stated the dog B had been kept immediately prior to the attack.
K took me to the garden and showed me the conditions there. I saw that the area was heavily littered with trash, bits of wood, discarded cans and bottles, and other refuse. K showed me a metal pole secured into the ground by concrete a short distance
154 from the porch overhanging part of the rear of the home. She told me that B had been chained to the pole and had "broken loose". I looked at the base of the pole and did not see any scratches, abrasions, or other marks indicating that a chain had been regularly attached to the pole, or evidence that an animal had been tethered there. There were no broken chain links, nor were there any attachment locations (ring bolts, eyes, etc.) to which a chain could be attached. There were no feces in the area and there was no clear area for the dog to lay, nor was there adequate shelter or cover from the elements.
I did not observe any food or water bowls in the immediate area of the "tether" pole.
K explained to me that both dogs (B and S) had lived in the home for a number of years. They were cared for by both her mother D and her brothers Q and A. She stated that B often stayed with Q since he had moved into separate housing over the past few months, but that B still visited regularly and was regularly left in D care. S still lived in the home and was "very attached" to D. D and S were regular companions, sitting on the sofa in the front room of the home together.
I was invited into the home by D S and we spoke at length in the front room of the residence. D explained that the dogs had been living in her home for a number of years. According to D both dogs were approximately 10 years old. K had purchased B from a friend as a puppy. S had been rescued from persons she identified as
"Travelers", referring to itinerant persons, possibly of Irish descent. D said that S had been bred by the "Travelers" a number of times but she did not know exactly how many or where the pups might be. S was approximately 3 years old when she came into the S household. D said that B and S were accustomed to each other and played together often. D stated that S was very attached to and protective of her (D) and they spent a
155 substantial amount of time sitting on the sofa together. D said that S often went to the front window and barked loudly when people came to the front driveway of the house.
She said that B had lived in the home most of his life, but that he spent at least part of his time with K since K had secured his own living spaces. She said that B often stayed in her home when K was working, busy, or out of town. D affirmed that both dogs were in her care and custody on the day of the attack.
D told me that there had been previous incidents involving B (documented elsewhere by Police and Animal Wardens). She was aware of the prior incidents. No extra measures to contain or manage B had been taken since either of the prior incidents. No particular management of S had ever been instituted. Neither dog had ever been professionally trained or attended training classes.
I spoke to Q S after he arrived at the home. Q verified his mother's statements.
He said that B was his dog but had grown up in the S home and was often cared for by
D. Q said that he had other living space now, but often brought B over to visit and to be left with D. Q said that on the date of the attack B had been left in D's direct care and control. Q made no mention of any concerns regarding D's ability to care for or manage
B. Q said that B had received Veterinary care at B Veterinary Practice in H.
I also spoke to A S at the residence. He verified that B and S had lived most of their lives in the S home. He identified S as his dog, stating that he had S since he (A) was 14 years old. He observed that S was highly attached to D and was observed to be protective of her. He stated that S lived full time in the S home and was most often cared for by D. A verified that S was left in D's care and control on the day of the incident. A further verified that he had seen S look out the window and bark and lunge,
156 and that S "goes berserk", when people come up the walk or pass by the front of the home.
The description of the attack (documented by Police in various statements) is that Victim 1 came to the main door of the residence. The door was apparently unsecured. Victim 1 opened the door slightly and called for the residents. At or just after that time the dogs rushed Victim 1 and began to bite her. Both dogs bit her numerous times. D reportedly responded to the emergency and tried to separate the dogs and
Victim 1. D was unable to separate the dogs from Victim 1-as she removed one dog the other engaged the victim. D was bitten a number of times during this by both dogs.
According to accounts a female passer-by on a bicycle tried to assist D in separating and securing the dogs. This passer-by was also bitten a number of times in the encounter.
D was reportedly finally able to separate S from the incident and place her inside.
A male passer-by came up and used a chair to dislodge B from Victim 1 and to pin B to the wall of the pathway. The male was able to keep B contained while D placed a chain over B's head. The male then led B away from the victims.
The bloodstains still visible on the walls of the pathway were consistent with this account: there was substantial cast-off and splatter of what appeared to be blood on the brick wall of one side of the path where D indicated that B and S had pinned the primary victim. There was substantial smear and transfer of what appeared to be blood on the other wall where D said that the male had pinned B with the chair. D and Q said that the blood on the walkway had been pressure washed off by the local Council.
157 We traveled with police to a private kennel in the area where I met S, the female dog involved in the attack, and a male dog named Z that had been surrendered to the police because he was allegedly B's offspring. I conducted a behavior evaluation of subject dog S. The evaluation was conducted in the kennel area, in an outside area within the outer fence, and an open grassy area behind the kennel.
To evaluate the dog, I used a combination of the SAFER testing protocol, the
AKC Canine Good Citizen examination, and elements of the American Temperament
Testing Society process, tests that are generally accepted in the canine behavior community. These tests are adapted and I may not follow them exactly for safety concerns: I initially observe the dog within their kennel to determine if the dog is safe to remove from secure containment for evaluation and handling purposes. Progressing through the full range of tasks may be interrupted due to specific responses in earlier portions of the test: for instance, if a dog is reacting with open aggression to safe control, I am not placing my face up to the dog to see if I get bitten. That has no diagnostic value.
Further, the tests are not considered "pass/fail". If a dog shows a negative behavior, or if in my judgment a dog is not safe to conduct a particular test, the dog does not "fail". A negative reaction to a particular stimulus is an indicator of a need for training/treatment and may assist in evaluation of the appropriateness of placement in a particular environment. Such "failure" may also indicate, in the case of a post-bite evaluation, a potential trigger for the dangerous incident under investigation. Results from a temperament/behavior evaluation are also not necessarily predictive of success or failure in another environment; they are indicative of the reactions to specific stimuli
158 in a particular environment on a particular day. No guarantees are made or implied, as dogs are living creatures and are deeply affected by environment, training, and experience, both before and after any testing.
Specific indicators examined in a full evaluation include:
Dog greeting to strange person (evaluator).
Dog permitting non-threatening physical contact with dog (gentle petting)
Dog permitting leashing by evaluator.
Dog body posture and non-verbal signaling to evaluator.
Dog willingness to work with the evaluator.
Dog permitting full handling and manipulation of body (ears, tail, feet, muzzle, etc.).
Dog seeking or avoiding voluntary physical contact with evaluator.
Dog's response to more intense physical manipulation, including "squeeze" and
"scruffing".
Dog acceptance of treats and/or kibble, and allowing or resisting the removal of high value treats.
Dog response to sudden startle-inducing noise and recovery to startle.
Dog response to a neutral stranger (not evaluator).
Dog response to, and recovery from, sudden approach of "threatening stranger".
Dog response to direct visual contact/frontal body posture of stranger, neutral and/or "threatening".
Dog response to proximity of both non-reactive and reactive dogs in the kennel environment.
159 Dog response to the actions of other dogs in close proximity not controlled by
neutral handler (other kennel dogs acting/reacting from within their enclosures).
Dog response to evaluator's body language, including appeasement gestures,
dominance-type posturing, apparent threatening posture (including direct frontal stare
and stare with restraint of dog's face at close range).
Dog's response to verbal cues.
Dog's response to leash application and moderate leash correction, response to
strong verbal correction.
Dog's ability to exhibit appropriate play behavior with evaluator.
Dog's willingness to initiate, on and off leash, voluntary human contact.
Dog's response to presenting/removing food bowl, possibly permitting presence
of hand in food bowl without guarding response.
Other controlled interactions may be conducted occur to expand and clarify
observed behaviors.
My specific behavioral observations for S are as follows:
1. 1) S. Female Boxer mix, largely brown brindle in color. Reported age
approximately 10 years old. S appears physically healthy and moderately active. I
first approached S in her holding kennel without speaking. S began barking at me
from the front of the kennel, eyes wide. When I did not respond she backed away,
still barking, averting her eyes, for over one minute. I then lowered my body
position, crouching to allow her to deescalate by presenting a less threatening
position. S continued barking. I offered my hand in a neutral manner and she
retreated to a corner of the kennel, eyes wide, showing fear indicators at my
160 presence. I turned my body even more to the side to present a less-threatening posture and she continued to bark but showed a similar turn in posture, offering disengagement. I then offered her a treat but she would not approach for the treat.
I tossed her a bit of treat and she warily approached it, finally picking up the treat.
After several tossed treats she finally approached my hand and took the treats directly and gently. At this point she stopped barking at me.
At approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds I opened the kennel door and S again began barking and retreated back to the corner. I stopped advancing and waited, closing the door. After another 30 seconds of letting S calm I opened the door again and tossed her treats. S retreated when I opened the door and entered, but then she voluntarily approached me for the treats. S kept taking treats but was tense and agitated for about another minute, by which time she voluntarily sat and gave indications that she was calming. I allowed her to sniff the leash I had and she then easily permitted me to leach her and lead her from the kennel. At this time, she was wagging her tail, showing appeasement licks, and soliciting positive contact. Producing positive contact took approximately 4 minutes 40 seconds.
We left the kennel and she walked willingly down the hallway between the other kennels. She walked cautiously past other dogs, keeping towards the center of the hallway and looking at each kennel we passed but she did not react to other dogs or kennels by barking, lunging, or any other particular visible behavior.
We emerged outside the kennel to the grassy area at about 5 minutes.
Once outside S settled down quickly. She voluntarily sat and walked easily on the lead, but maintained nearly full-lead distance from me as we moved around. She
161 investigated the outdoor area, but she expressed no particular interest or focus on the barking dogs visible in the kennel runs. She easily sat when asked and took treats gently.
S allowed me to stroke her sides but kept her face and body angled away from me. She showed overall tension in her muscles and posture.
I broke contact and walked her to allow her to relax.
As we walked she sat on request but would not lure to a down position.
While walking S was very interested in her surroundings, and as she investigated she lost interest in taking treats. She still mostly looked away from me and maintained a body position angled away from me.
I then resumed stroking her. She continued signaling her wariness, keeping her body angled and looking away from me. I briefly grabbed her by the loose skin at the base of her neck and "scruffed" her. She did not turn, growl, or lunge/snap, but kept turned and facing away. She permitted squeezing portions of her loose skin. I also took her by the tail and she permitted that without negative reaction.
I was able to manipulate and check her teeth, mouth, and fully handle her head and ears. She showed no indication of sensitivity or injury to the ears or mouth, although she was initially reluctant to allow me to fully open her mouth. Her teeth and mouth appeared healthy; specific notes about dentition will follow.
After approximately 9 ½ minutes we returned to the enclosed area of the kennel building to conduct stranger and reactivity tests.
162 I walked S past the first line of occupied kennels of dogs to observe (without redirection) her reaction to other dogs, both calm and barking. S first walked the length of the run area with me between her and the other dogs, then back with her closest to the open fencing. Although she showed interest in an appropriate manner (sniffing, approaching the fencing with head lowered and tail wagging) she showed no reactivity to the other dogs, neither those approaching nor those holding their distance. She did not return any challenge signals to those dogs lunging and barking at the fence. She appeared calm, walking easily and checking to see where I wanted to go. S willingly walked through a narrow area (between a trash bin and the fence) without reluctance or sensitivity to the constricted area. We then walked past another line of kennels with the same reaction from S; appropriate interest with no challenge or aggressive display.
I then presented a bowl of kibble to test for food guarding behavior. S was interested in the bowl of kibble but easily allowed me to offer and remove the bowl, move the bowl while she investigated it, and in general was cooperative.
I dropped a steel bowl to ascertain startle response and recovery. S showed nearly no reaction to the sudden noise and recovered within a second or two.
I manipulated S's paws and stretched her legs to check for sensitivity to handling or potential hip discomfort and she was easily compliant with no negative reaction.
We then progressed to interaction with human strangers. The "neutral stranger" approached without addressing or directly looking at S, speaking normally to me. He did not make direct eye contact with S. As he approached, S backed up to my side. S faced the stranger but did not give any warning behavior such as growling or barking. S did not approach or advance towards the neutral stranger.
163 We then tested for reaction to a "scary stranger": a person dressed differently
(wearing a hooded jacket over his head) approaching quickly making threatening sounds and gestures and staring directly at her. S immediately began barking, facing the stranger frontally. S briefly cowered by my side as the strange stopped, holding his position. The stranger again approached, and S continued barking, teeth bared, but overall exhibiting a fearful body position. S sat when I directed her to, but rose up again as the stranger again approached. Despite barking at the stranger S never closed the distance between her and the stranger nor did she pull or strain at the leash. Within 2 seconds of the stranger's departure from her sight she sat calmly without command. S showed a very quick recovery to a calm state and showed no desire to pursue the stranger or seek where he had gone.
Dental examination: Although S was reluctant to allow me to fully open and examine her bite she did not growl, snap, or show overt aggressive display. S has four healthy canine teeth (2 upper and 2 lower). She has 5 upper incisors, missing the number 1 incisor on the right side. The other upper incisors are irregular in spacing and orientation. S has only 4 lower incisors, missing the number 1 left and number 1 right.
Her number 2 left and numbers 2 and 3 right incisors are clearly indented. This gives S a fairly distinct bite pattern that may serve for exclusionary purposes if compared against a victim bite.
I tested S with a tug toy to see if she was possessive or focused on toys and she exhibited very little interest in the toy. She does not appear to be familiar with playing tug-type games.
164 Summary: S is a solidly-built brindle and white dog, apparently a Boxer mix. She is initially wary and fearful of the approach of an unknown person. S reacted calmly after becoming accustomed to me. After our relatively brief time together S reacted somewhat fearfully to the neutral stranger, taking refuge at my side while maintaining close observation of the stranger. She was somewhat protectively of me when confronted by the scary stranger, but did not close the distance to the stranger or pull at the leash.
Overall S seems to be a dog that is very cautious with new people and tends to react with an aggressive display to strangers. This is consistent with D's statements that
S perches on top of the sofa and barks fiercely at any person nearing the front of the house, particularly if D is on the sofa with S. S does not appear to be well-socialized with persons outside her immediate family. S does not appear to be at ease in the kennel environment. S's behavior is consistent with a dog that would be very protective of someone to whom she is close and reluctant to allow a non-familiar person into her immediate vicinity. S displays behavior that would be consistent with a dog that would bite when her space was intruded upon, especially if she were to perceive the intruder as a potential threat. This individual tendency may be exacerbated by the presence of another stranger-reactive dog participating in the same encounter. To be considered
"safe" in a home environment S would need extensive socialization and remedial training, coupled with close management of her contact with unfamiliar people.
165 APPENDIX H CASE FILES REFERENCED
1) CB, male child, Southeastern U.S., 2013. Author's investigative files.
2) TM, male adolescent, Southeastern U.S., 2006. Author's investigative files.
3) DJ, male infant, Southeastern U.S., 2004. Author's investigative files.
4) Freeman, Arianna: Huntington, WV: 2005: Author's investigative files.
5) GK, male toddler, Southeastern U.S., 2007: Author's investigative files.
6) MD, adult male, Southern U.S., 2006: Author's investigative files.
7) HN, male infant, Central U.S., 2012: Author's investigative files.
8) CP, female child, Southeastern U.S., 2009: Author's investigative files.
9) RC, adult female, Central U.S. Philadelphia: Author’s investigative files.
10) BU, infant, Northeastern U.S. 1976.
11) NF, adolescent male, San Francisco, California, 2001.
12) TZ, adult female, Midlands, United Kingdom, 2014, Author’s investigative
files.
13) GH, elderly male, Midwestern U.S., 2012: Author’s investigative files.
14) LM, infant male, Western U.S.
15) TK, adult male, Midwestern U.S., 2015: Author’s investigative files.
16) APA, adult female, Southeastern US, 2014: Author’s investigative files.
17) BB, adult male, Pacific Northwest, U.S. 2010: Author’s investigative files.
18) S, adolescent male, India, 2011: Author’s investigative files.
166 REFERENCES
Abrantes, Roger Ph.D. (1997) Dog Language: An Encyclopedia of Canine Behavior, Dogwise Publishing.
Abrantes, Roger Ph.D. (2004) The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior, Dogwise Publishing
Akin, L. L. L. (2005a). Blood: Interpretation at Crime Scenes. The Forensic Examiner, Summer 2005, 6-10.
Akin, L. L. L. (2005b). Blood Spatter Interpretation at Crime and Accident Scenes: A Basic Approach. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin(February), 21-24.
Aloff, Brenda (2001) Aggression in Dogs: Practical Management, Prevention, and Behavior Modification, Dogwise Publishing.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2011) National Dog Bite Prevention Week, May 15 - 21, 2011, Press Release, accessed July 2016 online at https://www2.aap.org/advocacy/releases/DogBiteRelease.html
American Board of Forensic Odontology, ABFO Bitemark Methodology Standards and Guidelines, accessed online April 2016 at http://abfo.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/ABFO-Bitemark-Standards-03162016.pdf
American Board of Forensic Odontology Diplomates Reference Manual, March 2016 Edition, accessed online, April 2016 at http://abfo.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/ABFO-Reference-Manual-03162016.pdf
American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (2008) 2007/ 2008 APPMA National Pet Survey. Greenwich, CT: American Pet Products Manufacturers Association.
Barnes, Jeffery G., et al. (2010) The Fingerprint Sourcebook. US Department of Justice, editor. Rockeville, MD: National Institute of Justice.
Bathurst, Cynthia. Ph.D., Cleary, Donald; Delise, Karen; VanKavage, Ledy Esq. Rushing, Patricia Ed.D. (2011) The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, United States of America.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680– 740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
167 Beaver, Bonnie (2001), Chair, Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human- Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog bite prevention JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 American Veterinary Medical Association
Bernitz, H., Bernitz, Z., Steenkamp, G., Blumenthal, R., & Stols, G. (2012). The individualisation of a dog bite mark: a case study highlighting the bite mark analysis, with emphasis on differences between dog and human bite marks. International Journal of Legal Med, 126(3), 441-446.
Bernstein, Mark L. Nature of Bitemarks, In: Dorion, R. (ed) Bitemark Evidence, Marcel Dekker Pub, New York, 2005, pp. 59-79
Boglioli, L. R. M. D. T., Mark L. M.D.; Turkel, Spencer Jay Ph.D.; Taylor, James V. Ph.D.; Peterson, C. Denis D.V.M. (2000). Unusual Infant Death: Dog Attack or Postmortem Mutilation After Child Abuse. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 21(4) (December, 2000), 389-394.
Borchelt, P. L. P. D. L., Randall Ph.D.; Beck, Alan M. ScD; Voith, Victoria L. D.V.M. Ph.D. (1983). Attacks by Packs of Dogs Involving Predation on Human Beings. Public Health Reports, 98(January-February), 58-66.
Brambell, F. W. R. (1965). Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems London.
Brauner, P., M.Sc.; Reshef, Ayeleth M.Sc.; and Gorski, Azriel M.Sc. (2001). DNA Profiling of trace evidence-mitigating circumstances in a dog biting case. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(5), 1232-1234.
Buschmann, C., Solarino, B., Puschel, K., Czubaiko, F., Heinze, S., & Tsokos, M. (2011). Post-mortem decapitation by domestic dogs: three case reports and review of the literature. Forensic Science and Med Pathology, 7(4), 344-349.
Byard, R. W. (2014). A multidisciplinary approach to fatal dog attacks. Journal of Forensic Legal Medicine, 22, 79.
Calkins, C. M., Bensard, D. D., Partrick, D. A., & Karrer, F. M. (2001). Life- threatening dog attacks: a devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 36(8), 1115-1117.
Castrodale L. Hospitalizations resulting from dog bite injuries--Alaska, 1991– 2002. International Journal of Circumpolar Health. 2007; 66:320 –327.
Centers for Disease Control, (2001) Nonfatal Dog Bite--Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments --- United States, 2001, accessed online July 2016 at cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm
168 Centers for Disease Control, (2011) National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2011 Emergency Department Summary Tables accessed online July 2016 at cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/nhamcs_emergency/2011_ed_web_tables.pdf
Chance, Paul (1998) First Course in Applied Behavior Analysis, Waveland Press, Inc.
Ching-Ying Siu, S. (2012). Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Quantitative Differentiation of Spatter Patterns Resulting from Bullet and Blunt Force Impacts. (Master’s of Science In Forensic Science), University of California, Davis. (1534927)
Chu, A. Y., Ripple, M. G., Allan, C. H., Thogmartin, J. R., & Fowler, D. R. (2006). Fatal dog maulings associated with infant swings. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(2), 403-406.
Clark, M. A. P., MD; Sandusky, George E. DVM, PhD; Hawley, Dean A. MD; Pless, John E. MD; Fardal, Patrick M. MD.; and Tate, Larry R. MD. (1991). Fatal and Near-Fatal Animal Bite Injuries. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36(4), 1256-1261.
Clarke, M., & Vandenberg, N. (2010). Dog attack: the application of canine DNA profiling in forensic casework. Forensic Science and Medical Pathology, 6(3), 151-157.
De Meester, Rudy H., Mills, Daniel S., De Keuster, Tiny, Schoning, Barbara, Muser Leybraz, Anneli, Da Graca Pereira, Goncalo, Gaultier, Emmanuel, and Corridan, Clair, (2011) ECVCE Positions Statement on Risk Assessment, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, (2011) 6, 248-249
De Munnynck, K., & Van de Voorde, W. (2002). Forensic approach of fatal dog attacks: a case report and literature review. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 116(5), 295-300.
Dickey, Bronwen Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon, Alfred A Knopf, pub, 2016. Ding, Z.L., Oskarsson, M., Ardalan, A., Angleby, H., Dahlgren, L-G., Tepeli, C., Kirkness, E., Savolainen, P. and Zhang, Y-P. (2012) Origins of domestic dog in Southern East Asia is supported by analysis of Y-chromosome DNA Heredity (2012) 108, 507– 514; doi:10.1038/hdy.2011.114; published online 23 November 2011
Dorion, R. B.J., Dog Bitemarks, In: Dorion, Robert B.J. (ed) Bitemark Evidence, Marcel Dekker Pub, New York, 2005, pp. 293-321
Dunbar, I. Dunbar dog bite assessment scale-official. Available at: www.dogtalk.com/BiteAssessmentScalesDunbarDTMRoss.pdf, March 2015.
Duffy D.L., Hsu, Y. & Serpell, J.A. (2008). Breed differences in canine aggression. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114: 441-460.
169
Epstein, L. A. J. (2006). There Are No Bad Dogs, Only Bad Owners: Replacing Strict Liability With a Negligence Standard in Dog Bite Cases. Animal Law, 13(129), 129-145.
FindLaw, re: Florida Statutes on involuntary and voluntary manslaughter and culpable negligence http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-involuntary- manslaughter-laws.html, accessed online June 2016.
Fleeman, Jason, Administrator of the Estate of Arianna Fleeman, deceased, v. Huntington Cabell Wayne Animal Control (2006), Cabell County Circuit Court Civil Action No. 06-C-0443, Cabell County, West Virginia.
Florida Department of Disease Control and Protection (2014) Rabies Prevention and Control in Florida, 2014, State of Florida.
Google Search "dog bite", accessed online on 15 March 2016.
Gershman, K., Sacks, J. &Wright, J. (1994). Which dogs bite—a case-control study of risk-factors. Pediatrics 93: 913–17.
Grandin, Temple Ph.D. (1995) Thinking in Pictures Vintage Publishing.
Grandin, Temple Ph.D. (2005) Animals in Translation, Scribner Publishing
Group, D. A. F. (2012). DAFG Dog Assessment Protocol. Privately published, dog Assessment Focus Group, UK (16 June 2012), 1-4.
Hakim, N., & Liscio, E. (2015). Calculating point of origin of blood spatter using laser scanning technology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(2), 409-417.
Heisenberg, Martin. Is free will an illusion? Scientists and philosophers are using new discoveries in neuroscience to question the idea of free will. They are misguided, says Martin Heisenberg. Examining animal behavior shows how our actions can be free. Nature 459.7244 (2009): 164+. Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 22 May 2016.
Hetts, Suzanne Pet Behavior Protocols, American Animal Hospital Association Press, Lakewood, Colorado, USA 1999.
Holmquist, Laurel M.A. and Elixhauser, Anne Ph.D. (2010) Emergency Department Visits and Inpatient Stays Involving Dog Bites, 2008 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Horowitz, Alexandra Ph.D. (2009), Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know Scribner Publishing.
170
Hyzer WG, Krauss TC The Bite Mark Standard Reference Scale--ABFO No. 2. Journal of Forensic Sciences [1988, 33(2):498-506]
Jameson, Philip, A Question of Criminal Guilt - Mens Rea Under Animal Protection Law The University of Queensland Law Journal Vol. 15, No. I 1988- 1989Justice, U. D. o. (2012). Crime Scene Investigation.
Jones, A. (2003) Red Zone: The Behind the Scenes Story of the San Francisco Dog Mauling. New York: William Morrow.
Karger, B., Rand, S., Fracasso, T., & Pfeiffer, H. (2008). Bloodstain pattern analysis--casework experience. Forensic Science International, 181(1-3), 15-20.
Keuster, D. (2009). Epidemiology of Dog Bites. Proceedings of the 34th World Small Animal Veterinary Conference.
Kleiber, M. S., Dankwart; Wiegand, Peter. (2001). Assessment of shooting distance on the basis of bloodstain analysis and histological examinations. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 119, 260-262.
Kneafsey, B. a. C., K.C. (1995). Severe dog-bite injuries, introducing the concept of pack attack: a literature view and seven case reports. Injury: International Journal of the Care of the Injured, 26(1), 37-41.
Kolata, R. J. D. K., Nicole H. VMD; Johnson, Dudley E. B.A.Scs., M.V.Sc., AM. (1974). Pattern of Trauma in Urban Dogs and Cats: A Study of 1000 cases. JAVMA, 164(1), 499-501.
Kondo, T. (2007). Timing of skin wounds. Journal of Legal Medicine (Tokyo) 9(2)
Langley, R. L. (2009). Human Fatalities Resulting From Dog Attacks in the United States 1979-2005. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 20, 19-25.
Lapan, Tovin. What lessons did we learn from the Onion saga?” The Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 29 January 2014. Web at lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jan/29/what-lessons-did-we-learn-onion-saga/ accessed July 2015
Las Vegas Review-Journal, (2013) Supreme Court Sends Onion Dog Case Back to the Lower Court, accessed online July, 2016 at http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-supreme-court-sends-onion-dog-case-back- lower-court
171 Lauridson, J. R. M. D. M., Lawrence D.V.M., Ph.D. (1993). Evaluation of Fatal Dog Bites: The View of the Medical Examiner and Animal Behaviorist. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38(3), 726-731.
Leonard, Jennifer A., Wayne, Robert K., Wheeler, Jane, Valadez, Raul, Guillen, Sonia and Vila, Carles Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World Dogs Science 22 Nov 2002: Vol. 298, Issue 5598, pp. 1613-1616
Lessig, R. W., V.; Weber, M. (2006). Bite mark analysis in forensic routine case work. EXCLI Journal, 5, 93-102.
Lindsey, Steven R. (2001) Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Volume 2: Assessment and Etiology of Dog Behavior Problems, Iowa State University Press.
Lockwood, Randall (1983) Personal case files of DBRF on Whipple, Diane: San Francisco, CA.
Maltoni, D., Maio, D., Jain, A., & Prabhakar, S. (2009). Handbook of fingerprint recognition. Springer Science & Business Media.
Merck, Melinda D. DVM (2007) Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations Blackwell Publishing.
Miklosi, Adam (2007), Dog Behavior, Evolution, and Cognition Oxford University Press.
Miller, A.; Perry, R. (2012). Reasonable Person, The New York University Law Review 87(2), 323-392.
Miller, H. C., DeWall, C. N., Pattison, K., Molet, M., & Zentall, T. R. (2012). Too dog tired to avoid danger: self-control depletion in canines increases behavioral approach toward an aggressive threat. Psychon Bull Rev, 19(3), 535-540.
Milosevic, Irena Ph.D., McCabe, Randi E. Ph.D. eds. (2015) Phobias: The Psychology of Irrational Fear: The Psychology of Irrational Fear Greenwood Publishing
Mornement, K. M., Coleman, G. J., Toukhsati, S. R., & Bennett, P. C. (2015). Evaluation of the predictive validity of the Behavioral Assessment for Re-homing K9's (B.A.R.K.) protocol and owner satisfaction with adopted dogs. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 167, 35-42.
Munn v. State of Florida, 158 Fla. 892, 30 So. 2d 501 (1947)
172 Murmann, D. C., Brumit, P. C., Schrader, B. A., & Senn, D. R. (2006). A comparison of animal jaws and bite mark patterns. Journal of Forensic Science, 51(4), 846-860.
National Safety Council (2000) The most common causes of death due to injury in the United States accessed July, 2016 at danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
National Weather Service (2015) Lightning Deaths the Last 10 Years, Mapped, accessed online at https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/lightning-deaths-by-state- 2005-2014, July 2016.
Nikko the Dog a/k/a Helo, Miscellaneous Docket #836-2012, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, 2012.
Ogden, R., Heap, E., & McEwing, R. (2009). Advances in the DNA analysis of canine trace evidence for serious crime investigation in the UK. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 2(1), 290-291.
Ohshima, T. (2000). Forensic Wound Examination. Forensic Science International, 113, 153-164.
Oshima, T., Mimasaka, S., Yonemitsu, K., Kita, K., & Tsunenari, S. (2008). Vertebral arterial injury due to fatal dog bites. J Forensic Leg Med, 15(8), 529-532.
O'Sullivan E.N., Jones, B.R., O'Sullivan, K. & Hanlon, A.J. (2008). The management and behavioural history of 100 dogs reported for biting a person. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,114: 149–158.
Overall, K. L. M., VMD, PhD, DACVB and Love, Molly MSN. (2001). Dog Bites to Humans-demography, epidemiology, injury, and risk. JAVMA, 218(12), 1925-1934.
Patronek, G.J., Slater, M. & Marder, A. (2010). Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite–related injury Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 237, 788-792.
Patronek, G.J., Sacks, J.J., Delise, K.M., Cleary, D.V. & Marder, A.R. (2013). Co- occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243: 1726-1736.
Pavletic, M. M., & Trout, N. J. (2006). Bullet, bite, and burn wounds in dogs and cats. Vet Clinics and North Am Small Animal Practice, 36(4), 873-893.
173 Lee, Ken (2008) Coroner: Dogs Didn't Kill Ving Rhames's Caretaker, People Magazine, accessed online July 2016 at bhttp://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20172667,00.html
Pinckney, L. M. D. a. K., Leslie A. M.D. (1982). Traumatic Deaths From Dog Attacks in the United States. Pediatrics, 69, 193-196.
Pretty, I. A. Reliability of Bitemark Evidence In: Dorion, R. B.J. (ed) Bitemark Evidence, Marcel Dekker Pub, New York, 2005
Ragatz, L. L., Fremouw, W., Thomas, T., Mccoy, K. and Schwartz, R., (2009) The Personality Characteristics and Antisocial Behaviors of Owners of Vicious Dogs Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology - Law Society, TBA, San Antonio, TX. 2011-03-11 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p295184_index.html
Raghaven, Malathi (1989) Fatal dog attacks in Canada, 1990–2007 Can Vet J 2008;49:577–581
Reid, P. (2013). Animal behavior forensics: Evaluation of dangerous dogs and cruelty victims. In Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff, 2nd Edition, eds. L. Miller and S. Zawistowski, pp. 559-567. Ames, IA: John Wiley & Sons.
Reisner, I. R., Shofer, F. S., & Nance, M. L. (2007). Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression. Injury Prevention, 13(5), 348-351.
Rosado, B., Garcia-Belenguer, S., Leon, M., & Palacio, J. (2009). A comprehensive study of dog bites in Spain, 1995-2004. Vet J, 179(3), 383-391.
Rugaas, Turid (2005) On Talking Terms with Dogs: Calming Signals Dogwise Publications.
Sacks, J. J. M., MPH; Lockwood, Randall PhD; Hornreich, Janet; and Sattin, Richard W. MD. (1996). Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics, 97(No. 6), 891-895.
Sacks, J. J. M., MPH; Kresnow, Marcie-jo; Houston, Barbara. (1996). Dog Bites: How Big a Problem. Injury Prevention, 2, 52-54.
Sacks, J. J. M., MPH; Sinclair, Leslie DVM; Gilchrist, Julie MD; Golab, Gail C. PhD, DVM; Lockwood, Randall PhD. (2000). Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA, 217(No. 6), 836-840.
Salem, N. H., Belhadj, M., Aissaoui, A., Mesrati, M. A., & Chadly, A. (2013). Multidisciplinary approach to fatal dog attacks: a forensic case study. Journal of Forensic Legal Medicine, 20(6), 763-766.
174 Sanders, Patrick and Amber vs. City of Salem, Cause #12DE-CC00053, Circuit Court of Dent County, State of Missouri, 2012.
Santoro, V., Smaldone, G., Lozito, P., Smaldone, M., & Introna, F. (2011). A forensic approach to fatal dog attacks. A case study and review of the literature. Forensic Science International, 206(1-3), e37-42.
Scharnhorst, G. K. (2010). A Review of Closed Canine Forensics DNA Case Reports from the University of California, Davis. University of California Davis, Office of Graduate Studies (Thesis, Master of Science in Forensic Science), 1-37.
Smith, Susan E. and Bernier, Thomas P. (2012) When Man’s Best Friend Bites: National Trends and Implications for Dog Owners and Insurers on Strict Liability, Breed Bans, Insurance Mandates, and Exclusions Claims Management, November 2012, p. 20-25.
State of North Carolina v. Powell (1993), 109 N.C. App. 1, 426 S.E.2d 91
State of West Virginia v. Donald Brewer, (2005) Case No. WV-2005-556
Steadman, Dawnie Wolfe and Worne, Heather, (2007) Canine scavenging of human remains in an indoor setting. Forensic Science International, November 15, 2007, Volume 173, Issue 1, Pages 78–82
Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, No. 81,243, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Sabine M. Davidson, Appellant. Original case 1997. Appeal 1999
Tsokos, M., Schultz, F. (1998). Indoor Postmortem Animal Interference by Carnivores and Rodents: report of two cases and review of the literature. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 112, 115-119.
Turnipseed v. State of Georgia, 186 Ga. App. 278, 367 S.E.2d 259 (1988)
Udell, Monique and Wynne, C.D.L. (2008) A Review of Domestic Dogs’ (Canis Familiaris) Human-Like Behaviors: or Why Behavior Analysts Should Stop Worrying and Love Their Dogs. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2008, 89, 247-261, Number 2 (March)
U.S. Postal Service (2016). Postal news (Press Release). Retrieved from http://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2016/pr16_039.pdf on 20 June 2016
Vila, C., Savolainen, P., Maldonado, J. E., Amorim, I. R., Rice, J. E., Honeycutt, R. L., . . . Wayne, R. K. (1997). Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science, 276(5319), 1687-1689.
175 Voith, Victoria L.; Ingram, Elizabeth; Mitsouras, Katherine; Irizarry, Kristopher (2009) Comparison of Adoption Agency Breed Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, Vol. 12, Issue 3
Voith, Victoria L.; Trevejo, Rosalie; Dowling-Guyer, Seana; Chadik, Colette; Marder, Amy; Johnson, Vanessa; Irizarry, Kristopher (2013) Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability, American Journal of Sociological Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, 2013, pp. 17-29.
Westgarth, C. (2012). Why Do Dog Bite Victims Think They Were Bitten? Qualitative Investigation of the Beliefs and Experiences of Victims Regarding Dog Bite Events. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Health, The University of Liverpool
Westgarth, Carri. and Watkins, Francine (2015). A qualitative investigation of the perceptions of female dog-bite victims and implications for the prevention of dog bites Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10, (2015) 479-488.
Whitcomb, Dan (2007), Man killed by dogs at actor Ving Rhames' L.A. home Reuters News Service, accessed online July 2016 at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-rhames- dog-idUSN0334426720070803
Wilde, Nicole (2008) Getting a Grip on Aggression, accessed online July 2016 at DogStarDaily, http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/getting-grip-aggression
Winkler, W. G. D. (1977). Human Deaths Induced by Dog Bites, United States, 1974-75. Public Health Reports, 92(5), 425-429.
Wiseman, N. E. C., Harvey; Fraser, Virginia. (1983). Major Dog Attack Injuries in Children. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 18(5), 533-536.
Wright, J. C. P. (1985). Severe Attacks by Dogs: Characteristics of the Dogs, the Victims, and the Attack Settings. Public Health Reports, 100(1), 55-61.
176 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
James Crosby, BS, MSc, is a retired Police Lieutenant (Jacksonville Sheriff's
Office, Jacksonville, FL) and has professionally trained dogs, taught individual and group obedience classes, and addressed canine behavior problems since 1999. James is a Certified Behavior Consultant-Canine-Knowledge Assessed under the Council for
Certification of Professional Dog Trainers. James received his bachelor’s degree from
Charter Oak State College in 2008 and was awarded his master’s degree in Veterinary
Forensics by the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine in 2016.
James has served as the Division Chief of Jacksonville (FL) Animal Care and
Protective Services since March, 2016. As such he is responsible for the overall management of the agency, including shelter functions and investigative processes.
The Officers of JACPS investigate animal cruelty, neglect, and other violations of State
Statute and Municipal Code as relates to animal protection and welfare.
James is recognized as an expert in the US and Canada on Dangerous Dogs, canine aggression, fatal dog attacks, and related issues (court recognized expert in multiple state courts and Federal District Courts), and as such has performed evaluations on alleged Dangerous Dogs for various legal cases and jurisdictions. He has personally investigated over 20 fatal dog attacks on humans and, has post-attack, evaluated 40 dogs that have attacked and killed humans. In addition to his American work, James has consulted on and investigated serious attacks and fatalities in the UK and India.
James teaches safe handling and rehabilitation of Dangerous Dogs and
Investigation of Fatal and Serious Dog Attacks to police, animal control agencies, and others across the US and Canada. Agencies he has taught include: National Animal
177 Control Association, Florida Animal Control Association, Alabama Animal Control
Association, Calgary (Alberta) Animal Control, and Alberta Bylaw and Animal Control
Officers' Association. He has been instrumental in a number of successful prosecutions focused on dog related fatalities. James has trained and worked with authorities and agencies in England, Italy, and The Bahamas. James continues to present training seminars internationally, including in Warsaw, Poland.
James served as Division Manager for Bay County (FL) Animal Control from
2008-2010, during which time he was responsible for the evaluation of surrendered and stray animals for adoption, along with investigating allegations of Dangerous Dogs and related legal proceedings. He investigated over a hundred claims of Dangerous Dogs.
Each of these cases required detailed investigation of the circumstances and evaluation of the behaviors displayed by the dogs. He also investigated hoarding and animal cruelty cases and initiated prosecution on those cases.
James combines his prior Police experience with his additional animal behavior and investigative skills to consult on cases of police officer involved shootings of companion animals. His investigations and later testimony have resulted in several positive rulings by the Courts for the owners of animals killed by police action. He has trained Police Officers in the proper and safe avoidance of dog bites and the proper use of less-lethal tools to avoid injury from dogs. James was part of the team of experts that designed the dog encounter training program for the State of California Commission on
Police Officer Standards and Training for Peace Officers in California. James is a member of the National Coalition on Violence Against Animals and is the NCOVAA working group co-chair regarding Use of Force by Police.
178 James is a contributor to the book "Dog Aggression" being produced by the
University of Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England. James had been advising and performing on-scene consulting with the Bahamas Humane Society, Nassau, The Bahamas since
2012. James writes the popular dog aggression blog "Canine Aggression Issues with
Jim Crosby".
179