dafrevlogancc.bigpondhosting/ A successful case in Logan city. It leading witness Ms Pomeroy could point to no-one anywhere in the world who supports her theory about using breed standards as a breed ID tool. She admitted that her assessment technique was entirely self-taught, and her ultimate response when pressed about the professional or scientific basis for her system was I use the standards. So obviously I think it works. Ms Perkins asserted, and firmly maintained, that her undergraduate veterinary degree was a relevant breed identification qualification. A past President of the Australian Veterinary Association, 29 years in practice, told the Court unequivocally that it was not. That aside, her evidence was that her only other formal breed identification qualification was a course designed and taught by Ms Pomeroy. She otherwise asserted, and relied upon, her general experience and expertise. The author of the breed standard gave evidence (by telephone from the USA). She dismissed use of the breed standard as a breed ID tool as entirely misconceived. Second, the Councils public position that it withdrew before final judgement because of the late DNA evidence is simply untrue, at least so far as concerns what it said and did in Court. As the transcripts show, the DNA evidence was given to the Council nearly 3 weeks before the trial resumed on 19 June 2006. The Council did seek an adjournment at the opening on 19 June to further consider the DNA evidence. The public does not know what may have been said, done or intended behind the scenes. However, that adjournment was refused (in fairness to Mr Da Fre). The Council was then asked by the Court whether it still opposed the appeal. The Councils lawyers told the Court that it did, and the appeal ran, hotly contested by the Council, for the next 3 days, making 6 days in total. During that period, the Council first tried and failed to attack the DNA evidence and then, when that evidence had been, if anything, strengthened by the Councils cross-examination, turned tack 180 degrees and called Ms Perkins to give further evidence that, yes, she now accepted the DNA evidence after all, but that the (Staffy) mother was also a pit bull. Her final statements to the Court were to reinforce my already firmly held view that Rusty is a pit bull terrier type of dog. That was the Councils case, as put before the Court, with full knowledge of the DNA evidence. To say that it then withdrew - about a week later - after evidence but before judgement - because of the DNA evidence is contrary to the clear and simple facts on the public record. It withdrew because it acknowledged in an open letter to Mr Da Fre that it could not prove that Rusty was an APBT. Despite full knowledge of the DNA evidence, the Councils witnesses, Messrs Pomeroy and Perkins, never modified or withdrew their evidence that, based on the 22 point test, they were absolutely certain that Rusty was a pit bull. The DNA evidence made Ms Perkins more certain about her identification, not less. Sally Reid
Posted on: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 13:33:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015