May 16th, 2002
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
PO Box 51486
Ontario, CA.
91761
Barry Goldberg, Esq.
Attorney at Law
9401 Wilshire Blvd. 10th Floor
Beverly Hills, CA.
90212
Dear Ms. Vint
and Mr. Goldberg,
This
report provides feedback to you regarding my opinions about the incident
involving the dog bite injury inflicted to Ken Schweibish (referred to herein
as Òthe incidentÓ). You have retained my services to analyze this matter for
the purposes of expressing an opinion about the dog which inflicted this
injury.
With
this understanding, I have undertaken or reviewed the following: (1) Interview
with Ken Schweibish and examination of his dog in his home on March 11th,
2003; (2) Interview with Gloria Bender in her home and examination of her dog
on March 11th, 2003; (3) Telephone interview with Craig Podell on
Saturday, April 12th, 2003; (4) Site inspection on March 11th, 2003 of the
location where the incident happened, a dog park facility named the ÒBark
ParkÓ; (5) Follow-up examinations and interviews with Ken Schweibish on two
occasions in April, 2003 to further review his version of the incident and
further examination of the bite wounds to his right forearm; (6) Follow-up phone
conversations with Schweibish to further elucidate his version of the incident;
(7) Review of the photographs showing canine teeth measurements of the dog
owned by Schweibish; (8) Review of the photographs of the bite injuries to the
right forearm of Schweibish taken shortly after the incident happened; (9)
Other miscellaneous discovery, such as interviews conducted by Terri Vint, and
the medical records on Schweibish.
Based
on my scrutiny of the above-mentioned material, in this report I will state the
findings and opinions I have reached.
First, I will describe how the incident happened. Second, I will state the assumptions I
have used that form the bases for my opinions. Next, I will provide discussion of the issues most germane
to the task of determining which
dog bit Schweibish. Last, I will
state my conclusions.
The
incident that led to the injury of Schweibish occurred in late afternoon April
22nd, 2002 at a facility called the Bark Park in Calabasas, CA. Bark Park is an off lead, fenced-in
ÒdoggyÓ park of considerable size.
Figure 1 shows a section of this park. Bark Park is similar to the many other so-called doggy parks
in the Los Angeles area in that dog owners take their dogs to these parks of
this kind for exercise and social interaction. While in the park dogs have the opportunity to interact and
socialize with other dogs and people without restraint. Many of the people who utilize this
park are regulars in that they know each other and they know each other's dogs. Accordingly, dog owners who regularly
patronize the Bark Park have familiarity with the behavioral patterns and
habits of many dogs that use this park.
The
following 4 people are significant to my analysis either because they or their
dog were present at the park when the incident happened, or because they were
involved in the incident: Craig Podell, Gloria Bender, Ken Schweibish, and a
person named Dan. Podell, Bender
and Schweibish were regulars of this park along with their dogs: (1) a Great
Pyrenees, Rocky, owned by Schweibish; (2) a Rottweiler, Mac, owned by Bender;
(3) a Dingo named Jersey owned by Podell, and (4) a husky-like dog, named Icon,
presumably owned by Dan.
Neither
Dan nor Icon were available for interview or examination at the time of this
writing. The Dingo owned Craig Podell was not involved in the incident.
Rocky
was a large, 2 year-old reproductively intact, male Great Pyrenees who weighed
approximately 110 lbs. Schweibish
says Rocky was in good health. He appeared in good health at the time of my
examination. Rocky has occasionally taken part in dog shows, and according to
Schweibish, usually without incident.
During my examination of Rocky, he did not display any signs indicating
aggressive tendencies towards humans.
He did not display tendencies of dominance. He accepted my handling and physical manipulation without
incident. He reacted with normal territorial barking and charging, but without
growling or snarling, when I approached and provocatively banged on the front
gate of the Schweibish property. Schweibish confirmed past aggressive displays
by Rocky towards other dogs.
However, he claims that Rocky only became aggressive towards another dog
when another dog tried to mount him.
Schweibish asserts that Rocky was generally well behaved and
non-aggressive while at dog shows with the possible exception of one
incident. On the other hand,
Podell and Bender both adamantly assert that that Rocky was considerably more
aggressive and dominant to dogs than Schweibish would lead one to believe.
Prior to the incident, Rocky knew Icon and Mac and generally tolerated these
dogs during his encounters with them.
The
distance between RockyÕs two upper canine teeth are shown in Figure 2 and
Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the
distance between RockyÕs lower canine teeth. These photographs were recently
taken at a veterinary hospital.
The measurements are as follows:
Distance
between RockyÕs upper canine teeth: 2 & 3/16 inches.
Distance
between RockyÕs two lower canine teeth: 2 & 3/16 in.
Mac is shown in Figure 5. This 8 year-old neutered female Rottweiler impressed me as a submissive dog towards humans. She appeared to be healthy, friendly and temperamentally sound. Bender says Mac was in good health at the time of the incident. At the time of my examination, MacÕs weight appeared to be approximately 85 lbs. Mac showed no reactivity when I intentionally banged on the front door of the Bender residence. I encountered no aggressive resistance during my attempt to physically manipulate Mac for the purpose of taking measurements of her teeth.
During
my questioning of Bender, I also attempted to gather information about Mac's
ÒpolicingÓ behavior. Apparently, according to Schweibish, while at the park,
Mac had the tendency to insert herself between dogs that became engaged in
emotional, aggressive-like, encounters.
Mac's tendency to display this kind of behavior was confirmed by Bender,
but she dismissed the notion that it was ever done with aggressive intent. Craig Podell also confirmed that, at
times, Mac had the tendency to engage in this kind of behavior. Podell also
stated that Mac was non-aggressive towards other dogs and very friendly towards
people. Bender cogently emphasized that Mac was a very friendly dog and had
never displayed any aggression towards a human or towards another dog. My cursory examination of Mac at the
Bark Park confirmed what Bender told me in that Mac appeared well behaved and
non-aggressive towards other dogs and people who were present.
Mac was placed into and accepted a supine position during my attempt to measure the distance between her two upper and two lower canine teeth. The distances were as follows:
Distance between
MacÕs upper canine teeth 2 inches;
Distance between MacÕs
lower canine teeth 1.5 inches.
Distances between the teeth were
recorded with a tape measure that was placed against MacÕs teeth while she was
placed into a supine position.
Measurements were repeated to ensure accuracy. Teresa Vint assisted in
the measurement procedure. Vint should be able to confirm the measurements
taken by Polsky, as stated above. Photographs showing these distances were not
taken, however.
Relatively
little is known about Icon, the husky-type dog owned by Dan. Craig Podell and
Schweibish both characterized Icon as dog aggressive. I would estimate that Icon's weight to be approximately 40
lbs based on the typical breed characteristics of husky dogs. Further, based on the assumption that
Icon was a husky-type dog (independently confirmed by Podell, Bender and
Schweibish), it would be fair to assume that the distance between Icon's two
upper canine teeth and two lower canine teeth were considerably less than the
distances between these same teeth for either Rocky or Mac. I would estimate a
distance of approximately 1.5 in between IconÕs the upper canine teeth and a
distance of approximately 1.0 in. Ð 1.25 in. between IconÕs lower canine teeth.
According
to Podell and Schweibish, they along with Bender, were seated on a bench
approximately 6 ft. southeast from where the incident occurred. Figure 6 shows a photograph of the
bench and the area of the park where the incident happened. Specifically, the incident happened in
front and slightly to the east of the bench. The bench is facing north.
Note
that on the day of the incident, Rocky was involved in two prior skirmishes
with Icon. The first skirmish happened approximately 25 minutes beforehand and
the second preceded the incident by about 5 minutes. Both skirmishes were momentary and did not resulted in
injury to anyone. According to Schweibish, things appeared to have settled
between Icon and Rocky prior to the start of the third skirmish (i.e. the
incident in question) which involved Rocky, Icon, Mac, and secondarily,
possibly one or two other dogs, according to Podell.
According to Schweibish, the incident started when Icon came from behind the bench and engaged Rocky in an aggressive manner (herein referred to as ÒPhase 1Ó). Rocky was standing facing east, 3 Ð 5 feet in front of Icon. According to Schweibish, when he noticed this happening he immediately left the bench and approached Rocky from the right. Schweibish says he then immediately positioned himself in front of Rocky and used his hands to push Rocky backwards away from Icon (herein referred to as ÒPhase 2Ó). Figure 7 shows the approximate position of Schweibish relative to Rocky during his initial approach (Phase 1) and Figure 8 shows Schweibish in the approximate position while pushing Rocky away from Icon (Phase 2). During this phase, Icon was restrained by Dan according to Schweibish. He makes no mention of the presence of another dog.
Next, according to Schweibish, he quickly moved to RockyÕs left side in a kneeling position and put his left arm around the chest of Rocky while simultaneously pulling backwards on RockyÕs neck with his right hand (herein referred to as ÒPhase 3Ó). Figure 9 illustrates the approximate posture Schweibish says he was assuming.
Shortly
after Schweibish assumed the posture shown in Figure 9, he claims Mac suddenly
came charging from his left in what he believes may have been an attempt to
attack Rocky. He is unsure if Mac
was successful in biting Rocky. He
says when this happened he tried to thwart the advance of Mac by pushing Mac
back with his left arm. According to Schweibish, this was momentarily
successful. However, Mac
immediately came forward again and according to Schweibish seized his right
forearm, which as illustrated, was positioned approximately on the cervical
part of RockyÕs spine.
Next, Schweibish says Mac let go of his arm but then immediately seized it again with considerably more force and pressure. Schweibish says that he felt intense pressure with MacÕs second bite. Schweibish then believes Mac was pulled from him resulting in a tear to his right arm. In the approximate 3 Ð 6 seconds this was happening, Schweibish believes Dan continued to restrain Icon who was now approximately 10 ft. away, directly in front of Rocky. The incident ended at this point. Both Podell and Schweibish say the incident in its entirety lasted about 10 Ð 12 seconds.
Moreover, although not certain, Schweibish believes that his right arm probably remained flush on the back of Rocky only momentarily after he was bitten the second time by Mac. According to Schweibish, profuse bleeding did not start immediately. It started about 30 sec. later after pressure was applied to the areas where Schweibish was bitten. He remembers seeing blood on Rocky only in the area of his head and ear. During the incident he says Rocky was bit in the left ear but is uncertain as to whether Mac or Icon inflicted the injury. Bite wounds to Schweibish's right arm, including the tear, are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Distances between the wounds are also shown in these photos. Figure 12 shows a single puncture near the wrist on the top of the arm.
Aspects
of Podell's version of the incident are different. For example, he believes that Icon, Rocky, and Mac were
already engaged in what he terms "mixing it up" (possibly with some
other peripheral dogs) when he and Schweibish left the bench to intervene. He makes no mention of Mac suddenly charging
from a distance into Schweibish.
He places Mac to the left of Schweibish. He believes Schweibish was bending. He believes Schweibish put his arm
between the dogs and as a result was bitten. However, Podell is uncertain as to which dog, or dogs, bit
Schweibish. He says he separated Mac from the other dogs by grabbing MacÕs rear
legs and pulling her away Òlike a wheel barrel.Ó
Based
on the above, and on my expertise on aggressive behavior in companion dogs,
below I will state the most important assumptions used in forming my opinions. These assumptions are as follows:
1. Three dogs were involved in the incident: Rocky, Icon and Mac;
2. The incident was very short-lived: it lasted
approximately 10 seconds. Initial attempts at intervention by Podell and
Schweibish happened immediately after the incident started.
3. The were three phases to the incident. During the different phases, Rocky,
Icon and Mac were all close enough to Schweibish to bite the right arm of
Schweibish. In particular, Mac was
proximate to Schweibish during Phase 1.
4. Podell does not know which dog bit Schweibish.
Therefore, the only eyewitness to the bite(s) was Schweibish;
5. During the entire incident, Mac was positioned to the
left of Rocky and Icon was in front of Rocky;
6. Schweibish started his intervention before Podell
started pulling Mac away. Further, Podell began pulling Mac shortly after
Schweibish repositioned himself in a bending position on the left side of Rocky
(Phase 3);
7. Schweibish was bitten by a dog that at the time of the
bite had to have been positioned perpendicular to the right arm of Schweibish.
In other words, the bite(s) could have only happened during the time the right
arm of Schweibish was perpendicular to a dog.
8. The right arm of Schweibish was positioned perpendicular
to at least one of the dogs at the beginning of the incident (Phase 1), or when
Schweibish was pushing Rocky (Phase 2), or after Schweibish repositioned
himself besides Rocky (Phase 3);
9. Distances between the upper and lower canine teeth for
Mac and Rocky, as well as the distances between the bite wounds on the right
forearm of Schweibish have been measured with a fair degree of precision;
10. The incident ended by Podell pulling Mac away from Rocky;
11. Mac possessed a markedly non-aggressive temperament
towards people. Rocky and Icon possessed greater tendencies than Mac to display
aggression towards other dogs.
Rocky possessed a non-aggressive temperament towards people in most
circumstances. Mac possessed an increased potential for aggression towards
other dogs during the instances when she engaged in patrolling or ÒpolicingÓ
behavior.
12. During the incident, Mac, Rocky, and Icon were all in a
heightened state of emotional arousal conducive for the display of aggressive
behavior, including biting behavior.
13. Bite wounds on the right forearm of Schweibish show a 2
inch separation between a relatively large puncture (with a slight tear of
approximately 1/8 in.) and a tear of approximately 3 in. in length (Figure
10). Two other visible wounds are
located towards the wrist on the bottom of the right forearm (Figure 11). The
distance between these wounds is slightly less than 1 inch. The single puncture on the top of the
arm near the wrist (Figure 12) is associated with the aforementioned wounds on
the bottom of the arm.
14. Based upon the alignment of the two wounds which show
separation by a distance of 2 in. (i.e. the tear and the puncture), the
direction of the tear on the right arm of Schweibish moves from the outside to
the inside.
IV. Issues relevant to determining which dog bit
Schweibish
In order to determine which dog(s) inflicted the bite(s) to Schweibish, the following issues must be analyzed:
1. The
position of Rocky, Mac and the Icon relative to the right arm of Schweibish during
all phases of the incident. Positions are needed in order to determine which
dogs were perpendicular to Schweibish.
2. The distance between the bite wounds relative to the
distance between the upper canine teeth of each dog;
3.
The significance of the tear across the arm of Schweibish;
4. The temperament of the dogs and their past behavior.
According
to Podell, Rocky, Icon and Mac were Òmixing it upÓ when Schweibish started his
intervention. According to Podell, Schweibish simply went between the dogs. He
does not know of the actions of Schweibish during Phase 1 or Phase 2.
The
versions of Schweibish and Podell differ in one important aspect. Namely, in contrast to Podell,
Schweibish does not place Mac near him at the beginning of the incident (Phase
1). Rather, according to Schweibish, Rocky and Icon were face-to-face, both
aggressively aroused, and he moved towards these dogs in an attempt to push
Rocky away from Icon before repositioning himself, bending on the ground, to
the left side of Rocky. According to Schweibish, this is the point when Mac
came running into the mix (Phase 3). Tracy Barker and Joseph Ross also
witnessed Mac come running into the mix.
Consistent
with Schweibish, Podell places Mac to the left of Rocky, and he says Schweibish
was probably bending. Likewise,
Podell believes Schweibish was restraining Rocky in a matter similar to what
Schweibish describes. Thus
Podell's account confirms in part what Schweibish says. However, as noted above, Podell is
unable to provide much detail about the positioning of the dogs or the
positioning of Schweibish prior to Stage 3 other than his belief that Icon was
in front of Rocky at the start of the incident.
If
SchweibishÕs version is believed, then Mac was definitely not proximate to
Schweibish during Phase 1 or Phase 2 and therefore could not have inflicted
injury. On the other hand, if
Podell is believed, then Mac was proximate to Schweibish during all phases of
the incident.
For this analysis, rather than passing
judgment on which version is correct, I instead will focus on determining which
dogs were perpendicular to the right arm of Schweibish during the various
phases of the incident. This is
the most germane question. Thus I
will assume that Mac was in fact proximate and in the mix, but she may not have
been perpendicular.
My
findings are as follows:
1.
Given that Mac was located to the left of Rocky and that Icon was located in
front of Rocky, then when Schweibish first approached Rocky (Phase 1), it seems
clear that Icon and Rocky were the only dogs positioned perpendicular to the
right arm of Schweibish;
2.
During Phase 2, given the location of all dogs relative to Schweibish, Mac was
the only dog perpendicular to the right arm of Schweibish;
3.
After Schweibish repositioned himself into a bending posture (Phase 3), Mac was
the only dog perpendicular to the right arm of Schweibish. Fox example, Icon was facing Rocky and
Rocky's head was pointing away from Schweibish towards Icon, thus making it
impossible for either dog to be perpendicular to the right arm of Schweibish;
4.
During Phase 1, the right arm Schweibish probably became momentarily
perpendicular to Icon, thus making it possible for this dog at this point in
time to inflict a bite to Schweibish.
If this did happen, then it probably occurred just when Schweibish was
attempting to reach for Rocky immediately after his approach. This is
consistent with Podell's belief that Schweibish inserted his arm between
several dogs that, in PodellÕs terms, were Òmixing it upÓ.
5. Icon was not positioned perpendicular to the right arm of Schweibish either during Phase 2 or Phase 3. Assuming that Icon remained positioned in front of Rocky during the entire incident, then during these latter phases the right arm of Schweibish was clearly not perpendicular to Icon.
Table
1 provides a summary of these findings.
Table 1 indicates which dogs were perpendicular to the right arm of
Schweibish during each phase of the incident. In sum, findings show that: (a) Rocky and Icon were in this
position only during Phase 1; (b) Mac was positioned in this manner during
Phase 2 and Phase 3.
It
is of significance to note that Schweibish believes that Mac bit him during
Phase 3 Ð not during Phase 1 or Phase 2. This finding lends credence to his
belief.
Issue #2: Distance between the bite wounds relative to the distances between the canine teeth.
Four
distinguishable wounds were present on the arm of Schweibish. Specifically, there were two small
punctures, not very large in diameter, spaced slightly less than 1 in. apart on
the inside right forearm near the wrist. Next, there was a single large
diameter puncture wound (with a very slight tear) on the topside of the right
forearm exactly 2 in. away from an approximately 3 in. tear across the
right-central forearm. The wound
from the 3 in. tear was quite obvious.
Other puncture wounds on SchweibishÕs arm may have been present;
however, these were not clearly visible at the time of my examinations.
It
is significant to note that the larger puncture wound, spaced 2 in. away from
the 3 in. tear, exactly corresponds with the distance between the upper canine
teeth of Mac. This distance does not match the distance between the upper canine
teeth of Rocky, nor does it match the much smaller distance between the upper
canines for Icon.
The
distance between the two smaller puncture wounds near the wrist clearly does
not match the distance between the canine teeth for either Mac or Rocky. On the other hand, they may approximate
more closely the distance between the lower canine teeth for Icon. The single
puncture of the top of the arm near the wrist (Figure 12) is likely to be the
contra lateral component of the two smaller wounds on the bottom of the wrist
(Figure 11). In the absence of
specific measurement on Icon, this must be treated as speculative, however.
In
sum, there is remarkable correspondence between the distance separating the two
most distinguishable bite wounds on Schweibish (i.e. the large puncture and the
3 in. tear) and the distance between the upper canine teeth for Mac. Other visible puncture wounds present
suggest that more than one bite may have occurred during the incident. Icon rather than Rocky or Mac most likely
were inflicted these wounds because of their size and spacing between them.
Issue #3: The significance of the tear across the arm of
Schweibish.
As
noted, one distinguishable wound consisted of a tear across the top of the arm
of Schweibish approximately 2 in. from a large puncture wound. Moreover, of considerable significance,
is the fact that an approximate even alignment exists between the one end of
this tear and the puncture wound.
If one uses this alignment, then it appears that the direction of the
tear moves from the outside of the arm to the inside. That is, from right to left. Given this, the dog that inflicted this injury must have
been positioned to the left of Schweibish.
This
is significant because according to Schweibish, Mac came from his left and
seized his arm. Podell confirms Mac's position to the left of Schweibish and
Rocky. Podell says he pulled Mac
from the where the dogs were Òmixing-it-upÓ. Using this information, it seems reasonable to conclude that
the tear on the arm of Schweibish was caused by Podell pulling Mac from
Schweibish in a direction from right to left just when Mac had the arm of
Schweibish in her mouth. Moreover,
given that Mac was positioned to the left of Schweibish, and given that the
tear was located to the right of the puncture wound, it seems likely the upper
right canine tooth of Mac did this damage.
In
sum, given the position of Mac relative to Schweibish and that: (a) Podell says
Mac was to the left of Schweibish when he pulled Mac away, and (b) that tear
appears to move from outside to the inside, it seems reasonable to conclude
that the tear happened because Mac had the arm of Schweibish in her mouth just
when she was being pulled from Schweibish by Podell. The findings do not
support any other explanation.
Issue
#4: The temperament of the dogs
The
owner of Mac, Gloria Bender, stressed that Mac was a passive dog, well
tempered, and that she had never displayed any aggression to any person. My observations of Mac during my
inspection in the Bender home and at the Bark Park confirm this. Moreover, Bender supplied me with the
names of several people who were familiar with Mac and who could speak to MacÕs
well-tempered and non-aggressive nature.
I chose not to contact these people because I felt the input from these
people would have added little to my analysis. I believe that Mac was indeed
very well tempered and non-aggressive.
I believe MacÕs propensity to inflict a bite onto a human with intent
was nil.
However, this is not to say that Mac did not have the potential of becoming aggressively aroused towards other dogs in certain circumstances. Specifically, I am referring to the kind of circumstances in the Bark Park that occasionally arose when two or more dog displayed hostility towards each other. When this happened, Podell, Schweibish and even Bender herself acknowledge that Mac had an interest in Òpolice workÓ. That is, Mac would approach and intervene. Bender says Mac would place her body between the dogs is a non-aggressive manner. Schweibish says that the interventions by Mac had more of an aggressive nature to them, however. The motivation for this relatively odd behavior is obscure: it may have to do with her Rottweiler ancestry (e.g. a breed developed for herding cattle). Whatever the motivation, I believe this sort of behavior established a foundation for aggressive responding in Mac towards other dogs, particularly if the dogs were already acting aggressively towards each other.
I
mention this, because Bender, suggested that it would have been impossible for
Mac to have bit Schweibish because Mac had never displayed aggression towards a
human. This may very well be true. To a layperson and certainly towards Bender,
it would appear that Mac lacked the potential for aggressive responding towards
a human.
However,
I believe the circumstances created by the aggression between Icon and Rocky
were sufficient to arouse aggressive tendencies in Mac. I believe that when the incident began,
Mac took notice from wherever she might have been located. The fact that Podell
and Schweibish initially place her in different locations is not that
important. In contrast, what is
important is that both Podell and Schweibish place Mac proximate and to the
left of Schweibish during Phase 3, and both say she was acting
aggressively. At that point, she
became involved in the fight. Her
focus was on Rocky and not on Schweibish.
She was motivated to bite Rocky and not Schweibish. Schweibish was
bitten unintentionally in MacÕs attempt to get at Rocky. In short, I do not believe that
Schweibish was the target of MacÕs aggression. Rather, the dogs were fighting and his right arm happened to
be in the way.
1. All three dogs were aggressively
aroused at the time of the incident and all were motivationally capable of
biting Schweibish.
2. It seems certain that Mac inflicted the
bite associated with the tearing injury and that this happened during Stage 3.
During this time, she was perpendicular to Schweibish (given the position of
Schweibish and the fact that Mac was to the left) and she was aggressively
aroused. Moreover, the distances
between the wounds exactly match the distance between her upper canine teeth.
3.
Less certainty exists regarding the role of Icon played in inflicting a
bite(s). Note, however, in Phase 1, Icon was properly positioned about 3- 5
feet from Schweibish, he was aggressively aroused, and the distance between two
small puncture wounds most closely approximate the distance between IconÕs
lower canine teeth. Further, these
punctures are on the underside of the wrist of Schweibish, which is the area
one would expect the lower canines to impact. The single puncture on the top part of the wrist may be the
contra lateral component of this bite.
4.
It seems likely that none of the bites were inflicted by Rocky. First, distances between RockyÕs teeth
do not match distances between any of the visible wounds on SchweibishÕs arm. Second, if Rocky did bite Schweibish,
it could have only happened during Phase 1. According to my findings, during Phase 2 and Phase 3, Rocky
was not positioned perpendicular to the right arm of Schweibish for a bite to
have occurred (see Table 1). If
Rocky bit Schweibish during Phase 1, then one needs to reconcile this with the
lack of blood on RockyÕs back (i.e. the area in contact with SchweibishÕs
arm). I speculate that If
Schweibish was bitten by Rocky during Phase 1, then itÕs likely that his arm
would have immediately shed some blood and this blood would have been transferred
to the coat of Rocky by the time he placed his right arm on the back of Rocky
during Phase 3. Note that
Schweibish bled rather heavily as a result of his injuries. However, Schweibish says the heavy
bleeding did not start until after he became disengaged from Rocky.
Careful
consideration needs to be given to the following:
1. First, my findings are
derived in large part from the version of the incident provided by
Schweibish. It stands to reason
that he would be prone to present a version that disallowed the possibility of
Rocky biting him. However, it
should be importantly noted that Podell has corroborated important parts of
SchweibishÕs version. On the other
hand, some of it cannot be corroborated.
For example, crucial to my analysis was the position of Schweibish
relative to the position of each dog. Based on this, I reconstructed this very
short-lived incident into 3 phases.
However, I have no way of knowing the validity of this
conceptualization. As stated, it
is based almost entirely on the version provided by Schweibish. However, if his version approaches the
truth then my conceptualization is valid and my findings and conclusions are
consistent with knowledge in animal behavior.
2.
Two important assumptions in my analysis are (a) Mac was proximate to
Schweibish during the entire incident, and (b) the various phases of the
incident have been accurately reconstructed. Note if the assumption concerning MacÕs proximity were not
correct (i.e. SchweibishÕs version is believed and not PodellÕs), then it would
not be sufficient to change my opinions.
However, if my assumption concerning the various phases was faulty, then
my analysis needs to be seriously questioned.
3.
Two troublesome issues remain:
(a)
During Phase 3, why did Mac seize SchweibishÕs right arm and not the left? The
right arm was furthest away, and although clearly perpendicular, it was not
readily available for seizure because it was resting flush on the back of
Rocky. The body of Schweibish was
also partially blocking access to his right arm. I reconcile this with the facts that: (1) the target of
MacÕs aggression was not Schweibish but rather Rocky, and (2) Mac was surely
not a people-aggressive dog; therefore he left arm should not have been a
target.
(b)
If the incident lasted only 10 seconds, then how did Schweibish have the time
to move from the bench to the front of Rocky who was 6 feet away (Phase 1 and
Phase 2) and then turn and reposition himself on the left side of Rocky (Phase
3)?
4. I did not have the opportunity to examine Icon or interview Dan. I do not know if discovery collected from these sources would have shaped my opinion in any way, however. On the other hand, if Dan did witness Schweibish get bit, then certainly this would be very important information.
5. My analysis is based in large part on the recall abilities of Schweibish and Podell. Given that my interview with them took place about a year after the incident, itÕs conceivable that details have been forgotten. In fact, both Podell and Schweibish could not answer certain questions because of this. At times SchweibishÕs appeared nervous but this was probably due to the disturbing nature of the whole matter. On the whole, Ken Schweibish was extremely cooperative and accommodating. On the telephone Craig Podell was also cordial and he sounded very sure of himself.
6. One must recognize that my findings are based in part on the visible wounds present at the times I examined Schweibish. It is possible that some bite wounds were no longer visible at the time of my examination. In fact, the wounds that were noticeable had already begun to fade. Thus, its conceivable that bites inflicted by either Rocky, Mac or Icon were not detected. Although I do not feel this is likely (based on my examination of the photos taken by Schweibish shortly after the incident and comparing them what was visibly noticeable at the time of my examination) one nevertheless needs to take this into consideration.
Given that all three dogs were in an motivational state of aggression, in order to determine the dog(s) was responsible for inflicting the bite(s) to Schweibish, the following available sources of information were most heavily relied upon: (1) The position of Schweibish relative to the position of each dog as the incident unfolded, and (2) The nature of wounds on the arm of Schweibish relative to the distance between the canine teeth of each dog. Using this information, my findings may be summarized as follows:
1. Rocky probably did not inflict any
bites to Schweibish. His
positioning relative to Schweibish during Phase 2 and Phase 3 lends credence to
this finding. Moreover, blood was
not found on the back of Rocky and the distance between his canine teeth do not
match any visible wounds found on Schweibish, thus discounting the possibility
that a bite(s) from Rocky happened during Phase 1.
2.
Mac inflicted at least one bite to Schweibish. The tearing nature of one of the
wounds, the perpendicular position of Mac relative to Schweibish during Phase
3, and the actions of Podell during Phase 3, support to this conclusion. Specifically, the tearing on SchweibishÕs arm
could only have been caused by the action of Podell pulling Mac from
Rocky. Of great significance is
the 2 in. distance between the tearing wound and the large puncture. This is an exact match with the
distance between Mac's upper canine teeth, thus demonstrating with a reasonable
degree of certainty that Mac inflicted this bite.
3.
Icon may have bitten Schweibish. The presence of two small adjacent puncture wounds near
SchweibishÕs wrist approximate the distance between IconÕs lower canines, thus
suggesting a bite may have been inflicted by Icon. Given IconÕs position relative to Schweibish during Phase 1,
this possibility cannot be discounted.
4. The bite from Mac (or Icon) did not happen with intent. This was a dogfight and Schweibish happened to be Òin the mixÓ. I believe the focus of Mac was entirely on a Rocky. Her intent was to bite Rocky and not Schweibish. I believe that Mac directed her biting to the head/neck area of Rocky (as is common for many dogs embroiled in a dog fight) and in the process mistakenly seized the right arm of Schweibish, which was flush on the neck and back of Rocky. The incident ended and disengagement occurred as a result of Podell pulling Mac backwards, which resulted in a tear across the arm of Schweibish.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Richard
H. Polsky, Ph.D. CAAB.