The ‘Justice for Vanessa’ campaign is misrepresenting some details of the case, and leaving some important points out.
It is not true that the victim ‘has no idea’ which dog bit her. She did not see either dog’s mouth connect with her leg, as her back was turned, but she consistently testified that Vanessa was the more threatening of the two, and said that Vanessa was leading the other dog by a couple feet as she pulled towards the victim.
The victim also testified that the incident happened in the street; it did not happen on Vanessa’s owner’s property. She also explicitly stated she did not run into a mailbox.
The other eyewitness, Vanessa’s owner’s girlfriend – who was walking the dogs – did not testify. She could presumably have refuted the victim’s account, but did not.
Most importantly, the appellate judge upheld the Ogden court’s finding of Vanessa as a Dangerous Dog, and also upheld the finding of aggravating circumstances, i.e. serious physical injury. The only part of the appeal that the appellate court supported was that the Ogden court didn’t give sufficient consideration to alternatives to euthanasia. The appellate decision noted that permanent humane confinement in a sanctuary ‘would protect the public by removing Vanessa from a residential area.’
I hope the Ogden court will abide by the appellate decision. Vanessa should not be euthanized, but she should be transferred to a humane, ethical sanctuary where she can live the remainder of her life in comfort and peace.
