Forensics tests in Sussex Police dog death inquiry

10:47am Wednesday 23rd November 2011 in News By Ben Parsons, Crime Reporter

Forensics tests in Sussex Police dog death inquiry – Tweeted by Sussex Police Forensics tests in Sussex Police dog death inquiry – Tweeted by Sussex Police

Police investigating the death of a dog which was dragged behind a car on the A27 have released this image of its lead.

Chris Gee, a Sussex Police scenes of crime officer, released the photo on social networking website Twitter this morning.

He revealed his colleagues are examining a Porsche Carrera which is believed to have dragged the beagle-collie cross along the A27 from Devil's Dyke to Southwick on Sunday night.

Mr Gee said Porsche had agreed to help the inquiry by testing similar vehicles.

A 33-year-old Worthing man has been arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty and released on bail.

The man, who has not been named, released a statement through his solicitor saying the dog's death was a "tragic accident".

When news of the incident broke, more than 1,000 people joined a group on the Facebook website, called Justice for Little Pup.

Read more on this story inside today's Argus.

Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Related links

Comments(17)

Servalan says...
11:35am Wed 23 Nov 11

Of course it was an accident, think nothing of it, could've happened to anyone.

Report this post »

AngelicDevil says...
11:57am Wed 23 Nov 11

I'm going to wait for the full facts on this one.

Can you imagine if it was you who accidently drove off whilst a pet of yours (or someone elses) was attached to the exterior of your vehicle - you'd be absolutely distraught. I don't think words could describe how you'd feel. As a pet owner myself, it would be like harming my own (non existant) children.

I'm trying to put my head into the space of someone who tortures animals (very difficult) and seriously, if I was that way inclined, I would not risk an audience by attaching them my vehicle and then driving around on public roads like that.

Why keep on assuming it wasn't accidental?

Report this post »

Servalan says...
12:46pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Why? Because his car was an open-topped convertable. And because dogs tend to make a lot of noise when being flayed alive. And cars tend to handle differently when dragging a carcass. And because a driver has a legal responsibility to check their vehicle is in safe condition before driving it, including mammals tethered to the back. Because witness statements say they tried to stop him. Because he dumped the mutilated corpse in a layby, and failed to stop when a police officer accosted him.

Granted, none of these facts incontravertibly *prove* he is lying when he claims it was an accident, but if I were a jury member considering his plea, they are the sort of facts I'd take into consideration when considering its credibility.

Report this post »

Servalan says...
1:12pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Oh Fercri...

Report this post »

Number Six says...
1:19pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Servalan wrote:
Why? Because his car was an open-topped convertable. And because dogs tend to make a lot of noise when being flayed alive. And cars tend to handle differently when dragging a carcass. And because a driver has a legal responsibility to check their vehicle is in safe condition before driving it, including mammals tethered to the back. Because witness statements say they tried to stop him. Because he dumped the mutilated corpse in a layby, and failed to stop when a police officer accosted him. Granted, none of these facts incontravertibly *prove* he is lying when he claims it was an accident, but if I were a jury member considering his plea, they are the sort of facts I'd take into consideration when considering its credibility.
Let's hope you are never on a jury then. Never mind innocent until proven guilty ( a concept you seem to have difficulty with) with you it would be guilty until proven guiltier!

Report this post »

Servalan says...
1:25pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Number Six wrote:
Servalan wrote:
Why? Because his car was an open-topped convertable. And because dogs tend to make a lot of noise when being flayed alive. And cars tend to handle differently when dragging a carcass. And because a driver has a legal responsibility to check their vehicle is in safe condition before driving it, including mammals tethered to the back. Because witness statements say they tried to stop him. Because he dumped the mutilated corpse in a layby, and failed to stop when a police officer accosted him. Granted, none of these facts incontravertibly *prove* he is lying when he claims it was an accident, but if I were a jury member considering his plea, they are the sort of facts I'd take into consideration when considering its credibility.
Let's hope you are never on a jury then. Never mind innocent until proven guilty ( a concept you seem to have difficulty with) with you it would be guilty until proven guiltier!
What brainwrong nonsense. I hope *you* are never on a jury, as you seem incapable of logical thought!

It is precisely the jury who decide on the defendant's guilt or innocence! They don't wait for him to be "proven guilty" by a 3rd party. They think for themselves, considering the evidence presented.

Report this post »

Number Six says...
2:15pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Servalan wrote:
Number Six wrote:
Servalan wrote: Why? Because his car was an open-topped convertable. And because dogs tend to make a lot of noise when being flayed alive. And cars tend to handle differently when dragging a carcass. And because a driver has a legal responsibility to check their vehicle is in safe condition before driving it, including mammals tethered to the back. Because witness statements say they tried to stop him. Because he dumped the mutilated corpse in a layby, and failed to stop when a police officer accosted him. Granted, none of these facts incontravertibly *prove* he is lying when he claims it was an accident, but if I were a jury member considering his plea, they are the sort of facts I'd take into consideration when considering its credibility.
Let's hope you are never on a jury then. Never mind innocent until proven guilty ( a concept you seem to have difficulty with) with you it would be guilty until proven guiltier!
What brainwrong nonsense. I hope *you* are never on a jury, as you seem incapable of logical thought! It is precisely the jury who decide on the defendant's guilt or innocence! They don't wait for him to be "proven guilty" by a 3rd party. They think for themselves, considering the evidence presented.
Is your use of irony deliberate or accidental. Are you really trying to say that you would approach the case with an open mind and judge it purely on the evidence presented without the corruption of what you had read in the local tabloid rag.

Explain what part of my post is illogical. What 3rd party? A jury comes to its verdict based on the evidence presented to it. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. What's not to understand.

Oh, and what page of the dictionary would I find the word "brainwrong"

Report this post »

Servalan says...
2:57pm Wed 23 Nov 11

You would most likely find it in the television productions of Chris Morris.

And I am quite familiar with the concepts of habeus corpus. They mean that people are only determined guilty if a jury of their peers (such as me) decides, when considering the presented evidence, that they imply guilt.
What I am doing is giving my reaction to the evidence as presented by the Argus, Sussex Police and a couple of other online sources. I am using exactly the same process of reasoning as I would were I sitting on a jury in a court of law. (The whole principle of trial by jury is that a citizen such as myself is deemed perfectly capable of making such judgements).

Yes, I am not on a jury, and in the actual case the evidence presented may be slightly different to that presented in the Argus, but given that I do not have power of verdict or sentencing on an Argus Comments page, I fail to see the problem.

Report this post »

Number Six says...
3:22pm Wed 23 Nov 11

" You would most likely find it in the television productions of Chris Morris."

That would explain it!

It's been a long while since my legal studies but the last time I looked habeus corpus was an instrument to combat unlawful detention. However, we'll let that pass.

"What I am doing is giving my reaction to the evidence as presented by the Argus" No you're not. Most certainly it's not evidence. It hasn't been tested or challenged in Court. It's nothing more than a newspaper report and, given the deep mistrust that the press enjoy at the moment, I wouldn't take anything they say at face value.

Personally, I shall refrain from speculation until the full facts are known and not try and second guess

Report this post »

Servalan says...
3:48pm Wed 23 Nov 11

well unless you go to the court, you are going to read about those "full facts" in the media you currently refuse to believe purely for the purpose of trolling my good self. /rollseyes/

Report this post »

auby says...
4:35pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Servalan says...
12:46pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Why? Because his car was an open-topped convertable. And because dogs tend to make a lot of noise when being flayed alive. And cars tend to handle differently when dragging a carcass. And because a driver has a legal responsibility to check their vehicle is in safe condition before driving it, including mammals tethered to the back. Because witness statements say they tried to stop him. Because he dumped the mutilated corpse in a layby, and failed to stop when a police officer accosted him.

Granted, none of these facts incontravertibly *prove* he is lying when he claims it was an accident, but if I were a jury member considering his plea, they are the sort of facts I'd take into consideration when considering its credibility.

Agreed.... The person should be named/shamed.

Report this post »

Hi Spaniola says...
4:48pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Did the police release this image after being asked if they had any leads?
He drove for such a long way on a public road... it was an easy collar.

Report this post »

theslipstream says...
5:11pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Having read the the report in the Argus, I cannot understand how you can get out and check your vehicle twice and find nothing wrong?

Report this post »

nikkwad says...
5:58pm Fri 25 Nov 11

Did anyone else think this was a picture of a box of doughnuts...??

Report this post »

chris8wright says...
8:48pm Fri 25 Nov 11

Sorry, but this is as I stated, a complete accident. The witnesses statement are now incorrect, no chain, just a thin long nylon lead.

Whoever thinks he is guilty based on what you have read on a hatred group on facebook like the one stated in the article, then yo uare going off incorrect facts, with barely any facts known. It was not his dog, not a chain and it was not done on purpose.

You only get a jury if the crown court deals with it, it will probably be dealt with in a magistrates court because the only law broken here is failure to report a dead dog, which was due to a fight or flight natural human instinct as well as ignorance to the UK law to report it.

leave the guy alone, let the family grieve, let the police do their job and may the dog rest in peace

Report this post »

Verity1999 says...
9:33pm Fri 25 Nov 11

Im just curious how if this dog got loose on an earlier walk as stated in your other article, then why was the lead still attached? and why did the guardian not make every effort to get him back? Had he been reported missing? Also with a lead of that length if it slipped out of your hand you could easily catch up and stand on it to stop him running off?

Report this post »

chris8wright says...
9:48pm Fri 25 Nov 11

If a dog walker had multiple dogs, then how can you catch a dog when you have maybe 6 other dogs with you. Slipped it's lead, maybe the walker dropped the lead whilst handling it. No idea if reported missing, maybe the guardian didn't want to have the embarrassment or something. Lot's of possibilities I suppose

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree