From: Prien@aol.com
Date: Saturday, January 13, 2007
Time: 10:05:47 AM
Great. The issue was the dog's paws. Now, if you can cite where any copy affirmed he examined the bottom of the PAWS and SAW blood there, that would show that I missed something. I don't deny it's possible. But legs doesn't count when the issue was the bottom of the PAWS. While I don't recall it, and it's definitely not worth my while to check it out, I concede it's possible in the course of the discussion I said that there were no cops who affirmed they saw blood on the dog. If I did, then you got me, sort of. Note, however, Riske's answer was quite unresponsive to the question which was if he EXAMINED the dog to note its appearance, and he responded by telling WHAT he purportedly saw on the dog. That's a lawyer's way of lying with the truth because Riske's answer avoids affirming where and when he observed anything. Prien