According to media reports, Preliminary autopsy results on the woman that died in Springfield, IL indicate that the woman was most likely dead before she sustained her dog bite injuries. 22 year old Amber Strode was found dead in her home on Sunday. Initial media reports had indicated the two "pit bulls" were responsible for the gruesom scene -- in spite of the reports of gunshots occuring on the block 10 hours before her death and a bullet hole in a window in her home.
I think it's also fair to note that Jim Stone, the director of the Sangamon County Department of Public Health has declined to identify the breeds, ages and sizes of the dogs that were found in the home.
There appears to be a lot more to this story than the media is letting out, and once again, a story about a "pit bull attack" appears to be a much bigger problem...and was ignored by today's Chicago Sun Times after the case was determined not a 'pit bull' attack.
Again, I promise to keep you posted.
[quote]and was ignored by today's Chicago Sun Times after the case was determined not a 'pit bull' attack.[/quote]
...but at least they increased their readership by drawing people in with that "Pit Bull" magnet and isn`t that what really matters.(bang head)
Shame on the Press.
I hope these dogs don`t pay the price for this.
Posted by: MAC`s GANG | January 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Those dogs won't but others will.
Thanks for the update, Brent. This is why I prefer to get my news from blogs these days - because I can trust the information.
Bias on a blog doesn't bother me because it's right up front - I know where the person is coming from. In the MSM they try to hide it and when caught, deny it. Big difference there in terms of ethics.
I have no idea what is running through these people's minds - in any other industry work this slipshod would cause employees to be fired and the business to fail.
Why are these media people untouchable?
Posted by: Caveat | January 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Caveat, in the States the media holds up the "Free Speech" card a lot. They don't mind tromping on dogowner's Constitutional rights though.
I really wonder if anyone has ever considered suing the media for defamation, especially since so many policy makers are using media print to pass legislation?
Posted by: KCK Kills Dogs | January 29, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Hey, KCK Kills Dogs, they hide behind the same skirt up here in Canada.
There have been a few lawsuits (successful) but I think our betters in the media consider it just the cost of doing business.
A recent court decision actually gave them more leeway - apparently, if facts are incorrect they cannot be blamed - as long as the intent was not malicious. Great.
The things they say up here about dog owners, never mind dogs themselves, if said against any other identifiable group would have them shut down.
I'm totally tired of it.
Posted by: Caveat | January 29, 2008 at 02:49 PM
OK, there sure is a right to free speech here in the US and it sure is supposed to apply to the press. However, free speech is not and was never intended to permit or legalize libel and slander.
We just gotta figure out how to go about it w/o compromising our dogs or putting them at any risk.
Posted by: Becky | January 29, 2008 at 08:42 PM
btw: the unfolding of this story is an absolute abomination and goes against every press ethic I ever heard of. But who, in this story, might gain any satisfaction from suing? Is THIS possibly the reason that the media is getting away with what they get away with??
Posted by: Becky | January 29, 2008 at 08:49 PM
TO "MAC`s GANG":
You said and I quote "I hope these dogs don`t pay the price for this."
Those dogs obviously did something they should not have. If they killed her or not, She's a co-owner of the dogs. I believe there is more to the story than what the media is saying. Maybe the dogs were ordered or taunted into doing it by the other owner. Might never know. I knew this girl personally and she would never taunt or abuse those dogs into turning on her.
I'm pretty sure they WERE pit bulls by the way. I think that better safe than sorry, put them down! PETA can blow me, I am a human, superior to dogs(WE ARE ON THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN). Besides, there is an overpopulation of dogs and cats anyways!
Posted by: John Kelso | January 30, 2008 at 08:58 AM
R.I.P. AMBER STRODE
Posted by: John Kelso | January 30, 2008 at 09:00 AM
Re: 'Peta' can b*%w me'.
Not sure what is meant by this statement, since Peta not only lobbies for breed bans and mass sterlization but states publicly and often that all 'pit bulls' should be put to death.
There is no 'pet overpopulation' problem, that's a well orchestrated piece of propaganda. There is an overpopulation of twits, though, many of whom own pets.
Given that 'pit bull' isn't a breed, I don't know how anyone can be sure that these dogs were 'pit bulls'.
It now looks as though the dogs weren't responsible, so I really don't understand these comments.
Posted by: Caveat | January 30, 2008 at 10:22 AM
"Those dogs obviously did something they should not have."
Obvious to who? "Better to be safe than sorry" means killing the dogs and destroying evidence without finding the true story? How is that better or safer? How does this solve the mystery?
I'm chaulking your post up to grief.... Condolences to Amber's family. One thing for sure is this is a tradgic loss of life...
Posted by: Michelled | January 30, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Please accept my deepest sympathies for the tragic loss of your friend, Mr, Kelso. I am certain this is extremely painful for you and everyone who knew her. Most likely a totally preventable devastation, and I imagine that is probably what hurts the most.
You said it, yourself,
' I believe there is more to the story than what the media is saying. Maybe the dogs were ordered or taunted into doing it by the other owner. Might never know. I knew this girl personally’.
Here, you are blaming the media and the dogs’ male owner. How is it that you ended up blaming the dogs?
2 questions,
btw, who told you that you/ we are superior to dogs?
My apologies if this question comes at an inappropriate time, but I am only responding to your own remarks.
It is important to understand that once one has placed moral responsibility on an animal, they have opened up a can of worms that they are not prepared to handle. This would necessarily go back to your statement regarding you and/or humans being superior to animals.
Again, you have my deepest sympathies. And you might want to consider holding those responsible to be responsible for the death of your friend.
Posted by: Becky | January 30, 2008 at 09:54 PM
I believe the story you were referring to dispelled the gunshot theory towards the ends. (http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/24244.asp). That particular neighborhood is no stranger to gunfire.
I wish you would let this poor girl rest in peace. I also knew her as well as the firemen that were called out to this EXTREMELY gruesome scene. From what they described, your first thought would definately be that she was attacked.
More came out to clear up the fact on how she died, but what those dogs did to her cannot be overlooked as well. It was horrible to hear.
Also in today's story (http://sj-r.com/News/stories/24681.asp) the coroner did in fact say they were pit bulls. Each case is different, but these dogs are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands.
These days it is "coo" to have a pit bull as a status symbol for some reason. All I know is that my German Shorthair wouldn't do that to me if I died of any cause, nor would I worry about leaving him home alone with another dog (big or small). Can't say the same for a Pit Bull of any breed.
Posted by: Jason | February 05, 2008 at 02:38 PM