Home › News › Big Country
Fatal dog attack left boy nearly unrecognizable
More Big Country GRAHAM -- A paramedic testified Tuesday that the body of a 7-year-old Breckenridge boy was nearly unrecognizable following a savage and fatal attack by a group of dogs in May.
John Plusnik of the Stephens County Emergency Medical Services was among witnesses called during the opening day of testimony in the 90th District Court trial of Crystal Watson and Jack Smith. Watson and Smith are charged with attack by dog resulting in death in connection with the May 18 death of Tanner Monk near his home at Hubbard Creek Reservoir.
In opening statements District Attorney Stephen Bristow said Watson and Smith's dogs were unrestrained and had been for some time, according to neighbors. Bristow said the attack occurred where the body was found in a ditch across the road from the defendants' property.
Defense attorneys John Young and Quanah Parker argued there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack did not begin on the defendants' property or that it was unprovoked.
Tearful testimony was heard from Roxanne Griffin, the boy's mother. In addition, Stephens County Sheriff's Deputy Caleb Hodges and Plusnik showed emotion while recounting the day the boy's body was found.
Plusnik testified that the boy was nearly unrecognizable even after his mother provided a picture to identify the body.
Some members of the jury were noticeably shaken by photographs of the boy taken after the attack and shown as Hodges described the scene. Hodges said Monk was covered nearly from head to toe with 30 to 40 bite marks.
Connie Patton, senior biologist for the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office, testified that blood samples taken from the dogs had a DNA profile matching Monk's.
Three sheriff's deputies who investigated the scene testified that no blood was found on the defendants' property and that all four of the defendants' dogs were covered in blood. Two of the dogs were identified as pit bulls, one was described as part pit bull, and one was described as a smaller mixed-breed dog.
Young asked if any forensic investigation was performed to locate blood on the defendants' property, to which Chief Deputy Billy Wade replied that it had not.
Defense attorneys asked about one of Monk's shoes found on the defendants' property and suggested the attack could have begun there.
Deputy Adam Babylon testified that his theory was that one of the dogs took the shoe as a trophy.
The trial resumes today.
Posted by blahblah on October 8, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quanah Parker is an idiot! Always has been. Give me a break...the attack didn't start on the property of the dog owners!
But---lets humor him. Say it did. Even so, if the dogs would have been restrained (behind a closed gate or on a chain) it would have been impossible for them to drag the boy a quarter of a mile and then killing him.
There was no blood trail leading from the property to show evidence the attack started on the property. All the evidence showed that the attack took place where the boy was found.
Get a real job Quanah!
Posted by Chili4me on October 8, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Quanah Parker is an idiot!"
That is the first thing that popped into my head when I saw his name. LOL
Posted by ranchero63bob on October 8, 2008 at 10:01 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by mbs0606 on October 8, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep trying John and Quanah. I'd hate to be in your shoes right now.
Posted by onesmallvoice on October 8, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Question for someone who knows:
IF the attack had started on the property of the dog owners, with the dogs not being restrained by fence or other means, will that make a difference in the outcome of the trial? My uneducated thought is that it shouldn't make a difference unless the victim actually entered into a fenced yard.
Posted by blahblah on October 8, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hatestheramps...fair enough
But the fact remains that they have no case if that is what they are going to use.
And I still think he is an idiot. Let him take a dab at sueing me for liable.
Posted by tcat on October 8, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmm, sueing someone for what they think. Would that be like...the extra punishment added on for a Hate Crime?
Posted by maggiedog on October 8, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Those dogs were in the care, custody and control of the landowners. They are liable for any actions and/or bodily injury these dogs may cause or potentially cause. The only recourse they might have is if that young man had some criminal intent. A kid that young, no way. That landowner could very well lose everything. Pit bulls are dinosaurs and should be killed. They have no useful purpose that I see.
Posted by abileneres on October 8, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is john young the attorney from Sweetwater?
Isn't he the one that was drinking & driving & killed someone some years ago? I may be thinking of someone else.
Poor little boy, I sure hope his family gets justice. :(
Posted by abileneres on October 8, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nope, wrong person. I was thinking of someone else.
Oops! my bad.
Sorry, John.
Posted by Chili4me on October 8, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I won't lose any sleep over it ramps, but thanks for the advice.
Posted by wild_bill on October 8, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
onesmallvoice, I don't claim any expertise in this, or much of any other area, but it seems to me if a home-owner under Texas' Castle Doctrine can be justified in shooting a teenager in the back after he was caught burglarizing his property, or another one shoot two burglers in someone else's yard, and both be exonerated, then if the dogs were "protecting" the property from "intrusion" it MIGHT be a defense.
Remember, all the defense has to do is inject a "reasonable doubt" into just ONE juror, the couple would be spared prison, etc. If they can show the attack started on the dogs property, or that the child somehow provoked the attack, that would lessen the culpability of the owners. I also don't know if Stephens County has a leash law/ordinance or if the attack occurred in an incorporated area. Personally, I believe it should be illegal for ANY dog to be allowed to roam free. Fences protect the dogs as much as they do the public. Shame these dogs weren't behind a fence to start with.
Like I said though, I am certainly no expert. This is the first time this particular law has gone to court, so it's fresh ground.
hatestheramps, would it make any difference in your opinion, if the lawyer actually WAS an idiot? (Just asking, I don't personally know either attorney and have no opinion on their competence).
Posted by blowfish on October 8, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Accdording to Texas Health and Safety Code 822.005. ATTACK BY DOG. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dog and the person:
(1) with criminal negligence, as defined by Section 6.03, Penal Code, fails to secure the dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on another person that occurs at a location other than the owner's real property or in or on the owner's motor vehicle or boat and that causes serious bodily injury, as defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code, or death to the other person;
Posted by ben on October 8, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
for a libel or slander suit, truth is an absolute defense.
Posted by wild_bill on October 8, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are right blowfish, but it says NOTHING about the legality of letting your dog run loose UNTIL it actually makes an "unprovoked attack" OFF the owner's property. I believe the two key points in the defense strategy are: 1) Was the attack provoked? and 2)Did it start ON the owner's property? It seems to me that Stephen's county law enforcement may have made a critical error in not determing the site of the original attack when they first responded. I'm sure they had much more urgent things on their minds at the time, but that oversight may allow the couple to go free.
The prosecution will have its work cut out for it to remove "all reasonable doubt" in this case. If it were a civil wrongful death suit I don't think the owners would stand a chance of getting off. On a criminal case the standard of proof is much tighter. As well it should be.
Posted by john_t_s on October 8, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do 99% of the lawyers continue to ruin the reputations and bring dishonor to the good, decent, honest ones? It's a travesty.
Posted by nmdad on October 8, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a horrible, terrifying way for a young boy to die! I hope the owners get the death penalty! I just wonder what mom was doing when the attack happened. My youngest will be seven in December and NO WAY, NO HOW, is he allowed to play outside by himself. I don't want to blame the mother but two lessons should come from this. #1, parents watch your kids. #2, dog owners constrain your dogs! If the dogs were fenced or chained properly this would never have happened and this young boy would have lived to see eight.
Posted by DB on October 8, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I SAY PUT THE DOG OWNERS IN A CAGE WITH SOME PIT BULLS & ROTS AND LET THE FEEDING FRENZY BEGIN. THEY NEED TO SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIVES IN JAIL.
Posted by bigalluvsu on October 8, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ben:
Thank God! You are first one to spell libel correctly. I know it is small but it was driving me crazy!!
Posted by edba on October 8, 2008 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
right on ben and bigalluvsu. LIBEL. not knowing this automatically makes one ignorant, which i wish would mean they couldn't post.
Posted by onesmallvoice on October 9, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nmdad
the mother is not to blame for allowing the child to play outside by himself. a 7y/o is old enough to play outside by himself for a little while. what is sad is that in this day and age, it IS a risk. while the owners of the dogs may not have ever expected such a thing to happen, liability is the only thing that will ever make people STOP letting their dogs, esp. pits, roam free. if a dog is big and strong enough to even knock a child over, it should be restrained.
Posted by alphatexanomega on October 9, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The only good pit bull is a dead pit bull. I don't care how many times this happens idiots will still defend pit bulls because they have one or no someone that has one and claims they are the sweetest dogs in the world. Then you will see those same idiots on the news saying he has never bit anyone before I can't believe this happened etc.. It is NOT just how they are raised. Pit bulls were bred for fighting.
Why risk more lives. Outlaw (i.e. euthanize) every pit bull in the country)
I guarantee you it is a losing battle to convince people otherwise. Just wait someone will post that I am ignorant and that they know for a fact that pit bulls are great dogs and it is just how you raise them blah blah blah.
How many times must someone be maimed or killed before these idiots realize that hey maybe the dogs are just natural born killers?
Posted by law59 on October 9, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
alphatexanomega, you need to get a grip! Do you also do the racial profiling thing with humans...there is not a dog breed on the face of the earth that is not capable of causing injury or death to a human, I have seen some horrible injuries caused by cockers, poodles and schnauzers. Your comments remind me of a holocaust mentality, gas them all, just plain ridiculous.
Posted by texasblackhawk84 on October 10, 2008 at 1:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For the record, my brother has, for the past 20 years owned 3 pits. Never has he had one bite a human or another animal. As a matter of fact, his youngest pit is also trained as a service dog for my sister-in-law. His first pit, Bones was removed from a home where he was used as a fighter. My brother retrained him and never had one problem out of him. The dogs are not the problem, it's the people that think that owning a "status" dog is cool, that their dog being aggressive is fine, and they are the ones that don't know a damn thing about training and control. Here's a thought, make it mandatory for "status" dog owners to have it registered with the city, and for them to have proper training along with being in a secure enclosure at all times. It's really a shame that the idiots that buy and breed these dogs with no intention of being responsible for the way they act, are making it almost impossible for those that do. BTW, when I was 11, my neighbor had a weenie dog that jumped on me while I was sitting on their couch, bit me in the face and for the most part tore my lip off. Needless to say, I hate weenie dogs, but I don't think that they all need to be killed. (Just THAT one did!)
Posted by Imp on October 10, 2008 at 4:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
texasblackhawk84, you make a good point. A pit pull (unless it is a fighting pit or from a line specifically bred for fighting) is just another dog. The key is training and restraint. Imagine, purchasing an animal and taking responsibility for that animal. There is a thought.
Posted by thecherokeerose on October 10, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
pit bulls should be banished from the whole universe..as a 'breed' they are genetic fighting dogs..yes, other dog breeds can maim and kill, but dont have the track record of pit bulls..we have this problem here in d/fw, and it appears to be a PROBLEM in the whole country...owning these dogs has become some kind of macho status symbol...does that say anything about their owners?????
Posted by Imp on October 10, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think you hit part of the nail on the head. Pits are a macho breed and are extremely popular for the image they give. I think their popularity is partially to blame for the number of people they hurt every year. The higher the number of dogs: the higher the chances of an attack. Another factor has to do with the caliber of people who are typically attracted the prospect of owning these dogs. I have been around every kind of pit there is and the ones who came from loving homes with owners who took the time to socialize and train them were big, loving puppies. The others were no less big but certainly not loving.
I am also not sure that banning pits is the answer. If pit bulls were banned, the people who want them would get rots or another dog breed that has a slight reputation and destroy that breed's credibility as well.
Once again, it all comes back to the owners.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.