Pantagraph.com | News | Judge dismisses charges in case alleging poisoned dogs

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

dontbelieveit wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:32 PM:

" I told everyone that I knew that she didn't do it, but a lot of people were negative about it.....I know for a fact that this woman would take a bullet before she hurt an animal!

So "Told ya so!!" "

Carl0214 wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:41 PM:

" I am an animal lover and would never want someone who did something like this to go unpunished - and I have never met either party involved. But this case has bothered me from the start. There's just something not right about it. I am sorry that this lady will not have the chance to defend herself or the man to prove she actually did it. But I have followed it all along and there just isn't something right about it. I hope the animals in question did recover. "

MISSterious wrote on Jul 22, 2008 1:18 PM:

" I don't know the defendant or the so-called "victim" (ha!), and I don't give much credence to statements like, "I know her, she could never do such a thing." However, anybody with a shred of common sense who has heard the basics of this case would know this whole thing reeks "set-up". For instance, the "victim" claims he knows that if this would have gone to trial, she'd be found guilty. Really? Why her? How does he know for sure that SHE did it? He didn't see her do it. Oh! But this is where the conveniently placed witness/friend of the victim comes in, right?.... Gee, it was a good thing this "witness" happened to be at the right place at the right time....Now, if someone were to risk their entire business, clientele, and friends, don't you think she'd be a little craftier than hocking over the fence a pound of hamburger laced with antifreeze? Come on.....What makes more sense is the "victim" orchestrated this thing, painting himself as the victim - because who would suspect the victim - and his competitor as the perpetrator. Thus, eliminating the competition. "

so what wrote on Jul 22, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Silent One: No. Not sad. It is GREAT news. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:10 AM:

" TO DANCINGIRL

It's called READING and I quote (from Wikipedia):

"Defendants in criminal cases, under the sixth Amendment, have the right to a speedy trial. The U.S. Supreme Court laid down an four-part ad hoc balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right has been violated in the case of Barker v. Wingo:

1. Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial", but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.

2 Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.

3. Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant acquiesces to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.

4. Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused. " "

hmmmmm wrote on Jul 22, 2008 9:48 AM:

" So how much taxpayer money was spent over the past year on this case and then basically got thrown away because the state's attorney was not ready to go after a whole year of having the chance to get ready? "

summerh2o wrote on Jul 22, 2008 9:45 AM:

" to buckeye: to know Deenie IS to know the truth! See for yourself by walking into her business and watching her with the dog she is grooming. The dogs are like family to her. Her dogs are her babies, and she spoils all the boarders and day-care dogs. Call your local vet and ask which place they would recommend. She is a professional and a human being. "

So What wrote on Jul 22, 2008 6:27 AM:

" I've taken my dog to Deenie for a long, long time. I've seen her interactions with dogs. She has many of her own. She loves animals so much. She would NEVER do anything to harm an animal. In fact, she goes out of her way to HELP animals. I would never hesitate to take my dog to Deenie. In fact, I request her when I take my dog in for grooming. "

dancinggirl wrote on Jul 22, 2008 5:50 AM:

" to govt oppressed: where are you getting your legal knowledge from? cartoons? there is no one year speedy trial right. an accused has the right to speedy trial within 120 days if he is in jail. otherwise it is 160 days from the time of his demand. "

Inaperfectworld wrote on Jul 21, 2008 6:35 PM:

" I am curious as to how this whole thing has impacted both businesses. It's not fair for either business to lose customers if she didn't do it. Guess we will never know now. "

jswhite300 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 6:29 PM:

" I have done business with deenie for years , there is no way she could ever harm an animal these crazy people that want to destoy other peoples lives need to be put away. I pray your business will prosper more than ever now, Deenie your an awsome person, feel honored to know you. "

jewels52 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 6:25 PM:

" glad this over for you deenie,those of us that know you are pleased and hope that you are doing well "

alexp wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:01 PM:

" To buckeye... now we will never know who really tainted the meat since the evidence was not properly handled. "

buckeye wrote on Jul 21, 2008 4:31 PM:

" Now we will never know if she did it or not . "

summerh2o wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Deenie has been innocent from the beginning. I am so glad that the judge dismissed the charges! Those who know her know who she is and that she is just not capable of such a hideous act! We know that she loves all animals from horses to dogs to crazy birds and it breaks her heart to see anything in pain. Just as there are Democrats and Republicans there are Tim followers and Deenie supporters. Go Deenie! May your business prosper as a result of this. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:34 PM:

" HOLY COW!!! A judge that knows a person has a right to a trial w/in a one year period (otherwise known as a fair and SPEEDY trial.) WAY TO GO DENISE! Glad justice was served. "

rosiejane wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:23 PM:

" Fantastic!! :) I agree with SK..there was something wrong with this case from the beginning. Justice was served. "

growingup 70's wrote on Jul 21, 2008 2:54 PM:

" the judge refused a continuance because this case has been pending for a year - so is this the first time the prosecution discovered they didn't have witnesses? Are they going to spend taxpayer money to pursue this case? If they could not try this case earlier because of defense delays, then they should have the right to try again, but if they messed up on their witnesses, please don't waste money. "

otis wrote on Jul 21, 2008 2:53 PM:

" the pets are the winner in this case deenie loves all dogs and god bless all the doggies in the world "

sk wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:28 PM:

" This has sounded wrong from the start. Even the supporting witness on day one started backing off on his statement several weeks ago. I don't know the lady but I am a staunch animal supporter and didn't believe the "so called" facts from the get-go. "

alexp wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:27 PM:

" It is too bad that all the evidence could not be presented so Deenie could clear her name in court. But, it is what it is, a weak case with even weaker evidence and witnesses. As others have pointed out... at least we'll save some tax payer money on this. "

Lawndale Reader wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:26 PM:

" I hope that they refile this case. If this person did this to these dogs, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. "

iknowit wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:22 PM:

" I'm with Deenie. I wanted the trial so everyone could know how ridiculous this whole thing was. She's the one who needs justice now. "

pk wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:20 PM:

" Tucker: You are right, it was another delaying tactic, but this time it didn't work. The judge was smart enough to know that it simply meant that after all this time, they just didn't have any evidence. "

reasonable wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:12 PM:

" I wish this would end the whole nasty episode, but sadly, it probably won't. Deenie deserves the chance to clear her name, now forever tainted by this accusation, and the real culprit, whoever that proved to be, should be prosecuted. "

tucker wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:44 PM:

" aw, come on! The witnesses weren't available? After all this time? Sounds like another delay tactic. "

Lurg86 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:37 PM:

" This whole case sounds shady. If these two witnesses were not avialable today why wouldn't the states attorney start his case with other witnesses? From other stories of how the police mishandled evidence in this case I would say it should have been dismissed before now. "

Country Boy wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:19 PM:

" oops, sounds like somebody did not have all their ducks in a row! "

CubFAN24 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 11:48 AM:

" Right to a speedy trial --- Justice Served. "

Not so Political wrote on Jul 21, 2008 11:34 AM:

" know there is a judge looking for law to be done in his own way. maybe long distance witnesses have to work and need more time to get off and transport. the law just was not done here. need a new judge !! "

SilentOne wrote on Jul 21, 2008 11:25 AM:

" Very sad indeed! Maybe the state will refile. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees

See Today's Mortgage Rates

Weekly New Car Bargains