It must have been a slow news day in late May in South Central Indiana for the Daily Journal to pick up an article from the Associated Press (AP) regarding a fatal dog “attack” that occurred in Mississippi last January. But what happened next shows just how poor investigative reporting by both the AP and the Daily Journal added a bit more tarnish to the reputation of the “pit bull.”
An article posted by the Daily Journal on May 26, 2011 (1) titled “Mississippi dog owner denied bond on manslaughter charges in fatal pit bull attack”, is attributed to the AP. It contains information drawn from an original article (2) published on the WCBI News website on March 3, 2011:
- James Casey Swanson, the owner of the attacking dogs was charged with manslaughter
- Mr. Swanson allowed the dogs to roam “free” even though he knew they were violent (no mention of how the dogs were known to be violent)
- Ronnie Waldo was killed when he went to Swanson’s house to borrow some electrical equipment
- Swanson was indicted as an habitual offender because of previous burglary and larceny convictions
The Daily Journal article also states that Swanson was denied bond, information drawn from a second article on the WCBI News website (3) published on May 25th. But it does NOT report that
- According to the State Medical Examiner's autopsy report, “all kinds of drugs” were found in the victim's system on the day of his death. In other words Ronnie Waldo was intoxicated.
- Casey Swanson’s dogs were allowed to run free on his family’s 50+ acre property. The dogs were on private property at the time of the attack. Quoting Angela Hamblin, whose relationship to the defendant is unclear, "Them dogs didn't do, maybe they was wrong for killing a man, but they did it on their property. That man trespassed on private property. It’s not like them dogs went to somebody's home and killed them." [sic]
- Two of the aggressive dogs “had to be” put down by officers at the scene.
And there is no support for the statement “Swanson has defended his dogs' actions and said that all but one were confined.”
So what we really “know” from the original WCBI stories is:
- The defendant is being held without bond, presumably because of his status as “habitual offender.”
- The victim was apparently intoxicated at the time of his death.
- The victim was killed by the defendant’s dogs on private property belonging to the defendant. It’s unclear whether the victim trespassed, or was invited to the defendant’s house.
- No DNA evidence was cited to show that the dogs were members of any bully breed.
Unfortunately, the Daily Journal article was picked up by the Google News aggregator and can be added to breed-specific bite/attack statistics without any proof that these dogs were pit bulls or that their attack was capricious and unprovoked. Only dedicated Google News readers will know anything of the “backstory” or be acquainted with any possible extenuating circumstances.
Works Cited
1. Staff. Mississippi dog owner denied bond on manslaughter charges in fatal pit bull attack. Daily Journal. [Online] http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/1291fcee777a4af79f63c5975183df1e/MS--Fatal-Dog-Attack/.
2. Lowe, Michelle. Pitbull Owner Charged in Man's Death. WCBI.com. [Online] March 3, 2011. http://wcbi.com/article.php?subaction=showfull&id=1299201464&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2,4&.
3. Brown, R.H. Bond Denied In Pontotoc Dog Attack. WCBI.com. [Online] May 25, 2011. http://wcbi.com/article.php?subaction=showfull&id=1306351856&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2,4&.
