Reply #36: What a lying sack of crap!

[TorchTheWitch]

This woman is just unbelievable. To even conceive of locking away the CHILD in the basement so the dogs can have free run of the house clearly shows she valued the life and comfort of the dogs over her own child.

She claims she had no idea that Rex would become more aggressive when Ella was in heat, but if she didn't know that, WHY would she have been moved to lock the child away from the dogs at all? If there wasn't some indication that it would be dangerous to leave the dogs and the child alone together, she never would have had the idea to keep the child locked away from the dogs. Clearly, she KNEW the dogs were/could be dangerous.

Although it is true that certain breeds of dogs have aggressive strains bred into them, some breeds more or less than others, I also believe it is possible to raise a "dangerous" breed of dog to be obedient and gentle and who will not attack anyone without just cause (example - if someone were to attack the dog's master or break into the house). However, when acquiring such a "dangerous" breed of dog, one must raise them strictly from a very early age and be absolutely consistant in training. Clearly, her dogs were not raised to be obedient as she mentions:

"Maureen Faibish said she put Nicholas rather than the dogs in the basement because the room, which also served as a playroom for the children, was filled with plastic bags in preparation of their move. She figured the dogs would have destroyed the bags filled with clothes."

Had these dogs been properly raised and trained, there would be no worry that the dogs would trash her belongings when she was away. Puppies will be known to chew and destroy belongings, but by the time they are adults, that behavior should have been trained out of them completely. These dogs were obviously not trained to be obedient, and she KNEW that.

I used to have an Akita... another breed of "dangerous" dog. I trained him to be obedient, and there was never a time in his life he would have disregarded my command. However, knowing that his size and strength made him CAPABLE of hurting someone, there was also never a time in his life where I would have permitted access for him to hurt someone in my absense... even people he knew and liked. It is the owner's responsibility so see that no one is hurt by their dog, and every owner must be diligent in protecting both other people from the dog and the dog from other people. If there is EVER a single time where an owner makes the decision to allow convenience to override responsibility, that person should NOT own such a dog... PERIOD.

Because children are not likely to be consistent in their behavior with the family dog... teasing, or doing things that the OWNER knows might rile the dog, but the child doesn't... I don't believe that dogs (particularly "dangerous" ones) should be allowed to be together with children unsupervised. This is something else that is very bothersome about this woman... she KNEW that the child disobeyed her and probably WOULD in this instance. Knowing that, clearly, she did not CARE that her child might be put in a dangerous situation with the dogs. That in itself is reason enough to lock her away and take away her other children.

I hope she keeps talking. The more she does, the more she incriminates herself... and the more I am beginning to suspect she even WANTED the child to be harmed in some way.