Re: [pyrnet] Verdict in the Diane Whipple mauling case?

["Jessica @ DaVor" <woods@davor.com>]

There's a very good summary at :
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Whipple.html

Only ONE of the defendants was charged with Murder, Knoller.  She was so
charged because she was the one with the dog at the time of the attack.  I
believe the charge of involuntary manslaughter should have only applied to
Noel, although I don't see anything about who was specifically convicted of
what just yet (Only halfway through the summary.)

Jess Woods
Levittown PA
woods@davor.com


on 3/22/02 16:22, darrell goolsbee at dgoolsbee@ev1.net wrote:

> OK, California folks. I need an explanation on this one.
> 
> Attorneys interviewed in the media here in TX were absolutely baffled by
> the CA jury's verdict in the Whipple mauling case. The problem: How can
> you convict someone both of murder and manslaughter in the same
> incident? It should be one or the other. The view was there would be no
> way the seemingly conflicted verdict against the woman would be upheld
> under TX law, but of course, CA may well be different.
> 
> 
> Darrell Goolsbee
> Fort Worth, TX
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@pyrnet.org with
> unsubscribe pyrnet-l
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>