Yup, all that's true. As the recipient of a few bites, I can attest that there isn't usually much exterior blood, and the police wouldn't go through the trouble of a DNA analysis unless somebody got very badly hurt or killed.The Annoyed Man wrote:Also, dog bites don't always bleed that profusely. Dog bites may exhibit puncture wounds and lacerations, but they are also crushing injuries. In crushing injuries with penetrating trauma, little tiny capillaries in the tissues are crushed, but they seep, rather than pour blood, and so unless major vessels are affected, clotting can take place before too much blood leaves the body. It is conceivable that there would be no blood evidence at the scene from which to get DNA, because it was soaked into his clothing, but didn't drip onto the ground, or whatever.WTR wrote:You assume the PD would be willing to run a DNA sample in such a case. Some cities have a 10 year backlog for DNA testing of rape cases, so I doubt a dog bite would be a priority.Excaliber wrote:Asking responding LEO's to take a swab of the perp's blood from the area of the encounter right after the incident would provide DNA evidence that would require some novel and likely entertaining explanations when defense counsel tries to reconcile it with the friend's dog story.The Annoyed Man wrote:And his BFF would back him up and say that it was his dog that bit him, while the perp and his friend were playing on the friend's backyard swing set.crazy2medic wrote:If said intruder managed to get away with a couple of dog bites, they would very likely seek medical attention, dogs bites are a required reporting incident by law, let the BG explain how he got bit!
My DNA collection suggestion was offered with tongue in cheek because the thought of a defense attorney trying to reconcile that with the "bit by the friend's dog" story tickled my warped sense of humor.
