I don't normally post in this forum but man does this piss me off. Read the details on the witness accounts as to what he does to the dog that 'loses'. Some were even his. I normally don't wish death for anyone but I'll make an exception for this worthless low-life POS m****rf****r.
Other accounts had him 'slamming' the losing dogs on pavement until death.
Taken from another board. A lawyer with 30 years of experience gives his .02 on what this means for Vick:
I wholeheartedly agree that an indictment is no evidence of guilt, and that Vick is, in the eyes of the criminal justice system, innocent until proven guilty. With that obvious disclaimer, however, I will share with you my experience with federal prosecutors.
In state court, a defendant generally resigns himself to an indictment because the prosecutor has wide latitude to indict and much of the investigation is done post-indictment. Therefore, a defense lawyer doesn't really get to work defending the case and trying to get it disposed of until after the indictment goes down. Federal prosecutors are very different. The United States Attorney does not indict unless he (1) has already done 99% of his investigation and obtained 99% of the evidence he will use at trial, and (2) is convinced that the evidence he has obtained against the defendant will result in a conviction. As a result, in the federal system, the defense lawyer's efforts are largely geared towards preventing an indictment, since once an indictment is obtained the die is cast and your guy is going to federal-pound-you-in-the-***-prison.
And this indictment (which I pulled down from the Court's website) shows that to be the case here. The indictment identifies four "Cooperating Witness[es]." The first Cooperating Witness (referred to as CW#1 in the indictment) was the guy from whom Vick purchased four pit bulls in early 2002. (Indict at Para. 9.) In February 2002, Vick "rolled" or "tested" some of his pit bulls agaisnt other dogs owned by CW#1 to determine how well the dog fought. It is implied that CW#1 would be able to testify as to the disposal of underperforming dogs.
The second Cooperating Witness ("CW#2") observed Vick at two separate dog fights in June 2002. (Indict. at Para. 47.) At that fight, CW#2 agreed to a fight between his dogs and "Bad Newz Kennels'" (i.e., the outfit co-owned by Vick) dogs. Vick was present at the March 2003 fight between his dog and CW#2's. Vick's dog lost, and after consultation with Vick, Vick's coconspirator "executed the losing dog by wetting the dog down with water and electrocuting the animal." (Indict. at Para. 53.)
The third Cooperating Witness ("CW#3"), had a dog fight against Vick's in Fall 2003. (Indict. at Para. 67.) "During the fight, CW#3 was criticized by a person unknown to the Grand Jury from "Bad Newz Kennels" for CW#3's having yelled out VICK's name in front of the crowd during the dog fight." (Indict. at Para. 68.)
This brings us to Cooperating Witness #4 ("CW#4"), who owned a female pit bull named Trouble against one of Vick's dogs. Vick's dog lost, and Vick personally paid CW#4 the purse money of approximately $7,000. (Indict. at Para. 76.)
That's four witnesses--all of whom can put Vick at the scene of the dog fights and all of whom can testify to his active participation in said fights. And that's only the ones that the US Attorney feels confident enough to put in the Indictment--who knows how many other Cooperating Witnesses may be out there.
Personally, I suspect one of Vick's co-defendants will become CW#5 before the trial is done.
Yes, yes--Vick is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. But for our purposes here, the ****er's going down.
Linear Mode
