No because the P believe KR knocked him over and have the broken taillight pieces near where he was found, that match her car. This dog attack hypothesis is a D theory, so nothing to do with the P case.
From testimony
This link has some info about dog DNA. It appears they did test and none was found on the clothes.
Have you got a link?
None was found from the swab that had no documentation provided. It did not say where on the shirt it was taken from and the shirt was wadded with everything else while wet for days.This link has some info about dog DNA. It appears they did test and none was found on the clothes.
This link also explains the testimony about rehoming of the dog to Vermont, back to the women they got the dog from, so not sure where the "lost" dog has come from.
'John O'Keefe and Karen Read never entered my house,' witness Brian Albert says
Brian and Nicole Albert answered questions about the atmosphere inside their home the morning John O’Keefe died.www.boston.com
"Read’s lawyers have argued that wounds on O’Keefe’s arm more closely resemble dog bites and claw marks, rather than injuries from a car. However, prosecutors said in a February court filing there was no canine DNA found on swabs taken from O’Keefe’s clothing near his injuries."
A "February court filing" is documentation isn't it? You are saying they said in testimony that the dog was lost. Can you link that testimony?
Can you provide a link for this?
I clarified about the "lost" comment.
Go watch the testimony, particularly the cross, for that day. It's been linked several times.
No you are saying things that are not true and with no link. The dog was not lost, the police took and turned over the swabs.
I will if you link the testimony with a time stamp. Or a MSM reporting of the testimony.
I am not the one that ever stated the dog was lost. I am the one that stated it was NOT lost.
Especially when it's been stated that you have no intention of watching/listening to that same info you want others to go through the effort to link once again.
Fine. But without a link i am not considering any statement valid.
When you said the dog was lost, i googled and found the testimony about what happened to it. I am not going to keep doing that. If i state something, i provide a link so i am only asking for others to do similar to what i do myself instead of saying go find it yourself.
Its just courtesy. If i state something then i provide a link. I know many don't, like yourself. But then if I do spend time researching, often i find it may not be right. The two examples recently are both indicative of that. The lost dog question and the dog dna testing on the shirt arm. Both examples i answered and found the links myself.
In the link i provided it says the swab was taken from "clothing near his injuries".
The only witness I recall even asked about the dog was the homeowner wife and she said the dog was re-homed to Vermont.