When humans are suspected of doing something - or even have done so
with multiple witnesses so there's no doubt they did it - papers use
alleged/allegedly" until the suspect goes to trial and the verdict is
guilty I mean hell, even Ted Bundy was ALLEGEDLY a serial killer until
he went to court.

Yet every article about this "attack" says "who was seriously injured
by a pet ferret", "damage to both his hands by the family's pet
ferret", etc, etc when NOTHING has been PROVEN?

Anyone else extremely pissed that they haven't put SUPPOSEDLY or
ALLEGEDLY in front of these accusations? THAT'S the whole problem with
this story. And if it is found out it was the dog or something else -
is anyone ever going to hear about that? When they did the necropsy to
determine whether or not it had rabies - didn't they also cut open the
stomach to see what was in there? If not - WHY THE *#@(#@) NOT?

And oh THANK GOD it didn't have rabies. Give me a freaking break. I
want to go bite some fingers off these reporters!

Laura

[Posted in FML 6949]