I've read and reread the story 5 times now and it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't even know where to begin. ..Having had puppies kits and babies all residing in the same house myself, it is common sense to leave none of them unsupervised together EVER. The lady who sold the pup says it was 2 weeks old when she sold it and it's mouth would have been too small to get to the babies toes......now all of us who have ever seen a month old baby know that a month old babies toes are about the size of tiny little peas....also,we all know a 2 week old puppy is about a month away from even being old enough to wean at 6 to 8 weeks so what the hell was the woman doing selling it at this early age? Perhaps the woman herself needs to be looked at by ASPCA officials reguarding her breeding practices....perhaps the theory of the pup trying to nurse, if it was the pup, is accurate, but it still doesn't seem right to me... Next ferret kits are also teeny tiny with tiny little mouths and will literally fit into the palm of your hand at 8 weeks old. They also still have tiny little milk teeth the same as the puppy would which would be really unsuited for the task of removing toes of any size......I also don't see a kit especially or a puppy that small having the attention span to sit and chew for 4 hours as it says it would have taken in the article. This seems to me a no brainer, but Why didn't they take the animals straight to a vet and let the vet monitor stool samples for bone and flesh matter??? Even without blood on the culprit, the proof would be in the poo, so to speak. Or it would have cleared the both of them from guilt. Moving on, month old babies wake and cry throughout the night to be fed and changed, let alone if they are having thier toes chewed on........I find it very hard to believe that neither parent awoke to the sounds, especially if they were both right beside the baby.....Something is definately not right there and I think that further investigation is definately needed. Were they intoxicated? On drugs? Not even there? Either way, This only ads fuel to the fire for anti-ferret and anti-pit bull people, and both animals already have enough enemies. Both have recieved bad raps over the years and it doesn't look like any of that is going to change any time soon. I don't really see how it could have been either animal, and a rat does seem to be more plausible...but the article doesn't say where this rat came from....pet or wild? Don't get me wrong. I like rats the same as I like ferrets and dogs but I just don't see, based on the information given, how it would have been the pup or the kit. What do you guys think? Dooks and Hugs, Yvonne [Posted in FML 5460]