Hmmm....

I need to look up the details about the attack, but this is an intriguing ruling.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6406112

Laurelin,

the details are awful...

those people should be given that sentence

I'm confused .....I don't see how it could be murder unless a planned attack .

She certainly deserves every day she serves.

It is MURDER because this woman let her dogs to take their time killing and mauling Ms. Whipple. Whipple had made complaints about these dogs, and everyone knew they were dangerous. These 2 dogs killed her while on Knoller's LEASH!!!

15 years is not long enough!!!!! Go google and read about this case before making any more UNWISE remarks!!!!!

I agree, ive read over and over again what happened in that house to those dogs, and to what happened to Diane Whipple, and its made me sick...

15 yrs is DEFFO not long enough

Will look it up .

Thanks for the link, Jess. I agree 15 years seems like too little. On the other hand, it is more than I'd have expected.

I remember when this happened. It was part of the "OMG PITBULLS" hysteria, even though the dogs in question are NOT APBT's. These dogs had a history of unstableness and antagonization of Whipple and the attack was carried out when ON-LEASH. This is a clear-cut case of two very idiotic owners who don't deserve to own dogs. They deserve every minute of their sentance and more, because of what this case has brought to the table in terms of BSL.

Its more than idiotic owners. This case was BIZARRE in the extreme . . . they weren't just idiotic, they were freaking strange, and that's being nice. Read about how they GOT those dogs . . .which may not even have been purebred Presas . . . . its really, really . . . UGH. I'm not sure, technically, if this was murder . . . by the technical definition of it. BUt you can probably wedge it in under the "malignant and depraved heart" theory, and if I looked up the trial records, that's probably what they did: the idea there is that you didn't preplan it, and you didn't INTEND to kill anyone per se, but your behavior was so entirely, and utterly, and completely, disgarding of human life and safety, so likely to kill, so deeply irresponsible and, moreover, "malicious" or "heartless" that if a death results it is tatamount to murder. The theory is often misused . . . but I think this is the sort of situation it was made for.

There is no doubt however that the behavior of this woman was appalling, at least somewhat malicious, and utterly lacking in remorse. amd that she had no regard for the safety of her neighbor, or anyone else, despite plenty of warnings. Check out her explainations as to WHY the attack happened too . . . I've been following this one for years.

They've just now ruled on this? Wow.

I'm glad that lady got jail time!

Not only did it happen while she had those dogs under her direct control (or lack thereof), she also did nothing to help her and blamed her for getting attacked afterward.

I remember this and am shocked it took this long, googled the case for info and found this: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Whipple.html#crime

*** disclaimer I have no clue how good/bad the rest of that site is, but it seemed to have a decent overview of testimony in the case***

Skimming it, that's the facts as I have read them elsewhere . . . I told you . . . this case was WIERD.

One of the details not mentioned (this is from memory) is that they were originally corporate lawyers. THey weren't very good at it. SO they switched criminal defense, supposedly to help people. Ok fine. BUt they weren't very good at that either. THey had trouble getting criminals to give them their cases, even for free, because they had a reputation that went around the jailhouse for being just THAT BAD at being lawyers.