K-9 Vick out for the year? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Of course Kathy Strouse has also said this...

The lead investigator in the case of dog-fighting accusations against Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick said Monday that she believes there is substantial evidence to eventually tie Vick directly to the felony crime.

That evidence could eventually include videotapes of Vick at matches. Kathy Strouse, the Animal Control coordinator for the City of Chesapeake in Virginia, said Monday that she has received a tip from what is described as a "reliable source" that tapes of Vick exist that would tie him directly to the burgeoning scandal and a possible felony charge.

"We don't know where (the tapes) are or if they do indeed exist , but I have been told that they are out there," said Strouse, who is also affiliated with two other organizations involved in the welfare of animals. "Without knowing where they are, there's no possibility of getting a search warrant at this point."

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point, in Virginia, dogfighting is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison, leaving much of the evidence against Vick that has become public at this point as circumstantial.

Point 1. She "believes"

Point 2. She does not know if "these tapes even exist"

Point 3. Grant immunity from prosecution for these "reluctant to testify" witnesses, for their testimony.

What part of this is "changing from intereview to interview"?J

 

[fatness]

My sense of where things stand currently is this: There are people who may come forward as witnesses or may not. It's not known who they are, what they'll say, or what veracity it'll have if they say anything. There are no videos known to anyone to exist. The prosecutor is going to meet with whomever investigated this so far on Monday and see if any charges are warranted.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) there's a grand jury empaneled which has a limited lifespan, so there's a real push of public pressure from various people (especially those who want to protect animals and those who want to see Vick in trouble) to come up with some evidence very quickly. I'm not sure that's really necessary in a legal sense, since another grand jury could be called later. But there's certainly a lot of public pressure to prosecute Vick quickly since much of the public seems to "know" he's guilty of something here. Of course, the public "knew" he was guilty of drug possession at the airport when the police lab report said otherwise.

I'd imagine the commissioner wants to see a clean conviction or exoneration here. At some point there's a danger of giving in to demands to punish a player for being unpopular among people who "know" that player did something wrong when there's scant evidence that they have. I'd imagine the commissioner is aware of that danger, and of infringing on someone's livelihood for no substantial reason except public pressure.

I'd guess that this either takes a long, long time to play out both legally and with the league, or that there will be a quick investigation/plea bargain/modest NFL sanction arrangement.

 

[Big Score]

Will the tapes magically disappear like those of his run in at the airport with the water bottle?

Depends on how much Black Blank or Vick will pay to have them destroyed.

More importantly, it depends on if they even exist.

pure speculation on my part, but this informant that was mentioned earlier (or some other witness) may have mentioned to her that they've seen recordings made. So she thinks there should still be recordings somewhere, that they do exist, she just doesn't have clue one where they might be...at least that's how I'm reading it. The question isn't of existence, its of locating them. $0.02

You're definitely right on the locating part, but the certainty of their existence, just doesn't jibe at all with what she's saying here.

"We don't know where (the tapes) are or if they do indeed exist, but I have been told that they are out there," said Strouse....

I mean, if she's certain of their existence, why would she say she's not certain of their existence?

true, true...guess she could be wondering if they still exist, but I'm parsing words and reading way too far into this.

Yeah, it always helps to ad a word in here or there. If we do that, it definitely lends more support to our lines of speculation.

Really? I'm not sure why you'd get that.What I see there is someone trying to be accurate about not knowing for sure the tapes exist. Sounds like she has been told they exist but she does not know that for a fact.

So she's being careful to qualify what she's saying so if it turns out they don't exist, she doesn't look stupid.

Are you saying she knows good and well there are no tapes and is just making the tapes up to lend support to speculation?

J

J,I prefer not to speculate on whether Strouse is speculating. That's just too much speculation.

What we do know, since the words are coming from her mouth, is that Strouse is relaying an unamed source has told her there are incriminating tapes on Vick, but she really has no idea if the tapes truly exist or not.

Now if you want to speculate this is her way of doing a little CYA, just in case the tapes don't exist & she doesn't want to look the fool, fair enough.

Of course the flip side speculation is...

There's a reason for Strouse being so careful to qualify her tape statement. We could speculate that it means she's not very comfortable with the credibility of her unamed source, right?

My preference is to eliminate all speculation & wait until the tapes actually surface...or don't.

 

[Big Score]

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Of course Kathy Strouse has also said this...

The lead investigator in the case of dog-fighting accusations against Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick said Monday that she believes there is substantial evidence to eventually tie Vick directly to the felony crime.

That evidence could eventually include videotapes of Vick at matches. Kathy Strouse, the Animal Control coordinator for the City of Chesapeake in Virginia, said Monday that she has received a tip from what is described as a "reliable source" that tapes of Vick exist that would tie him directly to the burgeoning scandal and a possible felony charge.

"We don't know where (the tapes) are or if they do indeed exist , but I have been told that they are out there," said Strouse, who is also affiliated with two other organizations involved in the welfare of animals. "Without knowing where they are, there's no possibility of getting a search warrant at this point."

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point, in Virginia, dogfighting is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison, leaving much of the evidence against Vick that has become public at this point as circumstantial.

Point 1. She "believes"

Point 2. She does not know if "these tapes even exist"

Point 3. Grant immunity from prosecution for these "reluctant to testify" witnesses, for their testimony.

What part of this is "changing from intereview to interview"?J

JI just found it interesting that initially Strouse had talked with individuals...note the plural...who could testify that Vick attended organized dog fights...

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point

But then later Strouse talks about the informant...note the singular...who could testify that Vick attended organized dog fights...

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Where did all the other individuals who could testify, go?I'm also a tad bit mystified that an Animal Control Officer was classified in some reports as the "Lead Investigator" in a case that by it's very nature, is associated with Gambling. Maybe VA law provides that Animal Control Officer's have jurisdicition in such cases, but that would seem to be well outside their normal scope of activities.

Then other reports only say she has "helped" with the investigation.

I know we have an Animal Control Officer where I live, but his responsibility is generally taking care of road kill, the humane trapping & removal of attic pests, looking into animal abuse reports & keeping the rat population at bay.

If he were to stumble upon other illegal activities in the line of his work, while he would stay involved, he would certainly not remain as the "Lead Investigator".

 

[Traders2001]

It s all BS and he wont get any suspension or jail time at all .

I am not saying he is nt guilty of anything but it s so obvious that nothing will come out of this .

 

[Traders2001]

Will the tapes magically disappear like those of his run in at the airport with the water bottle?

Depends on how much Black Blank or Vick will pay to have them destroyed.

More importantly, it depends on if they even exist.

pure speculation on my part, but this informant that was mentioned earlier (or some other witness) may have mentioned to her that they've seen recordings made. So she thinks there should still be recordings somewhere, that they do exist, she just doesn't have clue one where they might be...at least that's how I'm reading it. The question isn't of existence, its of locating them. $0.02

You're definitely right on the locating part, but the certainty of their existence, just doesn't jibe at all with what she's saying here.

"We don't know where (the tapes) are or if they do indeed exist, but I have been told that they are out there," said Strouse....

I mean, if she's certain of their existence, why would she say she's not certain of their existence?

true, true...guess she could be wondering if they still exist, but I'm parsing words and reading way too far into this.

Yeah, it always helps to ad a word in here or there. If we do that, it definitely lends more support to our lines of speculation.

Really? I'm not sure why you'd get that.What I see there is someone trying to be accurate about not knowing for sure the tapes exist. Sounds like she has been told they exist but she does not know that for a fact.

So she's being careful to qualify what she's saying so if it turns out they don't exist, she doesn't look stupid.

Are you saying she knows good and well there are no tapes and is just making the tapes up to lend support to speculation?

J

J,I prefer not to speculate on whether Strouse is speculating. That's just too much speculation.

What we do know, since the words are coming from her mouth, is that Strouse is relaying an unamed source has told her there are incriminating tapes on Vick, but she really has no idea if the tapes truly exist or not.

Now if you want to speculate this is her way of doing a little CYA, just in case the tapes don't exist & she doesn't want to look the fool, fair enough.

Of course the flip side speculation is...

There's a reason for Strouse being so careful to qualify her tape statement. We could speculate that it means she's not very comfortable with the credibility of her unamed source, right?

My preference is to eliminate all speculation & wait until the tapes actually surface...or don't.

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

 

[Joe Bryant]

Will the tapes magically disappear like those of his run in at the airport with the water bottle?

Depends on how much Black Blank or Vick will pay to have them destroyed.

More importantly, it depends on if they even exist.

pure speculation on my part, but this informant that was mentioned earlier (or some other witness) may have mentioned to her that they've seen recordings made. So she thinks there should still be recordings somewhere, that they do exist, she just doesn't have clue one where they might be...at least that's how I'm reading it. The question isn't of existence, its of locating them. $0.02

You're definitely right on the locating part, but the certainty of their existence, just doesn't jibe at all with what she's saying here.

"We don't know where (the tapes) are or if they do indeed exist, but I have been told that they are out there," said Strouse....

I mean, if she's certain of their existence, why would she say she's not certain of their existence?

true, true...guess she could be wondering if they still exist, but I'm parsing words and reading way too far into this.

Yeah, it always helps to ad a word in here or there. If we do that, it definitely lends more support to our lines of speculation.

Really? I'm not sure why you'd get that.What I see there is someone trying to be accurate about not knowing for sure the tapes exist. Sounds like she has been told they exist but she does not know that for a fact.

So she's being careful to qualify what she's saying so if it turns out they don't exist, she doesn't look stupid.

Are you saying she knows good and well there are no tapes and is just making the tapes up to lend support to speculation?

J

J,I prefer not to speculate on whether Strouse is speculating. That's just too much speculation.

What we do know, since the words are coming from her mouth, is that Strouse is relaying an unamed source has told her there are incriminating tapes on Vick, but she really has no idea if the tapes truly exist or not.

Now if you want to speculate this is her way of doing a little CYA, just in case the tapes don't exist & she doesn't want to look the fool, fair enough.

Of course the flip side speculation is...

There's a reason for Strouse being so careful to qualify her tape statement. We could speculate that it means she's not very comfortable with the credibility of her unamed source, right?

My preference is to eliminate all speculation & wait until the tapes actually surface...or don't.

I don't understand the legal process for this exactly. Is she not trying to build enough evidence to convince Poindexter there is evidence to pursue this thing further? Are then on a deadline for time?If she is told there is evidence to be coming forward but doesn't have it just yet, is it understandable she would tell them that?

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Of course Kathy Strouse has also said this...

The lead investigator in the case of dog-fighting accusations against Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick said Monday that she believes there is substantial evidence to eventually tie Vick directly to the felony crime.

That evidence could eventually include videotapes of Vick at matches. Kathy Strouse, the Animal Control coordinator for the City of Chesapeake in Virginia, said Monday that she has received a tip from what is described as a "reliable source" that tapes of Vick exist that would tie him directly to the burgeoning scandal and a possible felony charge.

"We don't know where (the tapes) are or if they do indeed exist , but I have been told that they are out there," said Strouse, who is also affiliated with two other organizations involved in the welfare of animals. "Without knowing where they are, there's no possibility of getting a search warrant at this point."

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point, in Virginia, dogfighting is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison, leaving much of the evidence against Vick that has become public at this point as circumstantial.

Point 1. She "believes"

Point 2. She does not know if "these tapes even exist"

Point 3. Grant immunity from prosecution for these "reluctant to testify" witnesses, for their testimony.

:X What part of this is "changing from intereview to interview"?J

JI just found it interesting that initially Strouse had talked with individuals...note the plural...who could testify that Vick attended organized dog fights...

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point

But then later Strouse talks about the informant...note the singular...who could testify that Vick attended organized dog fights...

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Where did all the other individuals who could testify, go?I'm also a tad bit mystified that an Animal Control Officer was classified in some reports as the "Lead Investigator" in a case that by it's very nature, is associated with Gambling. Maybe VA law provides that Animal Control Officer's have jurisdicition in such cases, but that would seem to be well outside their normal scope of activities.

Then other reports only say she has "helped" with the investigation.

I know we have an Animal Control Officer where I live, but his responsibility is generally taking care of road kill, the humane trapping & removal of attic pests, looking into animal abuse reports & keeping the rat population at bay.

If he were to stumble upon other illegal activities in the line of his work, while he would stay involved, he would certainly not remain as the "Lead Investigator".

No offense, but you sound really desperate if you're trying to pin hopes on a newspaper article saying "individuals" in one spot and then saying "informant" in another.J

 

[Joe Bryant]

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

I doubt they have guys setting up a sound booth and tripod for the camera.But there could absolutely be a 5 second video clip from a cell phone or a snapshot from a cell phone. Say you get invited to Mike Vick's dog fights. Your buddies don't believe you. You want to bring back proof you were there. What do you do? J

 

[joffer]

Say you get invited to Mike Vick's dog fights. Your buddies don't believe you. You want to bring back proof you were there. What do you do? J

find new buddies

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Say you get invited to Mike Vick's dog fights. Your buddies don't believe you. You want to bring back proof you were there. What do you do? J

Invite them to come next time.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

No offense, but you sound really desperate if you're trying to pin hopes on a newspaper article saying "individuals" in one spot and then saying "informant" in another.

J

J you are dead right hereTake a look at was actually said.

#1 - Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches.

&

#2 -The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse

Just to clear it up so there is no confusion. Statement #1 has an unknown number of people saying he was ON the property during these fights. Statement #2 has ONE person saying he was actually AT the dog fights.

 

[mad sweeney]

No offense, but you sound really desperate if you're trying to pin hopes on a newspaper article saying "individuals" in one spot and then saying "informant" in another.

J

J you are dead right hereTake a look at was actually said.

#1 - Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches.

&

#2 -The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse

Just to clear it up so there is no confusion. Statement #1 has an unknown number of people saying he was ON the property during these fights. Statement #2 has ONE person saying he was actually AT the dog fights.

Statement 2 could have also been in response to a specific question that was not in the article. For example, reporters could have asked if the individuals were attendees or trainers and she said 'yes one is a trainer' and the response quoted was therefore in response to a question about that one specific individual. We do not have the verbatim transcript of all that was said (redundant I know) and so takng these two blurbs and comparing plurals is pretty highly irrelevant. Statements 1 and 2 are not the only statements made in the press conference or interview, just two statements that made it into the article.Also in a Yahoo article that I referenced earlier, Poindexter said "If he's implicated in any way -- and I'm not saying he isn't, I would think that he is -- there are about 10 other people who, from what we know, have a much more regular contact with the property and the animals,". I haven't seen anyone discussing that, as many have used Poindexter's reluctance to link Vick to it publicly as proof, or at least evidence, of Vick's innocence. But this clearly seem to indicate that Poindexter believes that it would be hard for Vick to not be implicated in the mess.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Say you get invited to Mike Vick's dog fights. Your buddies don't believe you. You want to bring back proof you were there. What do you do? J

find new buddies

That's a good point joffer.J

 

[Tillmanisahero]

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

We actually cover this a few posts back....yes people do videotape dog fights. They do it all the time for bragging rights and using to enhance the stud fee that can gather. Look back a little bit and you get the full explanation

 

[Steelers]

You guys have got it all wrong, Mike Vick is a an angel, he was NOT at the dog fights.

But......................

His evil twin Ron Mexico might have been there...............

 

[Big Score]

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

We actually cover this a few posts back....yes people do videotape dog fights. They do it all the time for bragging rights and using to enhance the stud fee that can gather. Look back a little bit and you get the full explanation

Yes you'd mention that the actual owners of fighting dog often do this, for the purposes of "Bragging" rights & proving their dogs "Gameness" for stud fees & sales of their fighting dogs.Going by your first hand experience in these raids & that you've often found that fighting dog owners have taped their animals, did you find it unusal that no such tapes were found during the initial raid, considering this was a rather large fighting dog farm?

 

[Tillmanisahero]

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

We actually cover this a few posts back....yes people do videotape dog fights. They do it all the time for bragging rights and using to enhance the stud fee that can gather. Look back a little bit and you get the full explanation

Going by your first hand experience in these raids & that you've often found that fighting dog owners have taped their animals, did you find it unusal that no such tapes were found during the initial raid, considering this was a rather large fighting dog farm?

Depends on the sophistication of the operation and how surprised they were. If the raid was executed during the actual fights...yes actually I would. If the raid was conducted during a time when the actual fight were not being held...No because that kind of stuff is kept usually pretty well hidden. However if the operation was run by less sophisticated or wise individuals then anything is possible. Also in this day and age technology is so small that the "video" still might be on a data card somewhere.This whole discussion should not be whether he fights dogs but if there is evidence that he fights dogs. I think it is pretty clear if you listen to what is being said by the people who know him and his "kennel" that he dwells in the world of Dog Fighting. The hitch is can someone prove it.......If you honestly think that he doesn't engage in the activity then you are in denial and/or very naive.*Edit addition...This also occurred to me. If they raided his breeding operation (Farm) that is very rarely the sight of fights. The actual fights happen at other places.

 

[Big Score]

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Of course Kathy Strouse has also said this...

The lead investigator in the case of dog-fighting accusations against Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick said Monday that she believes there is substantial evidence to eventually tie Vick directly to the felony crime.

That evidence could eventually include videotapes of Vick at matches. Kathy Strouse, the Animal Control coordinator for the City of Chesapeake in Virginia, said Monday that she has received a tip from what is described as a "reliable source" that tapes of Vick exist that would tie him directly to the burgeoning scandal and a possible felony charge.

"We don't know where (the tapes) are or if they do indeed exist , but I have been told that they are out there," said Strouse, who is also affiliated with two other organizations involved in the welfare of animals. "Without knowing where they are, there's no possibility of getting a search warrant at this point."

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point, in Virginia, dogfighting is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison, leaving much of the evidence against Vick that has become public at this point as circumstantial.

Point 1. She "believes"

Point 2. She does not know if "these tapes even exist"

Point 3. Grant immunity from prosecution for these "reluctant to testify" witnesses, for their testimony.

What part of this is "changing from intereview to interview"?J

JI just found it interesting that initially Strouse had talked with individuals...note the plural...who could testify that Vick attended organized dog fights...

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point

But then later Strouse talks about the informant...note the singular...who could testify that Vick attended organized dog fights...

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Where did all the other individuals who could testify, go?I'm also a tad bit mystified that an Animal Control Officer was classified in some reports as the "Lead Investigator" in a case that by it's very nature, is associated with Gambling. Maybe VA law provides that Animal Control Officer's have jurisdicition in such cases, but that would seem to be well outside their normal scope of activities.

Then other reports only say she has "helped" with the investigation.

I know we have an Animal Control Officer where I live, but his responsibility is generally taking care of road kill, the humane trapping & removal of attic pests, looking into animal abuse reports & keeping the rat population at bay.

If he were to stumble upon other illegal activities in the line of his work, while he would stay involved, he would certainly not remain as the "Lead Investigator".

No offense, but you sound really desperate if you're trying to pin hopes on a newspaper article saying "individuals" in one spot and then saying "informant" in another.J

Desperate? Pinning hopes? Hardly. Just pointing out the various inconsistencies that you asked for J.

 

[Big Score]

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

I doubt they have guys setting up a sound booth and tripod for the camera.But there could absolutely be a 5 second video clip from a cell phone or a snapshot from a cell phone.

Say you get invited to Mike Vick's dog fights. Your buddies don't believe you. You want to bring back proof you were there. What do you do?

J

This is close to being verbatum of one of my earlier posts J.

You know, I'd actually be surprised if there's any video tapes.

Dog fighting, while not hidden as much as say drug running, is still very illegal. I highly doubt the organizers of these fights, are happily letting the crowd bring their camcorders to tape away.

Now surreptitious cell phone photographs seems far more plausible to me & I'd be about 99.9% certain that if Vick was ever present at a dog fight, there's photo evidence somewhere....given his celebrity status & all.

This is the type of visual evidence that I think is far more likely to end up in the hands of the authorities.

 

[Big Score]

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

We actually cover this a few posts back....yes people do videotape dog fights. They do it all the time for bragging rights and using to enhance the stud fee that can gather. Look back a little bit and you get the full explanation

Going by your first hand experience in these raids & that you've often found that fighting dog owners have taped their animals, did you find it unusal that no such tapes were found during the initial raid, considering this was a rather large fighting dog farm?

Depends on the sophistication of the operation and how surprised they were. If the raid was executed during the actual fights...yes actually I would. If the raid was conducted during a time when the actual fight were not being held...No because that kind of stuff is kept usually pretty well hidden. However if the operation was run by less sophisticated or wise individuals then anything is possible. Also in this day and age technology is so small that the "video" still might be on a data card somewhere.This whole discussion should not be whether he fights dogs but if there is evidence that he fights dogs. I think it is pretty clear if you listen to what is being said by the people who know him and his "kennel" that he dwells in the world of Dog Fighting. The hitch is can someone prove it.......If you honestly think that he doesn't engage in the activity then you are in denial and/or very naive.

I'm 99.9% certain that Vick is involved & am astounded that evidence has yet to be found, especially as you say owners often have proof of their animals "gameness" along with Vick being such a celebrity.As it's been reported that there is an informant, (or individuals), who can testify to physically placing Vick at actual organized fight(s), (or on the property during organized dog fights) & for the life of me, I cannot understand why immunity has not already been offered to said informant (individuals) for the testimony?

*Edit addition...This also occurred to me. If they raided his breeding operation (Farm) that is very rarely the sight of fights. The actual fights happen at other places.

Going by the statements from Surry County Commonwealth's Attorney Gerald Poindexter...

"I'm convinced from what I saw that dog fighting has occurred down there, but who was involved in it I don't know at this point," Poindexter said in a telephone interview, noting that he saw what looked like blood spatters in a room over a garage.

& Kathy Strouse...

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches.

The investigation points to dog fights taking place at Vick's property.Considering this was initially a drug raid, pretty well hidden or not, if there were tapes or data cards on the property, they would've been found.

 

[redman]

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Of course Kathy Strouse has also said this...

The lead investigator in the case of dog-fighting accusations against Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick said Monday that she believes there is substantial evidence to eventually tie Vick directly to the felony crime.

That evidence could eventually include videotapes of Vick at matches. Kathy Strouse, the Animal Control coordinator for the City of Chesapeake in Virginia, said Monday that she has received a tip from what is described as a "reliable source" that tapes of Vick exist that would tie him directly to the burgeoning scandal and a possible felony charge.

"We don't know where (the tapes) are or if they do indeed exist , but I have been told that they are out there," said Strouse, who is also affiliated with two other organizations involved in the welfare of animals. "Without knowing where they are, there's no possibility of getting a search warrant at this point."

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point, in Virginia, dogfighting is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison, leaving much of the evidence against Vick that has become public at this point as circumstantial.

Point 1. She "believes"

Point 2. She does not know if "these tapes even exist"

Point 3. Grant immunity from prosecution for these "reluctant to testify" witnesses, for their testimony.

What part of this is "changing from intereview to interview"?J

JI just found it interesting that initially Strouse had talked with individuals...note the plural...who could testify that Vick attended organized dog fights...

Strouse said she has also talked with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches. However, those individuals have been reluctant to testify at this point

But then later Strouse talks about the informant...note the singular...who could testify that Vick attended organized dog fights...

The informant “will place him at these dog fights, yes,” said Kathy Strouse, a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force who has helped in the investigation of Surry County property owned by Vick.

Where did all the other individuals who could testify, go?I'm also a tad bit mystified that an Animal Control Officer was classified in some reports as the "Lead Investigator" in a case that by it's very nature, is associated with Gambling. Maybe VA law provides that Animal Control Officer's have jurisdicition in such cases, but that would seem to be well outside their normal scope of activities.

Then other reports only say she has "helped" with the investigation.

I know we have an Animal Control Officer where I live, but his responsibility is generally taking care of road kill, the humane trapping & removal of attic pests, looking into animal abuse reports & keeping the rat population at bay.

If he were to stumble upon other illegal activities in the line of his work, while he would stay involved, he would certainly not remain as the "Lead Investigator".

So you're parsing words from different news articles by different reporters reporting on different statements by Strouse on different days, and you're attributing all inconsistencies, no matter how small, to Strouse rather than the reporters?

 

[Joe Bryant]

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

I doubt they have guys setting up a sound booth and tripod for the camera.But there could absolutely be a 5 second video clip from a cell phone or a snapshot from a cell phone.

Say you get invited to Mike Vick's dog fights. Your buddies don't believe you. You want to bring back proof you were there. What do you do?

J

This is close to being verbatum of one of my earlier posts J.

You know, I'd actually be surprised if there's any video tapes.

Dog fighting, while not hidden as much as say drug running, is still very illegal. I highly doubt the organizers of these fights, are happily letting the crowd bring their camcorders to tape away.

Now surreptitious cell phone photographs seems far more plausible to me & I'd be about 99.9% certain that if Vick was ever present at a dog fight, there's photo evidence somewhere....given his celebrity status & all.

This is the type of visual evidence that I think is far more likely to end up in the hands of the authorities.

Then we're arguing semantics then. There is no difference between video tape and video files from a cell phone. Video evidence is what we're talking about. (And of course it'll have to be corroborated as video is so easy to manipulate these days)

J

 

[2stix]

I'll bet you these investigators are working 48 hour days this weekend if they meet with the prosecutor on Monday.



Another thought I had. I was thinking how odd it was that as the investigation was heating up, Vick scrambled (he-he) to sell the property. Now, if there was dog fighting going on,there is always a loser. If the dog died during the fight, would the owner take it home? or would there be a pit of some sorts where they buried the dogs on the property?

 

[Tillmanisahero]

Now, if there was dog fighting going on,there is always a loser. If the dog died during the fight, would the owner take it home? or would there be a pit of some sorts where they buried the dogs on the property?

The bodies are usually removed in "upscale" fights, but at other "lower" type fights they sometimes dump dogs in the alleys and Garbage dumpsters in urban areas.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'll bet you these investigators are working 48 hour days this weekend if they meet with the prosecutor on Monday. Another thought I had. I was thinking how odd it was that as the investigation was heating up, Vick scrambled (he-he) to sell the property. Now, if there was dog fighting going on,there is always a loser. If the dog died during the fight, would the owner take it home? or would there be a pit of some sorts where they buried the dogs on the property?

I wondered too about the selling the house so quickly. Will that really help them? I mean, if they are going to search the house again, don't the new owners have to cooperate if they have a warrant?J

 

[Big Score]

There are no tapes . Do you think they let anyone videotape those dog fights .

I doubt they have guys setting up a sound booth and tripod for the camera.But there could absolutely be a 5 second video clip from a cell phone or a snapshot from a cell phone.

Say you get invited to Mike Vick's dog fights. Your buddies don't believe you. You want to bring back proof you were there. What do you do?

J

This is close to being verbatum of one of my earlier posts J.

You know, I'd actually be surprised if there's any video tapes.

Dog fighting, while not hidden as much as say drug running, is still very illegal. I highly doubt the organizers of these fights, are happily letting the crowd bring their camcorders to tape away.

Now surreptitious cell phone photographs seems far more plausible to me & I'd be about 99.9% certain that if Vick was ever present at a dog fight, there's photo evidence somewhere....given his celebrity status & all.

This is the type of visual evidence that I think is far more likely to end up in the hands of the authorities.

Then we're arguing semantics then. There is no difference between video tape and video files from a cell phone. Video evidence is what we're talking about. (And of course it'll have to be corroborated as video is so easy to manipulate these days)

J

Hmmmm....I was not really arguing anything J.

As I've said (& you've even quoted that post here, from a couple of days ago on page 4 of this thread), I think it far more likely that if there is any visual evidence, it'll be in the form of a cell phone photograph(s) (currently camera phones are still far more common than video cell phones, especially taking into consideration this is in rural VA) ~ vs ~ the "tapes" that Kathy Strouse the "Lead Investigator", or a person "Helping with the Investigation", (seems to be some confusion over her actual role in this case), is telling us an unamed source has told her about, though she quickly qualifies that statement by saying she's not sure these "tapes" even exist.

I'm also confused as to why the informant, who can physically place Vick specifically in attendance of an organized dog fight, or the individuals that can phyisically place Vick on the property while an organized dog fight was taking place there, haven't been offered immunity in exchnage for their testimony?

I mean what the heck are the authorities waiting on? It's a slam dunk case with sworn testimony, regardless of tapes, cell phone photograph(s) (video), digital info on a chip or disc, which as you mention, are easily manipulated.

Another point worth noting. We know that authorities participating in a drug raid, leave no stone unturned in their efforts to find illegal narcotics at a suspected drug location. It concerns me that during what I'm sure was an exhaustive search, the authorities were unable to find any visual evidence relating to dog fighting activities.

As Tillmanisahero from his own first hand experience points out, it is very common for owners of fighting dogs to record their dog(s) in action, as proof of their "Gameness" to aid in stud fees, or for the sale of their fighting dog(s). We also know from what has been reported on the authorities investigation so far, not only was Vick's property being used to breed fighting dogs, it was also where they held the actual dog fights, despit this being unusal (at least, according to Tillmanisahero).

I want to see Vick convicted of this, as much as the next person, but so far there's tapes which may, or may not exist (although either way, the authorities don't have them), a witnesse to Vick personally attending a dog fight, who hasn't been offered immunity in exchange for testimony (real head scratcher to me!), more witnesses who can place Vick on the property when dog fights were occuring, who also haven't been offered immunity for their testimony (more head scratching) & that's about it.

I certainly hope the authorities have more than this, because in the small picture, sure Goodell will suspend him for a few games, but in the big picture, Vick gets to walk away from all of this.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

I certainly hope the authorities have more than this, because in the small picture, sure Goodell will suspend him for a few games, but in the big picture, Vick gets to walk away from all of this.

This post pretty much sums up how this will go.Vick won't be charged by the law, yet he'll get a token suspension to keep the general public who hates Vick happy.By the way i hear Vick stiffs pizza delivery drivers.

 

[2stix]

It concerns me that during what I'm sure was an exhaustive search, the authorities were unable to find any visual evidence relating to dog fighting activities.

Have you read any of the links at the beginning of this thread? They pulled out trailers of evidence that points to dog fighting.

The question here is was Vick involved?

 

[Big Score]

It concerns me that during what I'm sure was an exhaustive search, the authorities were unable to find any visual evidence relating to dog fighting activities.

Have you read any of the links at the beginning of this thread? They pulled out trailers of evidence that points to dog fighting.

The question here is was Vick involved?

You edited out & focused on one sentence from the post 2stix. If that was the only sentence you read, I can certainly understand your confusion.

However, try reading the sentence in the context of the entire post as it's meant to be & you should be able to understand that by visual evidence, I'm referring to dog fights being on tapes, photographs, data on chips or discs etc...etc...etc...EDIT: with hopefully a shot of Vick in one of them...

 

[madoka]

I'm done in this thread, i'll let the legal system deal with it. The speculation is just tiresome.

Damn BEER99, if you can't keep your word about staying out of this thread, how are we supposed to trust you when you claim one year off the boards when/if they convict Vick?

 

[chris1969]

Congressman wants strong action against Vick

(May 18, 2007) -- A California congressman has joined the cause against Michael Vick, firing off a letter that urged NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to "act swiftly and forcefully" if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in dog fighting on his former property.

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that he's a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which two years ago held highly publicized hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick.

"I am outraged that one of the National Football League's superstars is affiliated with such a heinous enterprise," Lantos wrote.

Last month, police raised a Virginia home owned by Vick and allegedly found evidence of a major dog-fighting operation, including dozens off malnourished and injured dogs. The quarterback has denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.

Vick has since sold the home.

"The level of cruelty involved in exploiting animals to the point that 60 malnourished and injured dogs were removed from Mr. Vick's property is mind boggling," Lantos said. "I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity."

The NFL has said repeatedly it is investigating the case to determine if Vick violated the commissioner's tougher standards for players who run afoul of the law. Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts reiterated the team's policy of not commenting until the investigation is completed.

Calling himself a longtime advocate of animal welfare, Lantos joined two prominent animal-rights groups that have called on Goodell to suspend or ban any players involved in dog fighting.

"As evidence of Mr. Vick's involvement mounts, I implore you to act swiftly and forcefully," the congressman wrote. "Your strong rebuke of dog fighting -- and those who promote it -- will send the message that this all-too-prevalent practice has no place in a civilized society."

In a not-so-subtle threat of possible congressional action, Lantos reminded the commissioner of his committee's efforts to weed out those who use performance-enhancing drugs.

"I also suggest you educate your players on the illegality and cruelty of dog fighting to prevent this from happening again," Lantos wrote. "It is my hope that the issue of animal fighting will not require us to further investigate the behavior of your athletes."

AP NEWS

The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2007, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/ATL/10187667

Anybody still think the commish will give him a slap on the wrist?

 

[Joe Bryant]

"I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity."

Congressman Lantos needs to get over himself a little here. We've got the toughest commish in NFL history doling out suspsensions like they were Pez. He's on it.J

 

[chris1969]

"I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity."

Congressman Lantos needs to get over himself a little here. We've got the toughest commish in NFL history doling out suspsensions like they were Pez. He's on it.J

I agree, but the added pressure of being regulated by congress won't sit well with the owners.

 

[2stix]

Is portis a dog fighter or Does he just have mikes back?

http://www.wavy.com/global/video/popup/pop...=http://www.wav

Oh, in that case, it's all good. Thanks for clearing that up for me Kid bro sweets.

What a tool.

 

[3C's]

Is portis a dog fighter or Does he just have mikes back?

http://www.wavy.com/global/video/popup/pop...=http://www.wav

Oh, in that case, it's all good. Thanks for clearing that up for me Kid bro sweets.

What a tool.

Chris Samuels is laughing at Portis as if to say "Are you serious? I know you like to joke around. Damn, I think you are serious. "Portis is an idiot. Kind of agree with Samuels though that the media is going the guilty before proven innocent route.

 

[fatness]

Gee, a Congressman using a current news event to get himself into the news. This has never happened before.

 

[Traders2001]

Congressman wants strong action against Vick

(May 18, 2007) -- A California congressman has joined the cause against Michael Vick, firing off a letter that urged NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to "act swiftly and forcefully" if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in dog fighting on his former property.

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that he's a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which two years ago held highly publicized hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick.

"I am outraged that one of the National Football League's superstars is affiliated with such a heinous enterprise," Lantos wrote.

Last month, police raised a Virginia home owned by Vick and allegedly found evidence of a major dog-fighting operation, including dozens off malnourished and injured dogs. The quarterback has denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.

Vick has since sold the home.

"The level of cruelty involved in exploiting animals to the point that 60 malnourished and injured dogs were removed from Mr. Vick's property is mind boggling," Lantos said. "I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity."

The NFL has said repeatedly it is investigating the case to determine if Vick violated the commissioner's tougher standards for players who run afoul of the law. Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts reiterated the team's policy of not commenting until the investigation is completed.

Calling himself a longtime advocate of animal welfare, Lantos joined two prominent animal-rights groups that have called on Goodell to suspend or ban any players involved in dog fighting.

"As evidence of Mr. Vick's involvement mounts, I implore you to act swiftly and forcefully," the congressman wrote. "Your strong rebuke of dog fighting -- and those who promote it -- will send the message that this all-too-prevalent practice has no place in a civilized society."

In a not-so-subtle threat of possible congressional action, Lantos reminded the commissioner of his committee's efforts to weed out those who use performance-enhancing drugs.

"I also suggest you educate your players on the illegality and cruelty of dog fighting to prevent this from happening again," Lantos wrote. "It is my hope that the issue of animal fighting will not require us to further investigate the behavior of your athletes."

AP NEWS

The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2007, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/ATL/10187667

Anybody still think the commish will give him a slap on the wrist?

Ridiculous but understandable he is a congressman looking for a power trip .Most congressmans are morons if you figure how smart is the president ( Bush )

then they are all as smart as a 3 rd grader.

 

[Da Guru]

Congressman wants strong action against Vick

(May 18, 2007) -- A California congressman has joined the cause against Michael Vick, firing off a letter that urged NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to "act swiftly and forcefully" if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in dog fighting on his former property.

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that he's a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which two years ago held highly publicized hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick.

"I am outraged that one of the National Football League's superstars is affiliated with such a heinous enterprise," Lantos wrote.

Last month, police raised a Virginia home owned by Vick and allegedly found evidence of a major dog-fighting operation, including dozens off malnourished and injured dogs. The quarterback has denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.

Vick has since sold the home.

"The level of cruelty involved in exploiting animals to the point that 60 malnourished and injured dogs were removed from Mr. Vick's property is mind boggling," Lantos said. "I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity."

The NFL has said repeatedly it is investigating the case to determine if Vick violated the commissioner's tougher standards for players who run afoul of the law. Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts reiterated the team's policy of not commenting until the investigation is completed.

Calling himself a longtime advocate of animal welfare, Lantos joined two prominent animal-rights groups that have called on Goodell to suspend or ban any players involved in dog fighting.

"As evidence of Mr. Vick's involvement mounts, I implore you to act swiftly and forcefully," the congressman wrote. "Your strong rebuke of dog fighting -- and those who promote it -- will send the message that this all-too-prevalent practice has no place in a civilized society."

In a not-so-subtle threat of possible congressional action, Lantos reminded the commissioner of his committee's efforts to weed out those who use performance-enhancing drugs.

"I also suggest you educate your players on the illegality and cruelty of dog fighting to prevent this from happening again," Lantos wrote. "It is my hope that the issue of animal fighting will not require us to further investigate the behavior of your athletes."

AP NEWS

The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2007, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/ATL/10187667

Anybody still think the commish will give him a slap on the wrist?

Ridiculous but understandable he is a congressman looking for a power trip .Most congressmans are morons if you figure how smart is the president ( Bush )

then they are all as smart as a 3 rd grader.

I would hate to think what Vick is...what is two steps below a moron?

 

[Big Score]

A California congressman has joined the cause against Michael Vick, firing off a letter Friday that urged NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to "act swiftly and forcefully" if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in dog fighting on his former property.

Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick.

Not sure I understand where this congressman is coming from.

When it's proven Vick is involved in dog fighting (regardless of whether it occurred on his property or not), seems to me the government is going to be intervening regardless of what the NFL does.

Vick's going to be doing some jail time.

Not sure what more the NFL can do to Vick, discipline wise, while he's cooling his jets in the pokey & making sure not to drop the soap.

Unless the congressman is talking about the NFL suspending Vick upon his release, but that's a given, right?

 

[fatness]

Not sure I understand where this congressman is coming from.

He wants to be in the news, taking a "tough stand" on a current news issue he knows little about, to get attention and votes.

 

[3C's]

Congressman wants strong action against Vick

(May 18, 2007) -- A California congressman has joined the cause against Michael Vick, firing off a letter that urged NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to "act swiftly and forcefully" if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in dog fighting on his former property.

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that he's a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which two years ago held highly publicized hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick.

"I am outraged that one of the National Football League's superstars is affiliated with such a heinous enterprise," Lantos wrote.

Last month, police raised a Virginia home owned by Vick and allegedly found evidence of a major dog-fighting operation, including dozens off malnourished and injured dogs. The quarterback has denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.

Vick has since sold the home.

"The level of cruelty involved in exploiting animals to the point that 60 malnourished and injured dogs were removed from Mr. Vick's property is mind boggling," Lantos said. "I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity."

The NFL has said repeatedly it is investigating the case to determine if Vick violated the commissioner's tougher standards for players who run afoul of the law. Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts reiterated the team's policy of not commenting until the investigation is completed.

Calling himself a longtime advocate of animal welfare, Lantos joined two prominent animal-rights groups that have called on Goodell to suspend or ban any players involved in dog fighting.

"As evidence of Mr. Vick's involvement mounts, I implore you to act swiftly and forcefully," the congressman wrote. "Your strong rebuke of dog fighting -- and those who promote it -- will send the message that this all-too-prevalent practice has no place in a civilized society."

In a not-so-subtle threat of possible congressional action, Lantos reminded the commissioner of his committee's efforts to weed out those who use performance-enhancing drugs.

"I also suggest you educate your players on the illegality and cruelty of dog fighting to prevent this from happening again," Lantos wrote. "It is my hope that the issue of animal fighting will not require us to further investigate the behavior of your athletes."

AP NEWS

The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2007, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/ATL/10187667

Anybody still think the commish will give him a slap on the wrist?

Ridiculous but understandable he is a congressman looking for a power trip .Most congressmans are morons if you figure how smart is the president ( Bush )

then they are all as smart as a 3 rd grader.

This is making my brain hurt.

 

[TitusIII]

IMO, common sense tells me Vick knew about and participated in these dog fighting events. With that being said, the guy is too powerful for this to hit him, and I believe the NFL has his back. Doesn't change the "fact" that Vick is a walking piece of trash, who excites the hell out of me when he is playing football(which is all that really matters to the NFL)

 

[Dolfan]

...Most congressmans are morons ...

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

Point 1. She "believes"

Point 2. She does not know if "these tapes even exist"

Point 3. Grant immunity from prosecution for these "reluctant to testify" witnesses, for their testimony.

I don't understand the point you are making.

Look at what I quoted.

Your defense of Vick continues to be great shtick.

No defense of Vick, Pygmy. If you read the full unedited post #232 & not just the snippet of it that massraider quoted, you'll see it was simply pointing out that Kathy Strouse's story changes from interview to interview.

Regardless of conviction, I think Goodell gives him a vacation this year & the only question in my mind, is how long that vacation will be. I figure anywhere from 4 to 8 games.

Now if the authorities can find the evidence needed to convict Vick, he's going to the pokey anywhere up to 5 years.

The only conversations I've ever had with you on this board have been you defending Mike Vick. This doesn't seem to be any different. I'm amazed at how people continue to minimize things so Vick doesn't look so bad by attacking reporters' and officers' credibility.Hint: They're not the ones with the complete lack of credibility here. Vick is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Is portis a dog fighter or Does he just have mikes back?

http://www.wavy.com/global/video/popup/pop...=http://www.wav

Oh, in that case, it's all good. Thanks for clearing that up for me Kid bro sweets.

What a tool.

I've seen some stupid things before but that has to rank pretty high on the list.Portis might want to check out this page for a state by state breakdown of what charges accompany owning or even attending a dog fight. http://www.workingpitbull.com/dogfighting4.html

In most cases, just being a spectator is a felony.

THIS is the kind of stuff that will have Goodell going off on Vick. It's one that Vick is in trouble. But to have one of the premier faces of your league and favorite of NFL Network Portis to be brushing it off as Vick can have dog fights if he wants on his own property, THAT will not sit well with the commish.

What an idiot.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Transcript of the WAVY 10 TV video.

Portis: "I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not but it's his property, it's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it. You know? What people do behind close doors...Reporter: But that's a felony. It's a crime.Portis: "That can't be too bad of a crime."Portis: "You want to hunt down Michael Vick over fighting some dogs. I think people should mind their business."Portis: "You take somebody that's doing positive in the community. You take a positive role model and put them behind barsfor no reason, you know. Over a dog fight?"Portis was asked if he thought it was prevalent in the NFL or NBA he said, Portis: "It's prevalent in life. I'm from Laurel, Mississippi. I know a lot of backroads that's got a dog fight if you want to go see it, you know?"

Unreal.J

 

[Gandalf]

Portis either has no idea what dog fighting really is all about or is an idiot or both? Either way, why is he opining on this topic. He should focus on the rehab for his achy knee.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

Portis either has no idea what dog fighting really is all about or is an idiot or both. Either way, why is he opining on this topic. He should focus on the rehab for his achy knee.

I think Portis is an extremely talented RB, but I don't think there's any question he's an idiot.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Transcript of the WAVY 10 TV video.

Portis: "I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not but it's his property, it's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it. You know? What people do behind close doors...Reporter: But that's a felony. It's a crime.Portis: "That can't be too bad of a crime."Portis: "You want to hunt down Michael Vick over fighting some dogs. I think people should mind their business."Portis: "You take somebody that's doing positive in the community. You take a positive role model and put them behind barsfor no reason, you know. Over a dog fight?"Portis was asked if he thought it was prevalent in the NFL or NBA he said, Portis: "It's prevalent in life. I'm from Laurel, Mississippi. I know a lot of backroads that's got a dog fight if you want to go see it, you know?"

Unreal.J

I am always amazed at the intellectual level of others. Its guys like this that make me feel smurt.