It's a common blurb in many of those common, and often largely false, lists of "facts" on the net that a Bloodhound is the only animal who can testify in court.
Wouldn't the actions of a Bloodhound be more accuratly described as "evidence" and not "testimony?"
And if a Bloodhound can testify why can't a drug sniffing or bomb sniffing dog, or a search and rescue dog testify?
I wonder if they mean Bloodhound the breed, or Bloodhound in the sense of the role the animal is in in the investigation?
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |