Some acts of scientific creativity deserve recognition. After finding her dead cat, a Virginia woman named Marylin Christian had a number one suspect: her neighbor?s dog, a German Shepard mix named Lucky. According to the linkurl:Washington Post;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/08/AR2006010801330_pf.html, the woman, armed with memories of TV crime shows, asked Lucky?s owners for samples of saliva and fur. They obliged. Her county vet concluded that Lucky?s fur matched that found at the crime scene. And a California DNA lab that analyzed the evidence for $500 concluded that Lucky had, in fact, played a pivotal role in the cat?s death. However, officials said that, even with DNA evidence, they couldn?t find the dog guilty as charged. The reason? No witnesses. If the dog had been found guilty, it would have been declared dangerous by the county, requiring his owners to take out at least $50,000 in liability insurance, lock the dog inside and keep...
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?