Attorney Uses "Pit Bulls Did It" Defense For Accused Miami Dade Cat Killer

Just about a year ago I posted an extremely gruesome story concerning the arrest of 19-year-old Tyler Weinman, suspected of wantonly mutilating and killing 21 cats in Cutler Bay and Palmetto Bay, located in Broward County in the Miami-Dade Florida area. Apparently the suspected teen-age perpetrator, who was accused of committing the wanton rash of acts of animal cruelty, went on a rampage of murdering 21 innocent outdoor cats in these neighborhoods. And since the descriptions of these crimes are extremely brutal and gory I won't repeat all the highly disturbing details. Due to the highly alarmed and terrified neighborhood cat owners, Palmetto Bay Mayor, Mayor Eugene Flinn, advised people to keep their cats indoors until a determination of the cause of these feline deaths could be made, and until such time there was no longer a risk to the feline population. Additionally, The Humane Society of the United States offered a $2,500 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of what they referred to as "serial cat killings.'' And while there was no forensic evidence proving that Weinman killed these cats, according to an item on change.org, police reported that in an interview, Weinman attempted to cut a deal. Quoting Weinman, "OK, so let me see if I understand. As long as I tell you about the cats that I did, you can get rid of the others?" But he immediately called his attorney before he made any confession. So let's fast- forward to the present. Apparently Weinman's attorney is now resorting to the "Pitbulls did it" defense for his client. His attorney possibly may be justifying it based on test results obtained from 11 of the slain cats which yielded no human DNA. However results from scalpels and other evidence taken from Weinman's residence have not yet been received. What I don't understand about this defense, which seems to me to border on that famous "Twinkie" defense used in California during the 1979 trial of former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White. White, who assassinated Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, was convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter instead of murder. His attorney justified White's acts based on his long string of hardships resulting in extreme depression. This depression caused White to consume sugar-rich junk food, which was responsible for White's rational thought to be diminished. Incredibly this defense was successful as it convinced jurors that these slayings were not premeditated. Jurors convicted White of Voluntary manslaughter instead of murder. While it is true that dogs may attack cats and kill them, unless there are some very surgically adept Pitbull dogs roaming in the Broward County area, I think that Weinman's attorney's defense is improbable, flimsy and unfairly prejudicial. Pitbull dogs are far too often wrongly accused and conveniently blamed for violent behavior. Besides, dogs don't "skin", "bash in" or surgically "decapitate" their victims. As far as I am concerned, based on the physical description of the appearance of the slain cats, someone must have gone out of their way to be very careful about not leaving any traces of their DNA or other identifying evidence. Additionally with the discovery of scalpels at the Weinman home, while it is circumstantial evidence, it seems to be rather compelling to me. While Weinman faces 21 charges of animal cruelty, to be fair he must still be considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. I dearly hope that the accused Pitbull dogs receive the same respect they deserve and that the jury examines all the evidence with an open mind to arrive at an unbiased decision. What are your thoughts about this story? Do share by leaving a comment. Image source: flickr user jlantzy