Veterinarian testifies about injuries animals sustained in alleged dog fighting ring
A veterinarian on Thursday identified dozens of scars, broken teeth and patches of hair missing on 13 dogs rescued from an alleged dog-fighting ring in Wilkinsburg.
“When I first saw them, they were scared,” said Dr. Ann Cirillo, a veterinarian at Seven Fields Veterinarian Hospital who examined the animals the night they were removed from Darryl Bryant's house.
After the examinations were over, Cirillo said, “they were kissing us all on the face. ... They were wonderful dogs.”
Bryant, 49, is charged with two counts of animal fighting and one count of possessing an instrument of crime. His trial before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Thomas E. Flaherty began on Thursday.
Cirillo identified scars on almost all of the dogs, most of which were pit bull-terrier mixes between 5 months and 5 years old. She said their injuries were not consistent with normal play.
Police raided Bryant's home on Bessica Street on Feb. 24, 2012, to find the dogs caged in the basement. Police discovered spatters of dried dog blood and equipment used to condition dogs for fighting, including a treadmill and bite sticks. They found medical supplies for treating injuries.
Bryant's attorney, Samir Sarna, said the evidence does not add up to a dog-fighting operation. He declined to comment further.
Flaherty scolded Bryant after a lunch break for having reportedly approached a juror at a Downtown McDonald's. Flaherty said if Bryant does it again, he'll revoke Bryant's bond.
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.