“What evidence?” I don’t believe you asked that question. What’s wrong with you? Don’t you have a clue how to argue in good faith? I’m beginning to get disgusted with your behavior here DP.

8 cats are preserved. ALL 8 are attributed to animal predation. 8 for 8. What are the odds?

“I believe the evidence strongly suggests he is [cat killer]”

What “evidence” Max? What verifiable, tangible, testable, reliable evidence?

“Our job is to seek the truth and the truth is that this was done by an animal predator, not by a human being,” Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle said.

Police and prosecutors, who initially relied on the opinions of Miami-Dade’s Animal Services Department, built a circumstantial and highly publicized case in the mutilations that terrorized pet owners in the communities of Cutler Bay and Palmetto Bay.

No DNA linked Weinman to eight preserved animal carcasses and finally, a defense forensic veterinarian concluded that an animal was to blame for the killings. Two state experts agreed.

“They peeled back underneath the skin and found puncture wounds and that was the end of the case,” Fernández Rundle said. “This is a classic case of scientific evidence trumping a circumstantial case.”

Hmm, maybe I should have read the whole document, after all…

Although this is true, it’s a half-truth – you need to read the entire document to understand what really went on and why prosecutors dropped the charges.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/63956580/Tyler-Weinman-Closeout-Memoranum

Based on forensic evidence of the 8 remains, which conclusively proved that all had been killed by a large animal and NOT a human being, the State Attorney moved to clear Tyler Weinman of all the charges (the day before Thanksgiving) and issued the following statement in their “summary” — “Since no human being killed these cats, there is no animal cruelty.”