Answering questions about Vick, alleged dogfighting

	Prosecutor Gerald G. Poindexter claims he has informants who can connect Falcons QB Michael Vick to dogfighting AP

By George Dohrmann, SI.com

At the start of his investigation into alleged dogfighting on the Virginia property owned by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, Surry County prosecutor Gerald Poindexter said, "I don't try cases in the press." That is a common refrain for a prosecutor in a high-profile investigation, and it usually means there won't be updates on evidence until the probe is complete.

But much of the confusion over the Vick case and many of the questions I received via email after my story was posted on SI.com earlier this week, center on Poindexter's comments about the evidence he has found in the month since the raid on Vick's property. At various times, Poindexter has said there is no evidence Vick was involved, that he saw clear evidence of dogfighting, that there were no witnesses to dogfighting on the property, that there were witnesses who claimed Vick fought dogs. And then, on Thursday, when a reporter from WAVY-TV in Virginia asked if Poindexter had evidence that put Vick at dogfights, Poindexter replied: "Yes. We have informants. We have people who are volunteering to make those allegations."

Early in the investigation, Poindexter may have felt he needed to comment because of remarks by animal control officials who were lobbying for charges against Vick and, in the process, questioning Poindexter's competence. But in the past two weeks, those critics have been silenced, yet Poindexter continues to talk. As a result, he is doing exactly what he said he wouldn't do: trying the case in the media.

"I don't understand it and I don't think a lot of people understand it," said one investigator with ties to the case. "He says one thing but does another."

Poindexter has cited the actions of Michael Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse scandal, as an example of how a prosecutor can let politics influence a decision to bring an indictment. He vowed not to repeat that mistake, but given the variety and regularity of his comments, it's understandable that readers would be emailing me questions such as: "Is the prosecutor being vigilant in his pursuit of the truth or just talking a lot?"

Among the common questions that came up in the hundreds of emails I received:

• Why hasn't anyone been charged yet?

Building a dogfighting case is difficult because it rarely includes eyewitness accounts or video of dogfighting. Most cases are built on a lot of circumstantial evidence and that takes time to organize. "Just because someone has 66 dogs doesn't make them a dogfighter," says Mark Kumpf, an animal control officer and dogfighting expert who has testified at several trials. "Just because someone has 66 dogs and two treadmills doesn't make them a dogfighter. It's when you add up piece after piece after piece after piece that you begin to see the case."

That is why dogfighting cases are hard to build and hard to prosecute, and perhaps why Poindexter has not announced charges. Another thing to consider: In the biggest dogfighting case in Surry County prior to this one, animal control officers seized 33 dogs in 2000 from the property of Benjamin Butts, as well as treadmills, animal hides, video footage of dogfights and veterinary supplies. Even though animal control officials such as Kumpf said Butts was a well-known dogfighter and even though the sheriff's department investigated the case for months, Butts was not prosecuted and the dogs were returned to him. The prosecutor on that case, by the way, was Poindexter.

Poindexter has said he could present evidence to a special grand jury at any time and given the fluidity of his remarks, it would be foolish to treat any date as hard one. One benchmark worth noting is July 24, the day a grand jury is scheduled to meet in Surry County. That would be almost two months after the raid and a seemingly reasonable amount of time to complete an investigation of this scope.