Puppy Jack Has Been Falsely Accused!

I know Puppy Jack isn't perfect. He poops on the porch. He eats Juno's food. He chases the chickens. He torments the goat. He swims with the fishes (literally!). He tears the cedar shake shingles off The Pony's Sword Shack. However...

PUPPY JACK IS NOT A TORONADO POOPER!

Hick is downright ridiculous with his accusations. First, it was poor dumb Ann who took the flack, back when Hick's favorite dog, old Grizzly, was alive. Then we got my sweet, sweet Juno, and she became public enemy #1, being blamed for all the egg-eating, even though poor dumb Ann was photographed many a time carrying one around in her mouth, and guarding it between her front paws in the yard.

Now Puppy Jack is at the top of Hick's MOST WANTED list.

As Puppy Jack's public defender, allow me to proceed to the opening argument. I will now present Exhibit A:

Let the record show that Puppy Jack is a small dog with short legs. This fact is also documented by Exhibit B:

Let the record further show that compared to a regular medium-sized dog, Puppy Jack is quite long, with a low center of gravity.

The Plaintiff asserts that Puppy Jack caused damage to Plaintiff's property on 8-25-16, that property being one 1980 Oldsmobile Toronado parked under Plaintiff's carport. Plaintiff alleges that on or about 8-25-16, the Defendant, Puppy Jack, did knowingly climb up on the trunk of Plaintiff's Toronado, the purpose being to defecate and leave a pile feces thereupon. The direct quote from the Plaintiff was, "Your dog took a sh!t on my Toronado!"

The Plaintiff purports that the Defendant jumped up on a bucket of sand placed behind the Toronado by the Plaintiff himself several weeks ago. That he then stepped over onto the bumper of said Toronado, and from there, climbed up on the trunk, where he defecated.

Please review Exhibit C:

While it might be possible for the Defendant to pull himself onto the bucket of sand, some footprints should be evident, even though Plaintiff claims he tampered with the evidence by putting another bucket of sand on top of this one, to prevent a repeat performance.

Please observe Exhibit D:

IF the Defendant indeed climbed onto the sand bucket, it is possible that he might have stepped over onto the bumper. We are not arguing this point. Please disregard the innocent companion of Puppy Jack in this photo, as she has not been accused of wrongdoing.

Please note Exhibit E:

Let the record show that the steepness of the trunk slope on a 1980 Oldsmobile Toronado precludes a small, shortlegged dog with a dachshund body from hoisting himself up onto the trunk. No claw marks were found, which would have been present from such an attempt. In addition, small four-toed footprints were found in dust on the trunk of the Toronado.

Let the record further show that three cats roam freely about the property, leaving dusty footprints on the hood of a 2008 black Chevrolet Tahoe, and also on the hood of a 2016  burgundy GMC Acadia.

I suggest that Puppy Jack had no motive to "Take a sh!t" on the Plaintiff's Toronado. He has a whole wraparound porch upon which to poop, and has happily been doing so for the past four-and-a-half months. Would it not be much easier to simply squat where one got the urge, rather than claw oneself onto the top of a bucket of sand, risk slipping off a shiny chrome bumper, eschew sh!tting on that bumper, in the level area by the license plate, and instead scrabble and claw (without leaving marks, mind you) to get onto the trunk of the Toronado to do one's business?

If you can't prove sh!t, you must acquit!

The defense rests.