The following is a transcript from Tallack’s appearance on the Stephen Nolan radio show, back in March 2011 (the one that slipped his mind on the Nando Brown Show [ link ].
Tallack waffles in his radio interviews, not because he’s nervous – far from it – but because he’s afflicted with the same condition as most other liars, the struggle to keep stories watertight in a live situation.
As you’ll see here and especially in the Nando Brown interview, he constantly evades the questions being put to him, traits of a liar attempting to give themselves more time or hope the interviewer forgets the question :
BBC Radio Ulster, The Nolan Show, Thursday 31 March 2011 [ link ]
Stephen Nolan :
…tragic for that family and clearly distraught the number this morning 08459****. The animal behaviour expert Peter Tallack who gave evidence at the court on Tuesday, with us this morning. Peter what’s your expert analysis of how dangerous this dog is or isn’t?
Peter Tallack :
It’s it’s .. I think anybody who’d sat through the court case all day Tuesday and Thursday and heard the evidence from both sides, not only the prosecution but the defence, would have to realise that Lennox has behavioural problems and had behavioural problems before this started, and of course listening it’s very emotional, anything to do with dogs is emotional. But I’ve been the expert witness in two fatalities in children quite recently, both in Liverpool, and listening to Ms Barnes I’m sure the parents of Ellie Lawrence and the parents of John Paul Massey might well have thought the same before. But I know for a fact they don’t feel the same now.
Why are you so sure that this particular dog has the potential to be so dangerous?
The the difficulty is that the the the legislation is very very harsh in some ways because it’s preventative legislation. Pit bull terriers are dangerous dogs per se but that doesn’t mean to say they all are. Generally speaking a well bred, well socialised pit bull terrier with a responsible owner will not cause a danger to a member of the public. The same as an experienced driver driving a Ferrari is no danger. But the few that go off the rails, the one or two that cause the problems, it’s like no other dog, it’s like no other domestic pet and that’s the problem, and it’s the realisation of their strength, their physical strength and also the genetics, it’s it’s their body signals they give off different signals to other dogs . I’m not anti-pitbull by any means but I have dealt with so many incidents now where people have not understood the breed and unfortunately after the incidents it’s too late.
And you told the court about an incident in which this dog tried to attack you, but you can say that about any breed and any dog. You were trying to put this dog into a kennel were you?
No no no what what no this is the difference, what we what we’re saying is and it’s now confirmed and accepted by the defence, this is a pit bull type dog. That then puts it in a different league than any other normal domestic pet. But in my experience of twenty over twenty years of pitbulls, the vast majority when you examine them or when you come along and meet them, are absolutely fine, their behaviour probably considering the confinement is better than most. So therefore to have a dog that tries to attack or tries to lunge is ..a pit bull type that’s being examined is actually quite unusual. And from the moment I…Lennox’s behaviour was unusual from the moment I met him, even accepting that he had only been in custody for a few days, he he never faced you, his eye contact always avoided and as soon as you turned your back he would lunge at you and these are really quite.. I mean in every domestic pet it would be a worrying trait, but in a pit bull type dog it is..
What do you mean lunge at you?
When I went to put him back in his kennel he flew back at the cage as I turned to close the gate and came back head high and anybody saw me on Tuesday, I’m six foot tall I’m not exactly a small guy.
Lots of glaringly obvious holes to pick here, the first being Tallack doesn’t correct Stephen Nolan’s description of him as an ‘animal behaviour expert’, and he’s obviously not a behavioural expert because he’s trying to imply that eye contact avoidance is an aggressive trait! That remark is so pathetic it doesn’t deserve another mention.
Lennox’s behavioural problem story is presumably something he and Lightfoot concocted together, with the approval of certain other employees at Belfast City Council. If not, where is the physical evidence to say otherwise, from either of them? We sure didn’t see it in the videos and stills of Lightfoot with Lennox, and as far as anyone is aware, Tallack was alone when he visited Lennox on two occasions. If not, where’s the evidence to the contrary?
When Stephen Nolan asks Tallack why he thinks Lennox in particular has the potential to be so dangerous, Tallack goes off on a tangent about pitbulls in general, but in his haste to avoid the question he seems to confuse himself, because first he says all pitbulls are, in themselves, dangerous, then says actually they’re not dangerous if bred and socialised correctly (yep, that pretty much applies to any breed of dog), then he says it’s only a few that ‘go off the rails’, but it’s only the odd ‘one or two’ that cause the problems. Huh?
When asked about the alleged incident where Lennox tried to attack him, Tallack does his level best to avoid the question, until Nolan asks him again, and his answer is limp and unconvincing by any standards.
This is the same man who,in court, was seen sweating profusely under cross-examination and told the judge he could not carry on because ‘people were staring at him’, and that is common knowledge.
So, Peter Charles Tallack was giving evidence (his version of it) in the dock of a public court with a public gallery full of people, and those people were looking at him? Shocking!
It gets better in the Nando Brown Show interview [ link ]