Because as an investigative journalist I suck!
I would never win a Walkley Award because I don't check my facts. I base all my stories on momentary observations and large leaps to wrong conclusions.
For those of you who don't read regularly and those of you with short term memory issues, you may not recall my post of a couple of days ago so I'll give you the Reader's Digest version. For those of you who read and memorised it verbatim feel free to skip ahead.
I left a couple of pieces of chocolate out the other night. On a low coffee table. In reach of my perfect dog. As a test. In the morning I found this wrapper. Covered in saliva. No chocolate.
My conclusion? The temptation was too great. And my perfect dog is only a near-perfect one.
What I didn't do was ask any witnesses to the crime. Nor did I have the saliva forensically tested for species. If I had had the saliva tested I would have found that it was (drum roll please) ... human!!
I'd found the wrapper in the bin so my assumption had been that Iven had found it on the floor after Toby had devoured the contents. I'd set this test for Toby - but I hadn't told anyone else that there was an experiment under-way and not to tamper with the equipment. I'd also assumed that no one in my family would consider chocolate to be breakfast food. Because I have trained them better than that.
My house of ill-conceived cards came tumbling down that evening when I finally remembered to tell Iven about my little test. He had the grace to look sheepish and to confess that the chocolate had tasted amazing with his morning cup of tea.
And with that confession Toby was restored to perfect status. Iven - not so perfect but at least he has enough conscience to not let the dog take the blame.