Wilton, CT: Disinformation and Disinformers Abound in So-Called Pit Bull Attack

After the horrific attack by a so-called pit bull on Wilton, Connecticut resident Anne Murray over a week ago, the “official” story seems to have changed several times.   For instance, as I wrote in my initial post about the Wilton case, headlines saying a woman’s arms had been ripped off, that she owned the attacking dog, that the dog was a pit bull but then wasn’t a pit bull, kept changing and many of the details ended up being incorrect or downright untrue.

Via this blog post, I was attacked by radical animal rightists and Dogsbite.org disciples and called “bizarre” and a “sociopath” for merely conjecturing about what had made the dog attack.   While the animal rightists claimed it was nature, or more specifically genetics, that made the dog attack, I wondered if there was something more sinister afoot.   Apparently I wasn’t alone as the Wilton Police had many of the same questions I did.

Still, during the uproar surrounding the Wilton case, I dared to call into question the term “pit bull” as I always do; I wondered if the dog had been dosed with something; I wondered if the son who actually owned the dog and had a criminal background, might have been involved in dog fighting or some other criminal activity that may have had something to do with the attack on Ms. Murray.  

Almost in direct answer to my very theorizing, out came this piece on the Wilton, Connecticut Patch.   And what do you know, the author seemed to be addressing all of my concerns.  

According to “authorities,” the dog in question was an American Staffordshire Terrier, meaning, to them, a pit bull, which the ASPCA, along with the Wilton Bulletin, “confirmed.”   But then there was the Connecticut Post who, on the same day, Nov. 19, also “confirmed” the dog in question was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and, along with the article, ran a photo of a dog that was decidedly not a Staffordshire Bull Terrier.   In   other words, the “authorities,” the ASPCA, and the media, have no idea what a pit bull is, no idea what breed the dog that attacked Ms. Murray was, and no idea of the difference between what they called a pit bull and an American Staffordshire Terrier and a Staffordshire Bull Terrier.  

We have yet to see a picture of the attacking dog in question, and according to the Wilton Patch, the dog’s remains are being tested for the ingestion of any foreign substances which addresses my concern that the dog was dosed with something.   Additionally, the police lieutenant who is investigating the incident looked at the son’s criminal background and ruled out dog fighting even as I had wondered if the son’s criminal background might have had something to do with the incident.   These are all things I mentioned in my initial post; things for which I was called “bizarre” and “sociopathic” for questioning.

I’m going to keep conjecturing about the Wilton case, because it seems like every time I question the “official” story and how it keeps changing, it seems to change again in direct answer to my questioning.   Since Wilton Police said “We don’t know when the results will be available, to see if there was any type of foreign substance ingested,” and since theirs is the only chain of custody for the evidence, I wonder what they’ll do when they say the lab results showed the dog didn’t ingest anything, I contend that the dog was clearly dosed, and yet they deny it.   Will the story simply change again?  

Regardless of the fact that the “official” story keeps changing whenever it is met with disbelief — just like it did in California earlier this year with a supposed pit bull “pack attack” on what they first claimed were 240 goats that later got reduced to the supposedly more believable 160 goats, and later in Waterloo, Iowa where outlandish “pit bull” attacks kept happening over and over until the Waterloo City Council decided to steer away from breed-specific legislation and the absurd “pit bull” attacks mysteriously just stopped — it is nonetheless clear that the dog in question, “Tux,” was dosed, meaning he was drugged to make him behave that way.   The only question I have left to ask is, dosed by whom?

Given last Thursday’s go-around with radical animal rightists and/or Dogsbite.org disinformers, I would say the dog was dosed by radical animal rightists looking to push and pass some onerous piece of legislation, like breed-specific legislation (BSL), in Wilton or Connecticut on the whole.   And let’s not forget that PBLNN did a wonderful piece illustrating that  Dogsbite.org‘s Colleen Lynn herself changed her own dog bite story a few times, which PBLNN illustrated to call into question Ms. Lynn’s own credibility.   So, when you look at those casting aspersions, consider the source, and ask yourself what they were trying to hide when they made their defense a supposedly good offense, even as no one had yet accused them of anything.

Radical animal rightists poisoning, dosing, or in some other way harming innocent animals is not at all unheard of.   After all, Cruz, a prize-winning pedigree dog was poisoned with rat poison just days after Westminster, his owner believed by animal rights activists.   Likewise, pit bulls are often poisoned by animal rightists because pit bulls are frequently abused.   In the warped minds of radicals, it is better that the dog die a horribly painful poisoning death than live constantly chained or tethered outside or in a kennel.   Gee, whatever happened to calling Animal Control?   Oh but then killing innocent animals falls so much more in line with their agenda to end domestic animal ownership.  

The Department of Homeland Security noted in a 2008 report that militants often engage in assaults on humans which likewise involve poison:

Assaults can range from throwing a pie in someones face to mailing envelopes containing razor blades coated in rat poison, which in fact were sent to more than eighty people in the United States and Canada in 1999 by ecomilitants (Oct. 1999, Justice Department report).

Animals or humans, it seems to make no difference to them who they poison, threaten, or even kill.   And, as the DHS noted, poison is often their weapon of choice.

Besides suspecting radicals of poisoning innocent animals, the dog lobby has for years heard rumors about staged pit bull attacks and has been talking about it on the back channels.   They have been reluctant to talk about it publicly, however, because they are afraid of being called crazy, being publicly shamed, or worse.   Yet we must speak up because people are getting hurt.  

But as I’ve illustrated, theorizing that Tux was dosed is not coming out of left-field as even the authorities have had Tux’s remains tested for foreign substances.   You can understand, however, why the radicals might want to make the public believe that such speculation is crazy.   In fact, when I mentioned in my prior post that dog fighters often dose their dogs to make them meaner before a fight, I also noted that the idea originally came from several articles in the 1980’s, not the least of which was this Time magazine article.   The articles, which were suspected to have been put out by radical animal rights groups, actually acted as primers to teach inner-city minority youths how to fight their dogs.   In this way, radical animal rights groups created the very problem for which they later claimed to be the only “solution.”

What was that “solution”?   Breed bans, just for a start.   Was that racist?   You bet.   Was that cruel to animals?   Oh definitely.   But then it suited the radicals’ agenda to end domestic animal ownership so it was hardly surprising.   In fact, none of the ruthlessness of the radical animal rightists and their backers should be a surprise: they don’t value human or animal life.

And if I’m “bizarre” and “sociopathic” (which, when I apply Psych 101 to their name-calling could very well just be them projecting their guilty consciences onto me), then why was I hacked after writing about Waterloo’s preposterous “pit bull” attacks?   Why after writing about the Wilton case was I hacked via a denial-of-service attack?   Why was one of my blog posts stolen and then redirected to a radical animal rightist website?   Why are posts like this one frequently censored? Why have I been slandered and mocked behind the scenes, even amongst my own supposed “allies”?   In other words, there are people out there trying very hard to shut me down, censor me, or scorn me into silence.   They only go to these great lengths when someone is telling the truth, not when they think someone is crazy.  

Don’t get me wrong.   I’m not playing victim here either; just illustrating how these radicals operate.   Indeed, this kind of onslaught happens to anyone in the dog lobby who dares to tell the truth and is emphatic in doing so.   For instance, The North Country Gazette had their AdSense account canceled, thereby shutting off their revenue stream, by those who repeatedly loaded specific pages on their site that they wanted shut down during the whole Ireland/Lennox debacle.   In other words, I’m certainly not the only one in the dog lobby who has ever been hacked or called names.

There are those in the dog lobby who know exactly what I’m talking about, including this commenter to my blog who bravely acknowledged that,

” . . . it has long been the theory of many bull breed owners that ˜stealth attacks by some sort of unknown dog who is never seen again have been set ups . . . “

There are still others who stay quiet out of fear.   But I submit to them that if they do not stand now for the truth, no one will be safe.   Why?   Because these radicals are the ones who are chipping away at our rights, and not just animal rights radicals and not just via harmful animal legislation either.   These radicals chip away at our God-given, inalienable rights, which are the only things keeping us safe from these rights-negating, treasonous marauders.

You have to ask yourself, too, why, when I wrote about the Wilton case last week, did radicals come out one after another to barrage me with insults and implications that I’m crazy.   If you think someone’s actually crazy, you dismiss them; you don’t repeatedly harangue them or lambast them in an attempt to so intimidate them that they stop writing.  

So now if you’re asking me who I think is to blame for the horror that Anne Murray suffered last week, I think the radicals are the guilty parties.   I think they dosed poor Tux (and remember the Wilton Police had Tux’s blood tested for “foreign substances”), and turned him into a weapon which they then turned on poor, unsuspecting Anne Murray.   After all, anyone could have had access to Tux as he was repeatedly found free-roaming.  

As I also noted via my comments in responding to the radicals that attempted to post comment after comment of insults and gibes on the initial Wilton post, they wouldn’t have gotten so nervous if my theorizing hadn’t gotten close to the truth.   You see, great minds will debate a well-reasoned argument; small minds, and perhaps guilty minds, will simply name-call and play nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

The dog lobby has seen this many times before.   Any time anyone gets too close to the truth, these radicals send out what I call disinformers to bully and name-call the truth-teller into retracting their statements, or at the very least, so that others who read the truth-teller’s arguments will be persuaded into thinking the truth-teller is crazy or fabricating the truths that they’re telling.  

And again, if I’m so crazy, then why was my blog hacked repeatedly after posting my initial Wilton, Connecticut post?   Why are posts like these censored?   Why do these radicals slander me behind the scenes and anyone else who fights their lies?   Why do they try so hard to control and steer the public towards so-called “compromises” which are exactly the pieces of legislation they were planning to pass in the first place?  

A few years ago, I was accused of being a coward for supposedly anonymously blogging about a very corrupt city councilman; i.e. I was accused of speculating about the corruption and malfeasance of a very public figure from the supposed cloak of obscurity.   I almost have to laugh when my detractors say ridiculous things like that, because as you can see from  Rose Solesky’s comment (yes, that Solesky) about the Wilton case after she slipped and acknowledged she knew I was a woman and therefore knew exactly who I was, there is no such thing as anonymity anymore and certainly not on the Internet.  

Indeed, these radicals will stop at nothing to get at you via their psy-ops and lies.   In fact, as another brave commenter to this blog once wrote, those pushing breed-specific legislation have often even hired private investigators to profile and target pit bull owners, and those in the dog lobby have been no exception.   They want to know who you are, who you talk to, and from where you get your information.   They also want to know, like poor, unsuspecting Anne Murray, if you’ll make a good victim.

Like I said, if I was crazy, they’d just dismiss me.   But precisely because I am telling the truth, and the truth is more plausible than their constantly-changing stories, particularly about the Wilton case, they have to try to defame me and therefore, they think, discredit me.   But as I have so often said, the more lies they tell and the more they come at the dog lobby, the more we’re going to tell the truth about them.

Moreover, to those out there in the dog lobby who have been silent, yet are reading about the Wilton case with intrigue, perhaps it’s time for you to stand up and tell the truth like the fearless commenters to my blog have.   After all, if you’re telling the truth it doesn’t matter what they say about you.   And you know what?   It’s well past time.    


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *