Animal Cruelty,  Georgia Animal Rescue & Defence Inc,  Injured Puppy,  Joy Bohannon

To believe or not to believe

This afternoon GARD claims to have photographs of the surgically repaired pup. After examining those photos closely I’m still not certain of the truth.

Once again we have no reference items in these photos. Nothing for scale, no people or logos or any other identifying information. The first sign of fraud is consistent, intentional vagueness.

The EXIF data indicates the first of the post-op photos was uploaded tomorrow (2020:09:09 03:29:13) so yet another EXIF impossibility unless someone has intentionally screwed up their camera/phone date/time settings, and why would one do that?

The post-op puppy strongly resembles the injured puppy but two significant differences popped out:

  1. Injured puppy’s prepuce isn’t at all clear and appears almost fake, perhaps something stuck on the pup’s belly while the post-op pup’s prepuce is quite distinct.
  2. Extent of white fur on belly and chin doesn’t match

On the other hand the white fur on the tip of the left hind paw appears to match.

The chest tube is consistent with both the original injury and the necrosis one would expect from a wound of that severity left untreated >48 hours.

IF this is the same animal, there is NO WAY that pup is resting comfortably in the photo below.

The damage to the sternocephalic, cleidocephalic, trapezuis and perhaps omotransverse muscles on the left side around to the left dorsal region would render the pup’s forequarters immobile, especially raising the head and placing weight on the front left elbow. And that doesn’t even take nerve damage into account. The idea the post-op pup is the same pup as the original pup is almost negated based on this one photo alone.

https://www.imaios.com/en/vet-Anatomy/Dog/Dog-General-anatomy-Illustrations
https://www.imaios.com/en/vet-Anatomy/Dog/Dog-General-anatomy-Illustrations

Several people whose judgment I absolutely trust agree that the wound isn’t consistent with what they’d expect on a living animal and the pup in the original photo is almost certainly dead. Given the contradictions above I’m not sure what to believe.

I’m still leaning toward the injured pup being dead at the time of the photo, which means GARD got the post-op photos somewhere else. Or, God forbid, they recreated the injury on a puppy sufficiently similar to the original pup to make small differences in coat pattern irrelevant to the casual viewer. I have zero hard evidence that Joy Bohannon injured another dog for this purpose but neither do I doubt Joy Bohannon would inflict a similar injury on a pup to support the initial lie. Or perhaps it’s all a Photoshop scam. Extremely good images can be created given the hardware, software and experience. Would GARD pay for photoshopped images in hopes of boosting their flagging donations? Absolutely.

I seriously doubt Joy Bohannon knows how to handle a puppy suffering hemorrhagic shock. If bags of IV veterinary opiates are lying around GARD a call to the DEA is coming very soon. I have better odds of hitting the Mega-Million than that pup had of enduring >48 hours in GARD’s filthy facility with a gaping wound and no supportive care without developing sepsis and/or other infections. Maybe a trip to the local convenience store is in order. . ..

2 Comments

  • Old Ben

    In 1983, the J. Paul Getty Museum in California acquired a statue on loan. The art dealer who sold the statue claimed that it was an ancient Greek kouros—a very rare kind of ancient marble statue. The statue was in near-perfect condition—so perfect that the Getty officials suspected that it was a fake. However, the art dealer produced legal documentation, showing that the statue had been bought legitimately, rather than stolen. Furthermore, art historians determined that the statue was covered in a layer of calcite, which must have taken thousands of years to form—therefore, it seemed likely that the statue was real. The Getty officially bought the statue for ten million dollars in the fall of 1986.

    There was a problem with the Getty statue—it just “didn’t look right.” One art historian who saw the statue for the first time decided that the statue was a fake almost immediately. Another expert looked at the statue for a couple seconds and then told the Getty board of trustees not to buy it—she had an “instinctive sense” that something wasn’t right. A few years later, it turned out that the art dealer who’d sold the statue to the Getty was a liar—the documents he’d produced to verify the statue’s legitimacy were proved to be forgeries. Furthermore, the statue turned out to be a strange pastiche of half a dozen other Greek statues. Finally, experts discovered that it is possible to create a layer of calcite around a statue in a few years, rather than many centuries. In short, it took years for experts to decide that the statue was a fake—the same information that other art historians had gotten in just a few seconds. Blink, Gladwell informs us, is about what goes on in the human mind in those few seconds.

    • Casey

      Amazing to what lengths frauds will go for money.

      My gut says this puppy was dead to start with and all the rest of it is damage control/more fraud. I hold myself to my own standards though and have to have hard data to support my gut before I come to a solid conclusion.

      GARD is starting to respond to me on Facebook. Now we’re getting somewhere. 😀

Leave a Reply to Old Ben Cancel reply

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