Over the past week I’ve asked several uninvolved people whose analytical abilities equal or exceed my own to examine the story of the Injured Puppy. Of those only one responded with an initial “it’s the same animal.” When I asked why the conclusion was drawn the response was, “Why wouldn’t it be the same animal?”
The rest came to the same conclusion I drew: something is seriously wrong with the entire episode. The photograph of the injured pup, the post-op puppy and video puppy all fail to add up. One analyst said most of the same things I thought: the original photo’s staged quality, the indications of photoshopping, the miraculous healing within 72 hours, and especially the videos showing a puppy sporting a stitched incision in the same location as the original puppy but playing without any limping or even hesitation ten days after the injury. Others noted details I missed and made connections I hadn’t.
IF, and that’s a huge IF, the tale told by GARD is true the complaint submitted by my friend has some serious weight behind it. GARD has no excuse for withholding emergency veterinary care from that puppy for more than two full days. Claims of veterinary pain medication on-site need investigating to determine whether anyone at GARD has the proper license for that medication and if not, how and from whom GARD obtained it.
Fraud or cruelty— those are the only two options available to GARD. Which will investigators uncover?