About a month ago, we wrote about Pet Pardons Contributing Editor Cayr Ariel Wulff (email), and her outrageous defense of Jeromie Williams, the Director of Operations for Pet Pardons Canada, and Managing Editor of Pet Pardons News.
Jeromie was fired by The Examiner for fabricating stories, and is also known for his ChipIn scams and embezzlement from animal rescue groups. It never made sense why Cayr Ariel Wulff would defend this behaviour. Especially considering his long history of criminal harassment and death threats, for which he is currently under investigation by Canadian and American police.
But now, it all makes sense to me.
You see, Cayr has admitted that she was mis-using funds raised for Pet Pardons to “save the life of the next animal just moments away from being abused or killed,” instead using them towards her own dogs’ medications and veterinary expenses:
This is rather curious to me, since the journalist donation button she refers to on the Pet Pardons page has been inoperable for many months, ever since Jeromie Williams’ associated PayPal account, email@example.com, was suspended because of one fraud or another.
As we have also noted, Cayr has also recently written a series of disgusting articles claiming that employees at the Fairfield County Dog Shelter in Ohio are burning dogs alive, based on unnamed “eyewitness accounts.” As it turns out, these witnesses were simply made up, like many of Jeromie’s fake witnesses.
Now, this made no sense to me. She seems to be claiming that the witness, her source, was an animal rescuer. This would mean that:
- The dog shelter workers burned dogs alive in front of independent animal rescuer(s),
- These witness(es) apparently had no objection to this at the time, and just allowed the dogs to be burned alive, without trying to intervene, and
- The whistleblower who revealed the horrific practice of burning dogs alive would be ostracised, not celebrated as a hero, and
- The witness(es) told absolutely no one else about what they saw… Except Cayr Ariel Wulff and/or Jeromie Williams.
You can check this last point for yourself: Simply google “Ohio dogs burned alive”: Pet Pardons News is the only source.
Well, I wasn’t born yesterday, so I asked her why literally no one else had reported the story. Her response?
That is a lie.
In fact, in Channel 10’s original story on the Commissioners’ meeting, on August 7, 2012, discusses only the gas vs. lethal injection debate at the meeting. There is no mention of dogs burning alive.
What Cayr was clearly referring to, however, was their story on August 14, 2012, in which a woman on the street condemns the shelter for burning dogs alive, throwing “them into a incinerator when they are not dead.” She read they do this, no doubt, in Cayr’s article published on August 10, 2012.
Note that the reporter was unable to confirm this story. I contacted other local media as well, including the Lancaster Eagle-Gazette, and no one was able to confirm the story. No one had heard from any witnesses, or seen any affidavit, claiming that dogs were burned alive at Fairfield.
And yet, Cayr’s next two posts label the shelter as an “Ohio Dog Burning Shelter”:
- On August 13, 2012, Cayr notes that a “second witness,” Janice Kobi, President/Founder at Fairfield County C.A.R.E.S., alleged that county commissioners and dog shelter officials wanted to somehow profit from killing dogs via “Dog Composting” (just how this would generate profit is never explained).
- Also on August 13, 2012, Cayr notes that former Deputy Animal Warden Bobbi Glass said she had “witnessed the overcrowding of gassing cages, sometimes filled up to fifteen dogs, and she witnessed animals coming out of the gas chamber that were not dead. She said that the animals would go back through for a second gassing.“
Note, they would go back through for a second gassing, not into a fire. Neither of these witnesses claimed they saw dogs being burned alive.
Even on the video from NBC’s Channel 4 News, attached to Cayr’s final story announcing a change in policy to lethal injections on August 14, 2012, the allegation that dogs were burned alive is not even mentioned, let alone given as a reason for the change in policy. (It’s also ironic Cayr uses the video from Channel 4, not Channel 10, which she falsely claims reported the story on dogs being burned alive.)
It seems as though when you have a following so big as Pet Pardons does, you can say just about anything. Some of those people will believe you. They have faith in you, and would never imagine you would lie to them. Or that you would keep the money they donated to save animals.
Of course it turns out that their faith in Pet Pardons is badly misplaced.