DogsBite Blog ::

dog bite statistics

Tuesday, June 29, 2010


Pit Bull Owner Lies After Dog Declared 'Dangerous,' Dog Attacks Again

Alorah and Julie Havern 2 months after pit bull attack
Alorah Havern and her mother Julie Havern, November 10, 2009.

1-12 Month Sentence
UPDATE 06/29/10: On May 3, Matthew J. Havern pleaded guilty to charges of dog attack causing serious injury, failing to register a dangerous dog, failure to maintain liability insurance for a dangerous dog, and failure to obtain a rabies shot and a license for his dog. In exchange for his plea, the Erie County District Attorney's Office dropped the critical and more serious charges of reckless endangerment, tampering with evidence and a misdemeanor dog attack count.
The plea agreement charges carried a maximum possible sentence of up to seven years in prison and a $50,600 fine.
On June 28, Judge Shad Connelly sentenced Havern to serve one to 12 months in prison for failing to control his dog. He was also ordered to serve two years of probation, pay court costs, $550 in fines and perform 100 hours of community service. Despite Havern's deceit and horribly reckless conduct, which resulted in two children left facially disfigured, missing permanent teeth and irreversible eye damage, the sentence was in the "standard range" of sentencing guidelines.
  • Erie County District Attorney Jack Daneri is up for re-election in 2011. One has to wonder how high up the chain-of-command the plea bargain was reviewed and approved? And, was the victim or victim's family consulted before the plea agreement was offered or accepted by his office?

  • Erie County Judge Shad Connelly is up for re-election in 2015. The article states that Daneri asked for a sentence in the "aggravated range." So why did Judge Connelly only sentence Havern in the "standard range?" Would it have taken a third child attacked by Havern's dog to qualify?
The Second Attack Mirrors First

10/04/09: Two Children Severely Injured
Millcreek, PA - On September 16, 2009, 3-year old Alorah Havern was viciously attacked by a pit bull-mix while being babysat at her grandmother's home. The grandmother, Debbie Havern1, often watched the child at Alorah's home. But on that day, she brought the child to her own home in Millcreek to do some laundry. Also living at the home was her 25-year old son Matthew Havern and his 7-year old dog. The results of this combination proved disastrous.

Alorah, who continues to be treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, will be permanently scarred by the attack doctors have told her family and may be blind in one eye as well. The nerve damage, according to doctors, is also likely permanent. Alorah's mother, Julie Havern2, said her daughter suffered a fractured skull and required more than 300 stitches to close her wounds. She also lost many teeth and had many bones in her face shattered.
In November 2006, this same dog attacked the 4-year old daughter of Matthew's girlfriend. Her injuries included: partial loss of sight in one eye, a broken jaw and the loss of many teeth.
We wish we were writing to you from the Twilight Zone, but we are not. The girlfriend3 from the first attack is apparently still in a relationship with Matthew. According to the article, she has talked to him "repeatedly" about the need to euthanize his dog, named Graham. She said Matthew has not brought the dog within sight of her or her daughter since the 2006 incident. Yet Graham has since attacked a different child in the family causing devastating injury again.

Q: Why wasn't Graham euthanized after the first attack?
A: Pennsylvania State law.

Like many states, after a dog inflicts "severe injury," Pennsylvania declared the dog "dangerous" and required its owner to abide by new rules, such as keeping the dog in a secure enclosure; attaining liability insurance; and posting warning signs. Unwilling to adhere to the requirements, Matthew lied. In a written statement, he told the dog warden he "gave" the dog to a person in New York State. Not long after, Matthew and his dog moved into his mother's Millcreek home.

Q: How easy was it for Matthew to lie to Pennsylvania officials?
A: Provide a false written statement.

We frequently run across owners of dogs declared "dangerous" that say to judges, "I'm sending my dog out of state." The judge okays the arrangement dismissing the danger the dog will pose to its new location and that the dog's bite record may be erased upon crossing state lines, whereby eliminating a future victim's claim against it. As the case of Matthew demonstrates, one now must question how many of these dog owners simply lie, keep their dog and relocate nearby.

Matthew Havern is Being Charged

Matthew Havern, pit bullMillcreek authorities have charged Matthew J. Havern with at least seven offenses including: 1.) Owning an animal that caused severe injury or death 2.) An attack by a "dangerous" dog 3.) Failure to register and restrain 4.) Failure to vaccinate 5.) Failure to license 6.) Reckless endangerment and most notably, 7.) Tampering with physical evidence because Matthew attempted to leave the scene of the attack in a vehicle with his two-time mauler, named Graham.

Q: Why should any state law trust a "Matthew" or known mauler over the rights of future victims?
A: No state law should.4

Faced with seven charges, Matthew "agreed" to have the dog put down September 17.

Havern Catastrophic Fund
Donations to the "Havern Catastrophic Fund" can be made in person or sent by mail to either Americo Federal Credit Union locations.

1Debbie Havern is Julie Havern's mother-in-law. It is unknown if Debbie faces charges.
2Julie Havern is married to Tom, which we presume is the brother of Matthew Havern.
3The girlfriend, whose daughter was attacked by Matthew's dog in 2006, did not want to be identified.
4Due to Dog Mauling Fancier groups that protect owners of dangerous dogs and humane groups who believe, "A dog shouldn't be euthanized just because it ripped the teeth out of two children and broke a few jaws," we have state laws that allow second and third chances for dogs that have already inflicted severe injury.

Related articles:
09/08/09: Typical "Deviant" Pit Bull Owner Captured on Video at Special Magistrate Hearing
07/30/09: Pennsylvania Towns Seek Pit Bull Laws; Must Lift State Anti-BSL Measure
06/20/09: James Harrison's Pit Bull "Patron" is Up for Adoption Under New Breed Name
05/01/09: Pit Bull Owner Hides Dogs After Attacking Senior Citizen
04/02/09: Editorial: Pit Bull Owners "Too Vacuous" to Consider Consequences

Photos: GoErie.com

Labels: , , , , ,


posted by   |  permalink  |  23 comments  | email  |icon subscribe  |icon comment rss 
« View Older Posts      View Newer Posts »

23 comments:

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/04/2009 9:35 PM  |  Flag  
You don't maintain a dangerous dog. You EUTHANIZE a dangerous dog.

Now there's a trail of victims.

This should never have happened.

It is evident that giving extra chances to dangerous dogs just means giving them more chances to attack.

Our authorities are helping psychotic people with dangerous dogs to prey on us.

And the dog warden shares some of the blame here!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/04/2009 9:43 PM  |  Flag  
"The girlfriend3 from the 2006 attack is apparently still in a relationship with Matthew. According to the article, she has talked to him "repeatedly" since the attack about the need to euthanize his dog, named Graham"

And why was Matthew (or more probably his landlord) not sued to cover the medical expenses?

Looks like the taxpayer paid the bill for that attack.

Blogger Sparkly Susan  |  10/05/2009 7:50 AM  |  Flag  
Great. I live next to a pit declared vicious by the law. There are children in all of the surrounding houses. The head of the RISPCA stated in the article that repeat offenses are FEW. Well repeat offenses clearly happen. For my situation, http://nopitbullbites.blogspot.com/ Please comment on my site, not here. I'm really liking the encouragement. And the article above is exactly why I can't accept the status quo.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/05/2009 9:06 AM  |  Flag  
Search this site (upper right corner) with word "repeat" and some of these repeat offender cases will pop up.

Repeat offenders are VERY common among vicious dogs that attack unprovoked.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/05/2009 9:08 AM  |  Flag  
Here is just one of these repeat offenders, also enabled by the state

http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2009/05/twentynine-palms-girl-9-airlifted-after.html

Anonymous Felony  |  10/05/2009 2:43 PM  |  Flag  
The standard formula for these attacks goes like this

1) pit nutter says "my dog has never been aggressive before!"
2) a neighbor says the dog has a history of getting loose and menacing people and was afraid of the dog
3) another neighbor says the dog has a history of killing cats.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/05/2009 4:14 PM  |  Flag  
How can you tell when a pit nutter is lying?

Their mouth is moving.

Anonymous Trigger  |  10/05/2009 6:40 PM  |  Flag  
Bingo!

#1. Never trust a pit bull not to fight.
#2. Never trust a pit bull owner period.

Anonymous David  |  10/05/2009 9:29 PM  |  Flag  
Will this guy be charges even though they put his dog down?

Anonymous Trigger  |  10/05/2009 10:12 PM  |  Flag  
Yes David. And two of the charges appear quite substantial: Reckless endangerment and Tampering with evidence.

Blogger Sandra  |  10/05/2009 10:49 PM  |  Flag  
It is astounding that the owner was able to simply pretend that he had gotten rid of a dog that had inflicted that kind of injury on a child. Had the dog actually been sent to New York we would be seeing the same headline, but simply in a different newspaper. Obviously the law needs to change and dangerous dog designations have to travel with the dog. Even better, a dog that accomplishes this kind of injury needs to be immediately euthanized with no second chances.

I hope that the victim's mother finds a good lawyer and sues not just the dog's owner, but the dog owner's mother and girlfriend as well. Both knew the dog had been designated dangerous and both failed to inform AC, thereby facilitating this child's injury. Perhaps this type of accountability would help to prevent the harbouring of these dogs. Then again, given the kind of people that own them, perhaps not. But at least it would give the victim a slightly better chance of getting some compensation to help with the astronomical medical costs.

I was watching Sicko last night and it occurred to me that that type of documentary could be so helpful with respect to "The Pitbull Problem"...

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/06/2009 12:45 AM  |  Flag  
What is beyond comprehension or rational thought is that there are states that are actually HELPING dangerous dogs and their owners. Legislators and officials that cater to dog breeders' demands that dangerous dog laws be as weak as possible, over the safety honest, upright people and their families.

Authorities that know that people are living in danger with one of these dogs in our neighborhood. Yet they are allowing it to happen, and even putting their seal of approval on it!

There are dog officers that are helping to cover for these dogs.

There are states that allow "one free bite" or reset a dog's dangerous dog record after only months!

How did this come to be?

The authorities that do this need to publicized, and they need to be held accountable. There is no reason that this suffering is going on.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/06/2009 3:34 AM  |  Flag  
I personally think that if a pitiot refuses to have a mauler euthanized or tries to play "hide the pit", he or she should be jailed until the pit is produced and euthanized. If it can be proven that a different dog than the one that committed the deed is offered up, more charges and longer jail terms. I am sick of dogs and psychos having more rights than victims of these completely preventable attacks.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/06/2009 12:46 PM  |  Flag  
I feel a lot better that James Harrison's Patrone received an indepth 3 week rehab before being sold on Craiglist...

The nutters know they can't convince the Dogmen to produce a safer Pit Bull....The strategy seems to be pushing society's dog safety envelope and make society adjust to them. All the while hiding behind the "Humane Smokescreen"!

Anonymous Trigger  |  10/13/2009 12:43 PM  |  Flag  
My God, there has been another attack in Erie County:

October 13 -- " A 5-year-old Erie girl might require plastic surgery after a relative's pit bull mauled her face Monday night, the police's animal-enforcement officer said. The girl was hospitalized at Hamot Medical Center after the attack at a house in the 500 block of East Seventh Street, Rob Culbertson said.

Police said the girl was mauled in the face and suffered broken facial bones. The Erie County Office of Children and Youth is also investigating, police said."
---
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091013/NEWS02/310139953

Anonymous Trigger  |  11/20/2009 10:30 AM  |  Flag  
Charges "Bound Over"
November 17, 2009 - " The owner of a pit bull mix that brutally mauled a 3-year-old girl in Millcreek Township in September waived his right to a preliminary hearing today. That means the charges against Matthew J. Havern, 25, will be bound over for trial."
---
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091117/NEWS02/311179918

Blogger bitbypit  |  6/29/2010 8:17 PM  |  Flag  
In March of this year, DogsBite.org had to migrate to a new Blogger platform. This migration caused the loss of many comments on previous blog posts. We've supplied some of the original comments to this post manually:

by Anonymous 10/04/2009 8:35 PM
You don't maintain a dangerous dog. You EUTHANIZE a dangerous dog.

Now there's a trail of victims. This should never have happened. It is evident that giving extra chances to dangerous dogs just means giving them more chances to attack. Our authorities are helping psychotic people with dangerous dogs to prey on us. And the dog warden shares some of the blame here!

by Anonymous 10/04/2009 8:43 PM
"The girlfriend3 from the 2006 attack is apparently still in a relationship with Matthew. According to the article, she has talked to him "repeatedly" since the attack about the need to euthanize his dog, named Graham"

And why was Matthew (or more probably his landlord) not sued to cover the medical expenses? Looks like the taxpayer paid the bill for that attack.

by Blogger Sparkly Susan 10/05/2009 6:50 AM
Great. I live next to a pit declared vicious by the law. There are children in all of the surrounding houses. The head of the RISPCA stated in the article that repeat offenses are FEW. Well repeat offenses clearly happen. For my situation, http://nopitbullbites.blogspot.com/ Please comment on my site, not here. I'm really liking the encouragement. And the article above is exactly why I can't accept the status quo.

by Anonymous 10/05/2009 8:06 AM
Search this site (upper right corner) with word "repeat" and some of these repeat offender cases will pop up. Repeat offenders are VERY common among vicious dogs that attack unprovoked.

by Anonymous 10/05/2009 8:08 AM
Here is just one of these repeat offenders, also enabled by the state
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2009/05/twentynine-palms-girl-9-airlifted-after.html

by Felony 10/05/2009 1:43 PM
The standard formula for these attacks goes like this

1) pit nutter says "my dog has never been aggressive before!"
2) a neighbor says the dog has a history of getting loose and menacing people and was afraid of the dog
3) another neighbor says the dog has a history of killing cats.

by Anonymous 10/05/2009 3:14 PM
Q: How can you tell when a pit nutter is lying?
A: Their mouth is moving.

by Trigger 10/05/2009 5:40 PM

#1. Never trust a pit bull not to fight.
#2. Never trust a pit bull owner period.

by David 10/05/2009 8:29 PM
Will this guy be charges even though they put his dog down?

by Trigger 10/05/2009 9:12 PM
Yes David. And two of the charges appear quite substantial: Reckless endangerment and Tampering with evidence.

Blogger bitbypit  |  6/29/2010 8:23 PM  |  Flag  
And the last batch:

by Blogger Sandra 10/05/2009 9:49 PM
It is astounding that the owner was able to simply pretend that he had gotten rid of a dog that had inflicted that kind of injury on a child. Had the dog actually been sent to New York we would be seeing the same headline, but simply in a different newspaper. Obviously the law needs to change and dangerous dog designations have to travel with the dog. Even better, a dog that accomplishes this kind of injury needs to be immediately euthanized with no second chances.

I hope that the victim's mother finds a good lawyer and sues not just the dog's owner, but the dog owner's mother and girlfriend as well. Both knew the dog had been designated dangerous and both failed to inform AC, thereby facilitating this child's injury. Perhaps this type of accountability would help to prevent the harbouring of these dogs. Then again, given the kind of people that own them, perhaps not. But at least it would give the victim a slightly better chance of getting some compensation to help with the astronomical medical costs.

by Anonymous 10/05/2009 11:45 PM
What is beyond comprehension or rational thought is that there are states that are actually HELPING dangerous dogs and their owners. Legislators and officials that cater to dog breeders' demands that dangerous dog laws be as weak as possible, over the safety honest, upright people and their families.

Authorities that know that people are living in danger with one of these dogs in our neighborhood. Yet they are allowing it to happen, and even putting their seal of approval on it! There are dog officers that are helping to cover for these dogs. There are states that allow "one free bite" or reset a dog's dangerous dog record after only months! How did this come to be?

by Anonymous 10/06/2009 2:34 AM
I personally think that if a pitiot refuses to have a mauler euthanized or tries to play "hide the pit", he or she should be jailed until the pit is produced and euthanized. If it can be proven that a different dog than the one that committed the deed is offered up, more charges and longer jail terms. I am sick of dogs and psychos having more rights than victims of these completely preventable attacks.

by Anonymous 10/06/2009 11:46 AM
I feel a lot better that James Harrison's Patrone received an indepth 3 week rehab before being sold on Craiglist...The nutters know they can't convince the Dogmen to produce a safer Pit Bull....The strategy seems to be pushing society's dog safety envelope and make society adjust to them. All the while hiding behind the "Humane Smokescreen"!

by Trigger 10/13/2009 11:43 AM
My God, there has been another attack in Erie County:

October 13 -- " A 5-year-old Erie girl might require plastic surgery after a relative's pit bull mauled her face Monday night, the police's animal-enforcement officer said. The girl was hospitalized at Hamot Medical Center after the attack at a house in the 500 block of East Seventh Street, Rob Culbertson said.

Police said the girl was mauled in the face and suffered broken facial bones. The Erie County Office of Children and Youth is also investigating, police said."
---
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091013/NEWS02/310139953

trigger770 said... 5/04/2010 11:13 AM
Authorities dropped the most important charges of all.

"May 4, 2010 - Matthew J. Havern, 26, pleaded guilty to charges of dog attack causing serious injury, failing to register a dangerous dog, failure to maintain liability insurance for a dangerous dog, and failure to obtain a rabies shot and a license for his dog. In exchange for his plea, the Erie County District Attorney's Office dropped charges of reckless endangerment, tampering with evidence and a misdemeanor dog attack count."

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010305039926

Blogger Dark  |  6/30/2010 6:53 AM  |  Flag  
I hope that the parents of both victims remind people in their districts about this gross breach of public trust when both election times roll around. People need to stop electing officials who are soft on these sorts of crime.

OpenID trigger770  |  6/30/2010 9:45 PM  |  Flag  
Two children left partially blind? Missing permanent teeth? And with permanent facial scarring? This speaks nothing to the secondary medical conditions these children will suffer and the financial ruin Mr. Havern left both mothers in, causing them and their children even more severe hardship!

It's clear from previous articles that police authorities worked hard on behalf Alorah. They recognized she was "severe injury" attack victim #2, and therefore had legal standing to nail Mr. Havern. But the DA pleaded the case down "to crap," then Judge Connelly shoved "this crap" into the cracks of the courthouse wall.

My guess is Mr. Havern will do no more than 1 month in jail. He may even be released on his way into jail. Why bother with 1 month in jail (I mean really)? Just go ahead and start your 100 hours of community service Mr. Havern -- the same amount of community service time allocated for "petty theft" convicts.

Blogger cravendesires  |  7/01/2010 12:54 AM  |  Flag  
i share your outrage. this dog should have been given a dirt nap after the first atrocity. it is unbelievable that this dog would be given a SECOND opportunity to mutilate another child.
regarding the plea bargain and pathetic sentencing, it is unfortunately what happens a million times a day all over the county in our overwhelmed criminal justice system. and it is getting worse with out economic crisis.
i won't be surprised if havern ends up with house arrest in lieu of any time spent in a cell.
i am not excusing the prosecutor or the judge. i hate it as much as the next person, maybe more, i guess maybe i just understand it better.
this is all the more reason to fight to ban these ugly dogs.

Blogger P.  |  7/01/2010 1:18 PM  |  Flag  
I do wish we were able to compute the medical bills created by pit attacks. That would open eyes. The cost of enforcing BSL is a lot less than the medical bills and many of those attacks are paid for by taxpayers. What happens when a victim runs out of money or has insurance limits, then the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. Trying to do this would be a massive effort.

OpenID truthbird  |  2/26/2011 1:56 PM  |  Flag  
Another lying Pennsylvania pit bull owner.

FEB 2011 - "Michelle Lynn Huskins, 31, of Honey Brook, was sentenced to three years' probation Thursday on charges of endangering the welfare of children."
--snip--
"Huskins and her husband were guilty not just of bringing the dog into proximity with their child without judging its aggressiveness, but also of delaying medical treatment for the child after the attack..."
---
http://dailylocal.com/articles/2011/02/26/news/srv0000011020772.txt?viewmode=fullstory

Post a Comment »

archives: