Posted on May 6, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

Quincy Man Co-Authors Documentary Short After Surviving Near Fatal Pit Bull Attack; Retraces Steps & Discusses Legal Issues

Moneyback Joe is a documentary short about surviving a vicious pit bull attack.

Quincy, IL - On March 17, 2024, three pit bulls viciously attacked Jerod Welker, 36, as he walked through a park. The dogs ripped off his clothes, tore off part of his scalp, and inflicted lacerations and crush injuries all over his body. The documentary short starts with dramatic police bodycam footage as officers arrive at the scene. They find Welker lying face down in the grass, naked, and covered in wounds. Dr. Dan Liesen later states, "It looked like you were whipped with some type of Roman whip."

The names of the three attacking pit bulls, all female, were, "Moneyback Joe," the title of this documentary short, "Bailey" and "Basely."

Welker was transported to Blessing Hospital, where he was hospitalized for five days and spent three days on a ventilator. In the documentary, Welker retraces what happed on the day of the attack. He interviews Dr. Liesen and the ER practitioner, who treated his injuries. "We were really worried about your left arm," Dr. Liesen said, and if it was getting enough blood flow. "We were deciding whether or not to open your arm up to allow the fluid to weep out," so that you could keep your left arm.

The ER practitioner, LJ Helmke, said it was the worst dog attack he had ever witnessed. "To see somebody come in with, like I said, the hundreds of lacerations that you had from multiple dogs, it catches you off guard," he said. "We prepare ourselves for car accidents and stabbings and shootings," but dog attacks are typically one bite. "This was a whole different category of animal attack," he said. "I mean, where do you look first?" he asked, referring to which injury to treat first.

Excerpts: Dan Liesen, MD

"When we evaluated you, you were just mauled from head to toe. The attack appeared to occur where most of the injuries were kind of on the skin and then into the deep soft tissues. Skin lacerations simply in and of themselves usually don't cause life-threatening problems if you're getting bit, but when you have a crush injury associated with it, now you're injuring all of the soft tissues underneath of it. You're causing this inflammation and swelling everywhere in the body, and you're damaging the tissues as well.

* * *

"So, the skin over your head, where your hair attached into, that scalp was just multiple lacerations. We were really worried about your left arm. We thought that it might have created enough swelling that you weren't getting enough blood flow to your arm in order for it to live. So, we were deciding whether or not to open your arm up to allow the fluid to weep out, so you were going to keep your left arm. It's just all that crush injury to the soft tissues in your arm. It looked like you were whipped with some type of Roman whip. It was just top to bottom.

* * *

"I would say this, if somebody didn't see him and removed the animals that were attacking him, he would not have been alive much longer, maybe it was less than 20 minutes would be my guess because they were going to finish him off.

In my mind, and just from what I understand from the incident, if he didn't come in, in short order he was not going to be alive. He was going to lose his airway within probably 15 to 20 minutes and then then you would have died."

Excerpts: LJ Helmke, NP

"It was definitely the worst animal attack I have ever witnessed. To see somebody come in with, like I said, the hundreds of lacerations that you had from multiple dogs, it catches you off guard. Because you don't think about these things. These aren't a one bite kind of injury. These are massive life-threatening injuries that can really end your life pretty quick if not intervened.

* * *

"We prepare ourselves for car accidents and stabbings and shootings, but animal attacks are, usually they're smaller children that were messing with the family dog and the dog snipped and cut the child's cheek. This was a whole different category of animal attack. I mean this was very distracting ... I mean, where do you look first?"

Harsh Legal Realities

Welker also interviewed State's Attorney Gary Farha. It is a grim dialog, given that there are few laws in Illinois to hold owners of vicious dogs criminally liable. This is due to pit bull lobbying forces, namely Ledy Vankavage. In 2003, these forces pushed through legislation that prohibits municipalities from enacting restricted breed laws,1 made it more arduous to declare a dog "vicious" or "dangerous" and solidified that a previous classification of either is required for the owner to face a felony penalty.2

The owner was charged with dogs running at large. "It's not a criminal act. It's a quasi-criminal action, where there's no chance of going to jail for that type of ordinance violation," Farha said. Yet, had this same off-property attack occurred in Texas or another state with a felony dog attack statute, charges might have applied. Farha believes these types of attacks need to be strict liability. "We're not saying you can't own an animal like this, but if something happens," you're going to be on the line, he said.

Farha also discussed violent breeds. "As we proceed into the future, I don't know what's going to happen. You fear that we're just going to get more and more violent breeds of animals. We have more and more extreme people," he said. This is an astute observation. The XL and XXL bully -- the largest pit bull breed variant -- is today's most extreme breed. Built from fighting bloodlines, weighing up to 130 pounds, and having inflicted enough fatal attacks the UK government banned them.

Excerpts: State's Attorney Gary Farha

"Dogs running at large. That was an ordinance violation. It's basically the dogs not being on a leash or are outside their yard. It's not a criminal act. It's a quasi-criminal action, where there's no chance of going to jail for that type of ordinance violation. Fine only. There are some things that could happen to the animal if it bites. In your case, the three animals were euthanized by the consent of the owners.

* * *

"My hopes would be that some legislator would take this case, and it takes three or four years sometimes to get a bill enacted but that somebody would do something to make it easier for prosecutors to deal with that. Because I do think, like I was saying, these type of cases need to be strict liability. We're not saying you can't own an animal like this, but if something happens, you have to understand you're going to be on the line.

* * *

"As we proceed into the future, I don't know what's going to happen. You fear that we're just going to get more and more violent breeds of animals. We have more and more extreme people. We have more and more mental health issues. I think that all that factors into getting more exotic pets, more dangerous pets, more dangerous breeds. I think that inherently means we're going to get more human beings injured.

Welker next spoke to Sally Westerhoff of the Quincy Humane Society. "Before this happened," Welker said, "I didn't know very much about pit bulls or what to look out for with dogs. I'm really glad it didn't happen to one of my kids." Westerhoff replied, "We had a very serious situation, and it seems like once the animals are euthanized, 'problem solved.' Well, it's not," she said. "We need to figure out how do we prevent that going forward rather than waiting for the result of just the animal being euthanized."

This past January, Westerhoff and Vankavage lobbied the Illinois legislature to pass HB 1603, which prohibits "a landlord or lessor from refusing to rent to, deny housing to, or impose conditions on a lessee or tenant based on the breed of a dog." The bill stalled in the House Rules Committee on April 11. There were 180 proponents, mainly pit bull defenders -- including, Zach Mackowiak, lobbying on behalf of USA TODAY -- and 125 opponents, primarily landlords and property management groups.

Given the solid pit bull defender lobbying block in Illinois, of which no animal activist (like Westerhoff) would break from, there is little chance that a criminal law after a "first attack" by a loose dog that inflicts serious or fatal injuries could pass. There is one reason why: the law would disproportionately affect pit bull owners because pit bulls disproportionately inflict these attacks. The pit bull block would fiercely fight the bill. In the case of Welker, the dogs' owner was given two citations, each for $250.3

Clothes Held as "Evidence"

Towards the end of the video, Welker sees the clothing he wore when the dogs attacked him for the first time. He holds up a big plastic see-through sack he retrieved from the Quincy Police Department. Inside, each article of clothing is wrapped and sealed with yellow evidence tape. He opens each article on camera. His sweatshirt is blood-stained; his sweatpants are ripped to shreds. Seeing his clothes, he said, "It does bring up feelings. I've never actually screamed for my life before, but I did then."

He said he'd like to understand the deeper meaning behind the attack. He may never know, "but I am left to think about it now," he said. Welker plans to meditate to try to get as close to the meaning as he can. One obvious meaning is that he survived; many would not have. Moreover, he appears to have physically healed faster than most victims after one year. Welker also contracted rhabdomyolysis, which is a rare muscle damage condition caused by the extensive crush injuries he sustained.

Excerpts: Jerod Welker

"They pull me down to the ground and they're starting to just like pull my clothes off and rip into my clothes. I was yelling. 'Somebody please help me I'm going to die' I was yelling something like that over and over as loud as I could for a while.

"I eventually decided I was going to try to get up. So, I got up. I think I had like my underwear and my sweatpants like kind of pulled down my legs, and I still had my shoes on of course, so I tried to really quickly get my sweatpants and underwear and shoes off and went running down the hill -- like full speed -- and they start they were following me."

* * *

"I think this might have been where they got part of my ear off ... I remember they were really on me. I had my face really in the ground ... I was like kind of eating the ground because I don't want them to get on my face.

* * *

"When I got up and opened my eyes, everything looked white, like literally white. So, I could see in front of me, but like everything had thick white tint to it. I've never experienced that before. I don't know what that is. I feel like I am just going to sound crazy."4

Additional Discussion

Welker, who co-authored the documentary short with Andrew Sheeley, created a powerful account of a victim reencountering a vicious dog attack after physically healing from it. Having to watch and edit the police bodycam video -- perhaps dozens of times -- would mean reliving the attack and his vulnerability each time. By interviewing the medical practitioners, the audience learns of the severity of his injuries through the authoritative lens of the two people who treated him. This is very compelling.

Reencountering the clothing he wore when the dogs attacked him was also forceful. Even though no criminal charges applied to the attack, police bagged and sealed his bloody clothing as evidence and held them in lockup. Police had treated the scene of the attack as a potential crime scene. So, it must have been a cruel irony for Welker to pull each clothing article out of the "evidence bag" knowing that the brutal attack he endured was nothing more than a "civil" issue. No crime had been committed.

This disturbing irony is perfectly reflected in the sullen face of former Adams County State's Attorney Gary Farha during his interview. We call this expression, "Defeated Prosecutor Syndrome." When a prosecutor's face shows a "a particular grimness, even ashen quality, upon realizing there are no legal options to criminally charge the owner of a pit bull after his dog savagely" kills or injures a person. Because "it’s hard to bring charges without prior adjudication of these animals as dangerous animals."

Most serious criminal dog attack charges require the owner (1) having knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities, and/or (2) demonstrated recklessness or a negligence. State laws like Illinois, which require the dog to be previously adjudicated as "vicious" or "dangerous" prior to criminal charges, are futile. As Welker's case shows, the dogs were declared "vicious" afterward and the owner euthanized all three dogs to avoid the "vicious" dog requirements. Thus, reinforcing the vicious dog owner loop.

Farha states, "these type of cases need to be strict liability," referring to criminal liability after a vicious attack by a loose dog causing serious bodily injury or death. On this website, we frequently use the term "strict liability" when referring to civil liability. But strict liability also exists in criminal law. Dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips, and the author of dogbitelaw.com explains: "Technically speaking, strict liability offenses are crimes that do not require proof of the defendant's mental state (mens rea)."

"Although we might not know it by its name, every one of us is already familiar with criminal strict liability. We see it all around us every day," Phillips said. Examples include criminal laws against drunk driving and selling alcohol to a minor. "It doesn’t matter how good your intentions were," Phillips said, or "how hard you tried to keep this from happening." Criminal strict liability laws are aimed at conduct that’s intolerable, he said. "Do it and there are no excuses. Do it and you go to jail. That's strict."

Left: Jerod Welker, Dr. Dan Liesen, and Former Adams County State's Attorney Gary Farha.

From Moneyback Joe, a documentary short about recovering from a vicious pit bull attack.

1Part of what propelled the lobbying forces was the January 2003 fatal mauling of Anna Cieslewicz, who was attacked and killed by two pit bulls while jogging in Dan Ryan Woods forest preserve in Chicago..
2Declaring a dog "dangerous" under the 2003 bill, HB 0184, increased the burden of proof level from no specified level to "clear and convincing evidence." Declaring a dog "vicious" under HB 0184 required the animal control or law enforcement agency to "make a detailed report recommending a finding that the dog is a vicious dog and (1) give the report to the State's Attorney's Office and the owner. (2) The complaint must be filed in a circuit court in the "name of the People of the State of Illinois to deem a dog to be a vicious dog," and (3) "The petitioner must prove the dog is a vicious dog by clear and convincing evidence." In the previous version of the Act, numbers 1-3 were not required. It only required an investigation by animal control or law enforcement agency, and a declaration in writing the dog to be a "vicious" dog as defined in the Act. Also in the previous Act, a determination by a court was an option, not mandatory.
3In 2006, HB 4367 attempted to overturn parts of the 2003 Act. The bill would: (1) "establish the Vicious Dog Attack Victim Relief Fund Program to reimburse victims and their families for medical bills, lost wages, and other damages resulting from serious physical injuries caused by a vicious dog attack," and (2) "provides that if an owned animal is found to be a "vicious animal", the owner shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony." In other words, if a first attack by a dog results in serious or fatal injuries, meeting the definition of a "vicious" dog, the owner would face a Class 4 felony. HB 4367, introduced during the 94th General Assembly, never got a hearing. The bill was DOA -- dead on arrival.
4We do not know what caused everything to turn white, but it is indicative of a "white out." This can be caused by standing up too fast, overexertion, becoming dehydrated, and/or physical stress. Yet another cause, apparently, is the life-saving measure of "standing up" after being dragged to the ground and repeatedly mauled by three pit bulls. After getting up, he didn't make it too far before the dogs caught him, taking him down again. He told Muddy River News, at that point, “I gave up on yelling for help. It seemed like the more I did that, the more fierce the dogs would get with me. And also, I was really exhausted. I was starting to accept that really, this is going to be it. I was just accepting that I was probably going to die. Maybe that’s why by the time the police got there, (the dogs were) circling me.”

Posted on May 6, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

"Criminal Strict Liability" – Explained Simply

What is “Criminal Strict Liability”?

Although we might not know it by its name, every one of us is already familiar with criminal strict liability. We see it all around us every day. Examples include the criminal laws against --

Having sex with a minor (statutory rape).
Drunk driving.
Selling spoiled food.
Selling alcohol to a minor.
Violating workplace safety standards.

These are all strict liability crimes. They focus on just one thing: the illegal act itself. Do that thing, go to jail. A criminal strict liability law says --

It doesn’t matter how good your intentions were.
We are not interested in what you thought you were doing when you did this.
It makes no difference how hard you tried to keep this from happening.

Criminal strict liability laws are aimed at conduct that’s intolerable. Do it and there are no excuses. Do it and you go to jail.

That’s strict.

Strict Liability Criminal Statutes in the United States

Most crimes require a combination of act plus mental state. For example, if a person does something that causes a human to die, the crime could be first degree murder if it was planned ahead of time, second degree murder if it resulted from reckless disregard of the possibility that death could result, or simple homicide if it happened because of negligence.

That’s not true of strict liability crimes. Technically speaking, strict liability offenses are crimes that do not require proof of the defendant’s mental state (mens rea). Society is not interested in what you were thinking, what you intended, etc. It doesn't even matter whether you knew there was a law against doing what you did.

The "Criminal Strict Liability" definition and examples were written by dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com. As a wonderful courtesy, we have permission from Phillips to publish this definition on our website. "Strict liability" is a concept that more commonly relates to civil law.

In 2022, two pit bulls killed 88-year old Mary Gehring and injured a young boy in Golden, Colorado. Prosecutors charged the owners with owning a dangerous dog causing death, a class 5 felony. Under the Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-204.5, Unlawful Ownership of a Dangerous Dog, is a strict liability crime. Both owners, Kayla Mooney and Victor Bentley, pleaded guilty. Other than this case, we do not believe we have seen a "criminal strict liability" felony statute applicable to a fatal dog mauling.

In Michigan and Washington, felony dog attack statutes have been tested by prosecutors who inferred the legislative intent was a strict liability offense because the statute was silent on criminal intent. In both cases, appellate courts rejected: People of Mi v. Janes and State v. Bash. The dissenters in Bash wrote: "The majority attempts to convert this into a 'second bite' statute, but Mr. Walt Freser was killed by the attack of the dogs. Surely the majority did not wish to make this a 'second death' statute."

Related articles:
03/24/25: The "Vicious Dog Owner Loop" – Explained Simply by Dog Bite Law

Posted on April 28, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

Echo Chamber: A Fatal Dog Mauling Short Story Written by AI

AI Prompts and Synopsis Choice Determined by DogsBite.org

Echo Chamber image created by Reve.art and stylized by DogsBite.org.

DogsBite.org - Over the weekend, we experimented with two AI language models, ChatGPT and Claude, to develop a short story about a fatal dog mauling. Based upon the outcome, we used Reve.art to create the photographs. We were stunned at the results and by AI's accurate depiction of the self-branded "truth seeker," social influencer whose online handle is @FactsOverFear. We did not choose the dog breed or invent the plot line. Part two of this posts explains how the short story was created.

Download PDF: Echo Chamber - A Short Story of a Fatal Pit Bull Mauling by AI

Echo Chamber

By ChatGPT, Claude, and DogsBite.org

CHAPTER 1: LIVE OR DIE

The gate screeches like a wounded thing.

Metal on metal, weather-worn and brittle, it swings open beneath Alayna Monroe's hand. She steps into the yard barefoot, the soles of her feet brushing the powder-dry grass, heat rippling upward in visible waves. A white sun beats down on the neglected patch of suburban earth. Every color here is sun-bleached: the tricycle rusted to ochre, the fence warped and weather-gray, the dog at the far end a dusty bronze statue in the dirt.

"Alright, truth-seekers," Alayna says, her voice bright and clear, amplified by the GoPro mic strapped to her chest. "This is Bishop's Backyard. Let's talk about what really happened here."

She's live. 3.2 million and climbing.

Hearts, paw-print emojis, rocket ships, and clapping hands tumble across the screen. A soft ping marks each new viewer.

From the camera's wide-angle eye, the world seems cinematic—artfully framed chaos. A chewed tennis ball, split open like citrus, rests near a crumbling porch. An empty dog bowl overturned in the dirt. The cicadas thrum so loud they almost drown out the chat

"SLAY QUEEN"

#SheBelieved

"Girl don't."

"This is how horror movies start..." (pinned for two seconds, then lost to the tide).

At the fence line, the dog doesn't move.

Bishop. Red-coated, scar-laced, eyes closed. A breath rises in his ribcage, then settles. One ear twitches, just slightly.

Alayna pans in. Her voice softens. "Look at him. Calm. Centered. Just like any dog when treated with respect."

The words come easy—smooth, practiced. She's delivered variations of this monologue dozens of times. At protests, in edited vlogs, on national TV with some middle-aged anchor trying to poke holes in her logic. None succeeded.

Today's different.

Today's the final act.

She adjusts the GoPro to catch her face. Lips glossy, expression open, smile loaded like a trap. Her eyes burn with certainty.

"They said this dog killed a woman. But we deal in facts, not fear."

The chat explodes. 💯💯💯

"PREACH."

"Cancel the media."

"Let's rewrite this story." 🐾🧠📹 (pinned by Alayna herself)

Behind her, the fence bows in the middle, patched with wire mesh. Sunlight glints off broken glass embedded in the soil. A blue plastic kiddie pool, deflated and dirty, leans against a half-toppled lawn chair. It's the kind of place creatures come to rot.

"Tail position is wrong. Please back up. Please."

The same comment appears three times, rapid-fire, from @VetTechVerity.

Alayna ignores it. Crouches slightly. Her GoPro shifts downward, catching the silent symmetry of her approach. Bishop doesn't move.

"See the posture?" she narrates, tone low, measured. "Ears neutral. Breathing controlled. He's reading my energy, not my history."

She name-drops Cesar Millan, casually. Tosses off a sentence about canine PTSD and misdiagnosed aggression. Then, mid-sentence, plugs her newest T-shirt drop: "Wear truth. Not fear." The link flashes on screen.

In the distance, a lawnmower starts up—and just as quickly sputters to silence.

Cicadas buzz in waves. Then stop. All at once.

Alayna freezes. Her smile holds—barely. For half a breath, her charisma glitches.

On her screen:

"I work trauma ER. Dog lulls are often precursors to strikes. It's in the muscle tension."

She laughs it off, sharp and practiced. "Fear breeds fear. That's not science—it's superstition."

Then Bishop lifts his head.

The movement is slow. Intentional. His eyes lock on Alayna's, unblinking.

His tail is out, rigid.

Not wagging. Not welcoming.

"UH HE SAW YOU."

"NOPE NOPE NOPE."

"Get OUT get OUT get OUT."

"See that?" Alayna whispers, lowering herself further. One hand outstretched. Her voice softens into a coax. "He's engaging. Dogs like Bishop need space and kindness. Not cages."

A pause.

She inches forward, barefoot in the brittle grass.

"Come on, big guy. You're okay."

Then—

A sound.

Not loud. Not dramatic.

A growl, low and raw, like a motor refusing to start.

Alayna's hand freezes mid-air.

The GoPro catches the shift in her face: the micro-spasm near her temple, the faltering smile, the flicker of doubt.

"He's...just nervous," she says. "That's normal."

The stream crackles. A glitch skips the video forward a frame, then back again. The audio hiccups. Cicadas roar back into life.

And Bishop rises.

CHAPTER 2: FACTS MEET TEETH

Bishop rises, muscle by muscle.

He doesn't lunge. Doesn't bark. Doesn't growl again. Just stands—a scarred red sentinel at the back fence, yellow eyes fixed on Alayna. His chest expands once, twice. Slow. Deliberate.

Alayna's heart stutters. For a millisecond, something ancient flares in her brain—a warning system millions of years older than her Instagram following. Then her training kicks in. Not with dogs. With herself.

"See? He's getting up to greet me." She smiles for the camera. The lie feels easy. Natural. "This is what engagement looks like. Not aggression."

The chat rushes past in a blur of emojis and text:

"ABORT MISSION GIRL GET OUT That's not a greeting stance that's a THREAT—Dog behavior specialist here—this is pre-attack posture."

Alayna's fingertips burn where they hover in the air—close enough to Bishop that the space between them feels charged. Her mouth is cotton. She swallows hard before continuing, her voice pitched to that perfect mix of authority and warmth that makes clips go viral.

"I'm going to move a little closer now. Notice how I'm keeping my body language open. Non-threatening."

She sits fully on the concrete slab, bare feet pressing against the scorched surface. The heat sears her skin, but she doesn't flinch. Can't flinch. Three-point-seven million people are watching her demonstrate fearlessness.

"I'm taking off my shoes," she narrates, slipping them off with practiced casualness, "because it's important Bishop sees me as grounded. No barriers."

The viewer count jumps—3.8 million now. The pings come faster. Heart emojis mix with warning triangles.

Bishop's body remains taut as wire. His eyes never leave her face. The muscles in his shoulders bunch and release beneath his coat, a map of tension visible through the scars.

One of her regulars, @DogLove365, drops a $50 donation with a message that floats across the screen: "Alayna is the real deal. The media just wants you to fear pit bulls."

Alayna's lips curl into a smile. Not for the dog. For the audience.

"That's right," she says. "The narrative about Bishop being dangerous? Pure fearmongering. Dogs respond to energy. Mine is calm. So he's calm."

But he's not calm.

Bishop stretches, neck extending forward, his body language unreadable to anyone except experts. And the experts in her chat are screaming now. His stance is wide. Tail rigid. Eyes unwavering.

"NOPE. That's tension. That's not curiosity. Girl stop. Please."

She ignores them. Lowers her voice to a steady whisper meant for Bishop but perfectly captured by the GoPro mic.

"You're a good boy," she says, her tone honeyed. "You just need someone who understands you."

The dog snorts, then licks his lips slowly. A pink tongue slides over black gums.

Alayna knows what she's seeing—what the audience is seeing. But she also knows what the followers want to see. Which version will get more views? Which narrative pays the bills?

She kneels fully now, dust catching on her bare knees. A stray pebble cuts into her skin, but she doesn't wince. The GoPro catches it all—her open palms, her relaxed posture, the pearls of sweat forming at her temples despite the manufactured calm. The perfect mix of vulnerability and control.

"He's reacting to the energy, that's all. My energy is calm."

Bishop's ears twitch. His muzzle tightens.

The chat erupts:

🚨🚨🚨 "He's lip licking. That's a stress signal. This isn't brave anymore. It's dangerous."

A verified account—@CanineBehavioristDr—posts a message that gets pinned by a moderator: "What you're seeing is textbook pre-attack signals. This is NOT safe engagement."

Even two of her most loyal followers break rank:

"I've supported you for years but this is too much Alayna I love you but please back away."

But the metrics are climbing. Alayna can see the numbers flashing at the corner of her eye. More hearts than warnings now. More rocket ships than alarm bells. The algorithm is feeding her to new audiences. Fresh eyes. Fresh wallets.

She taps her lapel mic, keeping her gaze fixed on Bishop while addressing the camera directly.

"You're seeing real rehabilitation in action," she says, voice clipped and professional. "This is why we fight stigma. "Maybe you should—""

She flashes a peace sign and leans forward another inch.

A top chat donation of $500 appears on screen: "We love you, Alayna. Prove them all wrong."

The money drops into her account instantly. She'll use it to pay for the editor who cuts her fifteen-minute vlogs into thirty-second TikToks. The ones that pay her rent.

Bishop's head lowers a fraction. His weight shifts forward on his front legs.

Then comes the sound—not a bark, but a growl. Low, continuous, unbroken. A sound like the engine of an old truck refusing to start.

Alayna falters. She swallows. The tiny break in her persona doesn't register to most viewers. But the dog sees it. Smells it. The first note of true fear seeping through her pores.

"Okay... okay, you're just talking. That's alright."

She's no longer speaking to her audience. She's speaking to herself.

The cicadas pause again. The air feels electric—charged like the moment before lightning strikes.

Bishop takes one deliberate step toward Alayna. Not a lunge. Just one calculated movement—silent and slow, like a wire being pulled taut. The distance between them shrinks from ten feet to eight.

Her audience loses it:

"HE'S HUNTING YOU LEAVE. LEAVE. LEAVE. MODS DO SOMETHING."

Alayna puts a hand flat to the ground, palm up. She leans back, visibly controlling her breath. The GoPro captures the slight tremor in her fingers.

"Bishop, you're safe. You're a good boy."

Her tone is gentle, but her knuckles are pale against the dirt.

Bishop pauses. Then tilts his head. He's watching something else—a flutter of shadow behind her that Alayna doesn't see.

The shadow moves. A screen door creaks. Kenneth Delaney, mid-60s, appears in the doorway, unaware of the tension stretched like piano wire between woman and dog.

"Everything goin' okay?" he asks casually.

Bishop's head jerks toward the sound. The tension spikes.

Kenneth's voice is loud, abrupt—breaking the fragile balance.

Bishop explodes into barking—not playful, not warning, but defensive. An alarm. His body vibrates with each sharp sound.

Alayna flinches, raises a hand to her ear as the mic overloads with feedback.

"He's just startled," she says, but her voice is higher now. Thinner. "It's okay. We're okay."

Kenneth steps onto the porch. "Maybe you should—"

Alayna glances back at him. In that split second, that fraction of a moment, she breaks eye contact with Bishop. The tension snaps.

Several animal behaviorists in the chat start flooding with red-lettered posts

Breaking eye contact now is BAD. Too late. He's locked in. This is going to go sideways.

But Alayna doesn't see the warnings. Doesn't feel the current change. She's calculating how to salvage the moment. How to make this work for her brand. How to turn barking into a redemption story.

Kenneth starts to speak again, but stops when he sees Bishop's posture shift. The old man's face drains of color.

"Miss, I think you better—"

Alayna tries one last move: extends her arm slowly toward Bishop. The ultimate gesture of trust. Of faith. Of defiance against fear.

"It's okay, baby. Come here. You're safe."

Bishop freezes. His body is all vibration now, a tuning fork struck against concrete.

The feed jitters—frame skip, audio stutter, high-pitched whine.

And then—movement.

CHAPTER 3: WHEN THE FEED FALLS

The attack comes without warning.

In an instant, Bishop closes the distance between them—no bark, no growl, just pure explosive motion. One moment he's standing rigid by the fence, the next he's a blur of muscle and fur crossing the sun-bleached yard.

Alayna barely registers the movement before impact. Her practiced smile vanishes, replaced by wide-eyed shock as her body jerks backward. The GoPro's field of view swings wildly, capturing a kaleidoscope of blue sky, dusty ground, and the dark mass of Bishop's body in chaotic frames.

"Jesus—" she gasps, the word cut short.

The livestream stutters as the harness tears from her chest. The camera tumbles, spinning sideways through the air, recording fragments of the unfolding horror—Alayna's outstretched arm, Bishop's powerful shoulders, a splash of crimson against white cotton.

The device hits the ground with a crack, landing at an angle that captures a slice of the yard. Alayna's legs are partially visible in frame, her feet kicking up clouds of dust that bloom outward like smoke. Her shadow stretches unnaturally across the parched earth.

Through the GoPro's microphone, the calm of moments before dissolves into chaos. Gasping. Thudding. Muffled cries that don't sound like the confident voice Alayna's millions of followers know. The ambient noise distorts, clashing with the earlier stillness of the desert afternoon.

A sharp snap of wood—perhaps a chair breaking or a section of the weathered fence giving way—cuts through the cacophony.

In the corner of the frame, the livestream chat erupts:

🚨 "WHAT THE HELL"

"CALL 911"

"OMG IS THIS REAL?"

"SOMEONE HELP HER"

"I CANT WATCH THIS"

The comments scroll faster than anyone can read, a digital panic attack playing out in real time. Hearts and shock emojis flood the screen, interspersed with all-caps pleas and profanity.

A pinned message from one of Alayna's moderators flashes briefly:

"We are contacting emergency services."

The view from the ground-level camera shows nothing but chaos and partial images. Dust rises in the Arizona heat, creating a hazy filter over the scene. Through it all, the unmistakable sounds of struggle continue off-camera.

Then, movement from the direction of the house. Kenneth Delaney appears at the edge of the frame, running from the back porch. His thin frame moves with surprising speed for a man his age, one arm extended as he shouts something inaudible over the noise.

"Bishop—no! Stop!" His voice finally breaks through, sharp with panic.

The camera catches only a flash of his weathered arm as he rushes toward the struggle. His face remains out of view, but his silhouette cuts across the frame like a shadow.

A loud, metallic sound suddenly breaks through everything else—a harsh crack that silences the yard for a split second. Some viewers later swear it was a gate slamming. Others describe it as a tool falling.

Many recognize it instantly as a gunshot.

The chat freezes momentarily, then explodes again:

"WTF WAS THAT"

"did he just..."

"SOMEONE END THE STREAM"

"is she dead???"

After the crack comes an unnatural pause—a terrible silence that lasts only seconds but feels much longer to those watching. The dust begins to settle.

Then, at the edge of the frame, Alayna appears. She crawls into view, collapsed on her side, one arm weakly reaching toward the camera. Her face is partially visible, mouth moving, but whatever words she's trying to form don't carry through the audio. Blood streaks her cheek and matts her hair.

What happens next becomes the most analyzed three seconds in social media history.

Alayna's hand rises between the camera and something out of frame—palm out, fingers splayed. A defensive gesture. Or perhaps something else. Behind her, a shadow approaches.

The image begins to pixelate. The audio stretches and warps, as if slowed by a corrupt file. A digital whine rises, drowning out all other sound—the death cry of the livestream as the connection falters.

The screen glitches once, twice—then goes black.

For a moment, nothing.

Then the platform displays its automated message:

"Connection lost. Stream unavailable."

Just like that, four million viewers are kicked back to their home screens, dropped into an abrupt silence. The comments section freezes mid-scroll, the last desperate messages hanging in digital space.

Within seconds, screen recordings begin to circulate. The last clear frame—Alayna kneeling, Bishop standing rigid—becomes the thumbnail seen worldwide. Already, the analysis begins: the dog's body language, Alayna's posture, the placement of the shadows.

On Twitter, hashtags start trending before emergency services even reach the scene:

#RIPAlayna

#JusticeForBishop

#SheBelieved

#FactsOverFear

Screenshots flood every platform. Clips are sliced, edited, slowed down, brightened. Each viewer sees something different in the chaos. Each claims to know exactly what happened.

The debates rage in comment sections and forum threads:

"She provoked the dog."

"The owner should have stopped her."

"This is what happens when influencers play expert."

"They're going to blame the breed, not the human."

By nightfall, millions have viewed the footage. Hundreds of thousands have shared their theories. News anchors have practiced saying her name with the perfect blend of solemnity and sensation.

And all of them—every viewer, commenter, and analyst—missed what truly happened in those final moments, when the feed fell and the world lost sight of Alayna Monroe.

The truth, like her final gesture, remains caught between competing narratives—seen by everyone, understood by no one.

CHAPTER 4: REVERB

Four million screens went dark at once.

The abrupt end of Alayna Monroe's livestream left viewers worldwide staring at buffering icons and error messages, their devices suddenly silent where moments before they had witnessed chaos unfolding in real-time. Some frantically refreshed, desperate to reconnect. Others sat frozen, fingers hovering over keyboards, unable to process what they had just seen.

"Connection lost. Stream unavailable."

The digital void lasted exactly eight minutes.

Then TMZ broke the news: "INFLUENCER ALAYNA MONROE KILLED DURING LIVESTREAM." The headline spread faster than the verification. Within thirty minutes, every major news outlet had picked up the story, each iteration adding layers of speculation where facts were scarce.

By sunset, the freeze-frame—Alayna crouched, Bishop standing rigid—had become the most shared image online. It appeared on Twitter feeds, Instagram stories, and Reddit threads, often accompanied by crying emojis or digital candles. The platform had swiftly deleted the original stream, citing community guidelines against graphic content, but screenshots survived. They always did.

Emergency services had arrived too late. The official report, leaked by a paramedic and posted anonymously, stated that Alayna Monroe was pronounced dead on arrival. The cause: "extensive trauma consistent with a canine attack." The report was shared thirty thousand times before being removed.

A photo emerged from the scene: the backyard gate standing wide open, a single white sneaker abandoned in the yellowed grass. No one knew who took it or how it spread, but cable news anchors debated its authenticity while displaying it on split screens.

By morning, the world had already divided itself.

#RIPAlayna trended alongside #JusticeForBishop. #FactsOverFear became both memorial and mockery, depending on who shared it. #SheBelieved spawned counter-hashtags and parodies. The algorithm couldn't distinguish grief from gloating—it only measured engagement.

Animal Control officers arrived at Kenneth Delaney's house at dawn, dressed in reinforced protective gear and flanked by police. News helicopters circled overhead, capturing footage of Bishop being carried out in a locked transport cage. The dog appeared calm, almost docile, a sharp contrast to the blurred images from yesterday's stream.

Protestors and reporters gathered outside the property before sunrise. Some carried signs demanding Bishop's immediate euthanasia. Others held placards reading "BLAME THE OWNER, NOT THE BREED." Police set up barriers between the groups, but both sides filmed each other for social media, each convinced they represented truth and justice.

Kenneth Delaney, hollow-eyed and unshaven, gave a brief statement to a local reporter. Standing at the edge of his property, shoulders hunched beneath a faded plaid shirt, he looked decades older than the friendly man who had welcomed Alayna just twenty-four hours earlier.

"I never meant for any of this," he said, voice cracking. "She said it would be quick. She said she knew what she was doing."

He couldn't finish the last sentence. The clip ended with him turning away, one weathered hand covering his face. It became the second-most-shared video related to the incident.

The first was the leaked final seconds of the livestream.

Though the platform had deleted the original broadcast, a recording surfaced on an obscure forum. The quality was poor—compressed, jerky, with distorted audio—but it showed what the official statement didn't. Alayna on the ground, bloodied. Kenneth running into frame. The sound—that sharp crack that divided viewers into those who recognized it immediately and those who desperately wanted another explanation.

The last visible moment: Alayna lifting her hand between Bishop and something just off-screen.

That single gesture launched a thousand interpretations.

"She was clearly protecting the dog from being shot," wrote @DogsMatter22, in a thread that garnered 87,000 likes. "Even as she was dying, she tried to save the animal that attacked her. That's true commitment to her principles."

"Are you people insane?" countered @RealityCheck91. "She was BEGGING for her life. That hand was saying 'please don't shoot ME by accident.' Classic victim response."

Media outlets invited body language experts, animal behaviorists, and trauma specialists to analyze those three seconds frame by frame. Each arrived with their own conclusion already formed.

Meanwhile, Alayna Monroe's social media following grew in her absence. Her accounts gained five million new followers in forty-eight hours. Her final post ("Facts over fear. Going live.") became one of the most reposted messages of the year. Fans created tribute videos set to somber music, cutting together her "greatest hits"—the times she'd confronted specialists, debunked conventional wisdom, or championed misunderstood breeds.

Her brand deals remained active for nearly a week before companies quietly removed her from their rosters. A wellness supplement she had promoted sold out nationwide despite doubling in price on resale sites. Her likeness appeared on unauthorized merchandise within days—t-shirts and hoodies bearing stylized versions of her face alongside slogans like "She Believed" and "Truth Seeker."

In university lecture halls, professors added Alayna Monroe to their syllabi overnight. A media literacy course at NYU used her stream as a case study. A communications seminar at Berkeley analyzed the parasocial relationships between influencers and their audiences. An ethics class at Northwestern debated whether platforms should implement longer delays for livestreaming to prevent similar incidents from being broadcast.

Seven days after the attack, Bishop was euthanized.

The procedure took place without fanfare or press. Animal Control released a brief statement: "Given the incident history and expert evaluations, the decision was made in accordance with protocol."

That night, a candlelight vigil appeared outside the shelter where he had been held. Twenty-seven people attended. Their photos, posted with #JusticeForBishop, received more engagement than the official announcement of his death.

Just as the news cycle began to shift, a new twist emerged.

A former collaborator leaked screenshots from Alayna's project folder, labeled "Live or Die: The Fear Myth." The documents included what appeared to be a draft script for a series of confrontational videos meant to challenge public perception of dangerous dogs. One passage outlined a staged confrontation meant to provoke "a teachable moment" with a dog previously labeled as aggressive.

The leak reignited debate: Was it all planned? Had she known the risks? Was Kenneth Delaney a willing participant in a stunt gone wrong? The questions multiplied. The answers fractured along existing lines.

Her fans saw the documents as proof of her commitment to the cause—she had researched thoroughly and approached the situation with a plan, not reckless abandon. Her critics viewed them as damning evidence that she had engineered a dangerous situation for views, underestimating the consequences of her performance.

Two weeks after her death, a stylized black-and-white version of the freeze-frame was printed on t-shirts, posters, even prayer candles sold on Etsy. Her image joined the pantheon of figures whose deaths had been commodified and whose meanings had been contested in the public square. For some, she represented misguided idealism in the social media age. For others, she was a martyr to sincerity in a cynical world.

In comment sections and living rooms, at dinner tables and in Zoom classes, people argued about what Alayna Monroe had truly believed—and whether belief alone was enough to redeem her final act.

No one agreed on what she meant.

But no one forgot her.

Every day, new viewers discovered the story. They watched the archived streams, read the think pieces, scrolled through the debates. They formed their opinions based on whatever algorithm had served them the story first. They added their voices to the endless echo chamber that had consumed Alayna Monroe—and that now preserved her, forever frozen in that final gesture, meaning whatever each viewer needed her to mean.

CHAPTER 5: STILL LIFE IN MOTION

One hundred and twenty-seven days after Alayna Monroe's death, the file resurfaced.

It was a moment everyone thought they had already seen—frame by frame, pixel by pixel, dissected across a thousand forums and talk shows. The incident had been analyzed, memed, mourned, and monetized. The narrative had calcified into opposing camps, each certain of their interpretation.

Then @DeepDiveDetective, a Reddit user known for forensic video analysis, posted something new.

"Found in the raw data stream. Last full frame before disconnect."

The image attached was familiar yet different—clearer than previous versions, with dust particles suspended in midair like stars. Alayna Monroe lying on her side in the Arizona dirt, one arm extended between Bishop and the direction of Kenneth Delaney's approach. Her face, partially visible, showed neither terror nor peace—just intense focus. The lighting gave everything a golden hue, like an oil painting captured by accident.

"She wasn't reaching for help," wrote @DeepDiveDetective. "She was shielding him."

The post exploded—four million views in six hours. Comment sections overflowed with new theories and familiar arguments. News outlets that had moved on to fresher tragedies suddenly returned to Alayna's story. The algorithmic machine churned back to life, serving the image to users across platforms based on their previous engagement with the incident.

The freeze-frame became a digital inkblot test, revealing more about those who viewed it than about the moment itself.

"Clear protective gesture," wrote animal behaviorists. "She's creating a barrier between the dog and the gun."

"Classic victim response," countered trauma specialists. "She's pleading, not protecting."

"Look at the angle of her fingers," argued body language experts. "That's not fear—that's command."

Each side saw what they needed to see, what confirmed their existing narrative. The ambiguity of the image made it perfect for projection—a canvas for collective meanings rather than a document of objective truth.

Hashtags that had begun to fade roared back to trending status:

#JusticeForBishop

#RIPAlayna

#SheBelieved

#FactsOverFear

A new one emerged: #TheFinalFrame

Media personalities who had built small empires on Alayna's death revived their coverage. A former behavioral psychologist with three million YouTube subscribers released an hour-long analysis titled "The Truth About Alayna's Last Gesture."

"That hand position is classic de-escalation," he claimed, drawing digital lines over the screenshot. "She was protecting the dog until her final breath. This wasn't just instinct—it was intention."

A rival influencer released a counter-video the same day: "It's not compassion—it's surrender. She was afraid. The narrative that she died trying to save the animal that was killing her is a dangerous romanticization of violence."

Both videos reached a million views within forty-eight hours.

The image transcended digital space. Graphic designers transformed it into stylized art. Street artists projected it onto urban walls. At a rally for breed-neutral legislation, Alayna's silhouette loomed large on a banner beside the words: "She chose trust."

Her last gesture became merchandise: t-shirts, hoodies, phone cases. A portion of proceeds went to animal shelters, or trauma centers, or digital literacy programs—depending on which interpretation of her death the seller subscribed to.

As the discourse intensified, so did the fringes. Conspiracy theories blossomed in darker corners of the internet. Some users claimed the frame was doctored, staged, or generated by AI. Others insisted the entire event was a performance art piece gone tragically wrong.

A Substack newsletter with a growing subscription base published an essay titled "The Gospel of Alayna," arguing that her death represented "the perfect modern martyrdom—ambiguous enough to mean everything, captured clearly enough to be endlessly reproduced."

The mystery of intention made her more powerful than any clear message could have. Alayna Monroe became whatever people needed her to be:

"A martyr for misjudged animals."

"A narcissist who thought she could control nature."

"The internet's Icarus."

"A victim of her own echo chamber."

Her transformation from person to symbol was complete when a prestigious university announced a new course for the fall semester: "INT 243: Moral Authority in the Age of Performance—From Livestreams to Legacy." The syllabus cover featured the freeze-frame in stark black and white.

On the six-month anniversary of her death, a candlelight vigil gathered in the park across from her former apartment building. Several dozen strangers stood silently under an LED billboard that cycled through her most famous clips. Signs flickered in the darkness:

"Facts Over Fear Forever."

"She Saw Good."

"The Truth Lives On."

Kenneth Delaney was not among them. No interviews. No statements. No lawsuits. A neighbor reported seeing him loading a U-Haul truck weeks after the incident, leaving behind the house where it happened. Public records showed the property sold to an anonymous LLC that promptly demolished the structure.

As for Bishop, animal rights activists erected a small memorial near the shelter where he had been euthanized. It disappeared overnight, then reappeared, then vanished again—a physical manifestation of the ongoing struggle over whose suffering deserved commemoration.

The one thing everyone agreed on: something profound had happened in that Arizona backyard. Something that transcended the simple tragedy of a woman killed by a dog she had underestimated. Something about truth and perception, about the stories we tell ourselves and others.

A year after her death, a documentary filmmaker who had interviewed dozens of people connected to the incident—followers, critics, experts, friends—ended his feature with a simple observation:

"Alayna Monroe left behind a message. We're just not sure what it was."

The film closed on a slow zoom into the final frame—that outstretched hand caught between protection and pleading—before fading to black.

In the silence that followed, viewers were left only with questions:

Did she die for what she believed?

Or for what she wanted others to believe she believed?

And in the end, was there any difference?

Echo Chamber, a fatal dog mauling short story

"#TheFinalFrame" - Echo Chamber image created by Reve.art and stylized by DogsBite.org.

Real or Not Real?

AI did a great job portraying the two pit bull camps (Are Pit Bulls Dangerous?) that will never reach an agreement. AI also chose the most realistic protagonist: a 26-year-old female "truth-seeking" social media influencer. It later comes out that she intended to produce a "series of confrontational videos meant to challenge the public perception of dangerous dogs." Alayna also wanted to prove her "rehabilitation in action" with the most dangerous type of dog of all -- one that had killed a person.

Our nonprofit has written about the Lion Tamer Complex and "stunt tamers," which Alayna represents, for many years. They are real people, and some wind up injured or dead. There are also "extreme rescuers" who covet "saving" pit bulls legally declared "dangerous" and death row dogs -- the more dangerous, the better. Like Alayna, many of them are overconfident and fail to recognize or misinterpret "textbook pre-attack posture" and other stress signals prior to a vicious attack.

The debates depicted in the story perfectly mirror real debates on social media. "She provoked the dog," states one. "This is what happens when influencers play expert," states another. The story even captures people who care about the breed's reputation above all else: "They're going to blame the breed, not the human," states one. AI also captures how her fan base, the media, and the public divide over each issue related to the attack, right up to the final freeze-frame of her hand in the air.

Although we did not specify a dog breed in our prompts, AI knew the breed most suitable for this story: a male pit bull. There is no divided debate -- creating echo chambers on both sides -- around any other dog breed. The story would have been less believable with a German shepherd. The third echo chamber was Alayna herself. Part of her character profile created by AI states: "She lives inside her own curated feedback loop -- amplifying only the messages that reinforce her worldview."

Part of our goal was to do as little as possible to test AI's ability to flesh out our chosen idea into final chapters. "Echo Chamber" is written in the third person, so there is distance between the reader and the protagonist. However, we believe there is a certain lack of connection to the characters because it was not written by a human. This can likely be overcome by creating "expert level" prompts. There are writing courses for this as well, promising, "AI outputs into polished writing that sounds just like YOU."

How We Created with AI

We generated the plot, outline and characters through a series of prompts in ChatGPT. We used Claude to write the fully fleshed out chapters. We used the "fracture technique" created by The Nerdy Novelist, who produced the video: How to Write a Short Story in 20 Minutes (ChatGPT + Claude). The video we followed was over a year old, and AI has learned multitudes since. The below elements, however, are still the basic elements for writing a short story. There are 6 central prompts.

Prompts for: Idea > Synopsis > Outline > Story Beats > Character Profiles > Full Chapter

Prompt 1. Idea

Our first idea prompt produced mediocre results, "Give me 10 ideas for a dog attack victim story." Most plots returned were cliche, in that, the dog was never at fault, only the human being was. After we upped the ante to, "Give me 10 ideas for a fatal dog mauling story," the results became more interesting. One of them was: "A social media influencer known for 'debunking' danger," and "claims that aggressive breeds are misunderstood." The dog attacks mid-live stream. She dies on camera.

Prompt: Give me 10 ideas for a fatal dog mauling story. Here are some elements that each idea should have.
-One protagonist
-A clear dilemma
-A decision
-A climax
-An outcome
-A clever twist
The short story should involve just a few scenes, ideally a single moment that is pivotal for the character, but does not require too much exposition. It should immediately jump into the action.
Chosen Result: “Echo Chamber”
Protagonist: A social media influencer known for “debunking” danger.
Dilemma: Claims that aggressive breeds are misunderstood—wants to prove it live.
Decision: Enters a yard housing a pit bull that had killed woman.
Climax: The dog attacks mid-livestream.
Outcome: She dies on camera.
Twist: The final frame shows her trying to shield the dog from being shot—viewers are split on whether she was a martyr or a fool.

Prompt 2. Synopsis

We then asked for a synopsis and identified the genre of true crime.

Prompt: Here is a true crime short story called, "Echo Chamber". Please expand on it and give me a full synopsis.
“Echo Chamber”
Protagonist: A social media influencer known for “debunking” danger.
Dilemma: Claims that aggressive breeds are misunderstood—wants to prove it live.
Decision: Enters a yard housing a pit bull that had killed woman.
Climax: The dog attacks mid-livestream.
Outcome: She dies on camera.
Twist: The final frame shows her trying to shield the dog from being shot—viewers are split on whether she was a martyr or a fool...
Result: Too large to include -- it fleshes out the dilemma, decision, climax, etc.

Prompt 3. Outline

We then asked for a detailed outline of the synopsis containing chapter summaries.

Prompt: Please create a detailed outline of the synopsis of "Echo Chamber" containing chapter summaries.
Result: Too large to include -- it fleshes out a detailed outline and the chapter summaries.

Prompt 4. Action Beats (Story Beats)

Creating the action beats or story beats for each chapter summary breaks down the story into more granular pieces. A story beat is a shift in the narrative. They are the smallest unit of story prior to writing the chapter out in full-fledged prose. Also, at this stage, we began working "one chapter at a time." There are word count limits in the AI prompts. We used five separate prompts in ChatGPT to create the story beats for each chapter summary. At any time along the way, you can make changes.

Prompt: Please take the following chapter summary and generate a list of 12 highly detailed Action Beats with additional STORY INFORMATION to fully flesh out the chapter. Make sure to always use proper nouns instead of pronouns.
Result: Too large to include -- it divides the chapter summary into 12 parts

Prompt 5. Character Profiles

Prompt: Create a detailed character profile for "Alayna. " Make sure to include a Myer's Briggs character profile, and her Enneagram.
Result: Too large to include -- we also got a profiles for "Kenneth" and "Bishop."

Prompt 6. Chapter Prose

The next stage is prose development for each chapter. This stage required creating a "super prompt" seen in The Nerdy Novelist's 20-minute video. Chapter by chapter, we generated the first set of chapters in ChatGPT. We then did the same process in Claude. We liked the results from Claude better, which contained spicier prose. This is why The Nerdy Novelist, presumably, recommended chapter completion be done in Claude. The end result, was the completion of "Echo Chamber."

Prompt: Using all of the below information on CHAPTER BEATS, OUTLINE, and CHARACTERS, write ~500-700 words of Chapter 1. Use the SAMPLE CHAPTER and the STYLE to determine the prose style of the chapter you write. Follow the CHAPTER BEATS exactly. All paragraphs should take place during the timeframe of the summary instead of adding new events. Focus on fully developing the given story beats rather than new plot points. End the scenes at the specified story beat rather than continuing further.
Result: A completed chapter.

Posted on April 22, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

Legal 'Dog Bite King' Explains Blockbuster High Court Ruling for Dog Bite Victims in New York

Dog bite victims in New York can now recover damages through negligence.

Press Release
Albany, NY - On Friday, the highest court in New York issued a landmark ruling for dog bite victims. Dog owners can now be held liable for negligence when their dog injures a person. The Flanders v. Goodfellow decision overruled a 2006 decision (Bard v. Jahnke) that "denied victims the right to sue for careless handling of a dangerous dog," states dogbitelaw.com in a press release. "For the first time in nearly 20 years, dog bite victims in New York can pursue compensation based on negligence."

New York Court of Appeals: Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025) | Bard v. Jahnke (2006)

Dog bite victims in New York can now pursue two of the three legal options to obtain compensation, states attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com. The first option is the one bite rule, where a victim must prove the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities (such as by a previous bite) in order to recover damages. The second option, a legal right that residents in all other states have always had, and now New York joins them, is to recover damages based on negligence.

The third option, and the most modern, is the ability for victims to pursue compensation based on statutory strict liability. Nearly 30 states impose strict liability, where a legislature has adopted a well-drafted dog bite law, making a dog owner legally liable to a victim who was bitten or attacked without the victim having to prove negligence or the one bite rule. The third option remains restricted to dog bite victims in New York, because it is a "mixed dog bite statute state," along with several others.

The lower courts dismissed Flanders’s negligence cause of action as barred by Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]), which held that there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm. Experience has shown that this rule is in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair ...

Flanders asks us to overrule that aspect of Bard and to recognize negligence as an alternative to strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals ...

"Although a court should be slow to overrule its precedents, there is little reason to avoid doing so when persuaded by the ‘lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning’ " ... Thus, where we have concluded that a "rule of nonliability is out of tune with the life about us, at variance with modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing," we have overruled it. - Flanders v. Goodfellow

Dogbitelaw.com describes the background of Bard. "The facts of Bard illustrate this harsh rule. Mr. Bard, a carpenter, was seriously injured by a breeding bull while working in a barn. He hadn’t been warned the bull was inside. The bull, named Fred, had never hurt anyone before. Because of that, the defendants claimed they had no duty to warn Bard or remove Fred from the barn. Bard’s lawsuit was dismissed. He got nothing for his broken ribs, torn liver, or aggravated spine injury," writes Phillips.

Although Bard is about a "breeding bull", which the appellants argued, "'bulls, in particular breeding bulls, are generally dangerous and vicious animals,' and that therefore Jahnke should have restrained the bull or warned Bard of its presence," Bard also has breed-specific influences. The Court found appellants' argument unavailing, especially in light of its consistent view that "the particular type or breed of domestic animal alone is insufficient to raise a question of fact as to vicious propensities."

What Happened in Flanders?

"Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was bitten by a dog owned by Defendants Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow while delivering a package to their residence," wrote the Court in Flanders v. Goodfellow. She began an action to recover damages from her injuries through strict liability and negligence. In New York, strict liability is obtainable by proving the one bite rule. Lower courts dismissed both causes of action. Flanders appealed to this Court, who reversed Bard, and reinstated both causes of action.

The facts in the Flanders case are powerful. The dog sprayed saliva and "slammed into window glass." The attack occurred on December 8, 2018.

On that day, Flanders arrived at Goodfellow's house to deliver mail, but found their mailbox missing. She drove into the horseshoe driveway to leave a package on the porch. As she did, she heard a dog barking, but saw no warning signs or alerts on her scanner. Stephen Goodfellow opened the door. As she handed him the package and told him about the mailbox, she "heard the sound of nails 'ticking' on a hardwood floor." The dog slipped through the door, lunged at Flanders' neck, and bit her shoulder.

Stephen Goodfellow opened the door to meet Flanders on the porch. As she handed him the package and began to tell him that the mailbox was down, Flanders heard the sound of nails "ticking" on a hardwood floor and saw a large dog approaching the door from inside the house. The dog slipped past Stephen through the open door and, as Stephen yelled its name, lunged towards Flanders’s neck. Flanders raised her hand to cover her face and neck. The dog bit her shoulder, latching its teeth into her flesh and breaking skin. With the package still in hand, Stephen tugged at the dog to release its hold. When he managed to break the dog’s grip, Flanders went directly to her vehicle without looking back. She later learned that the dog bite had caused a "snap tear" in her shoulder muscle, an injury that required multiple surgeries and resulted in permanent scarring. - Flanders v. Goodfellow

Evidence showed the 70 pound dog "yank[ed] people around" when leashed, even "dragg[ing] Michelle to the ground." The Goodfellows hired a dog trainer. After a two week session, Michelle posted on social media that their dog could now run "off leash in the yard," was no longer "jumping," and "tolerate[d] other moving critters." The couple testified the "dog did not interact with strangers because they did not enter the house," and they "had never seen the dog growl or bare its teeth."

Flanders produced sworn affidavits from two postal workers who had delivered mail to the Goodfellows' home over a few year period. One of them said that when he approached the house, the couple's dog "would actually bite the window, as though it was trying to bite you," causing its "saliva [to] project onto the window." The dog also slammed into the window glass, "as though it was trying to get through to attack." The other postal worker testified to similar experiences with the dog.

One of them said that when he approached the house, the Goodfellows’ dog "would actually bite the window, as though it was trying to bite you," causing its "saliva [to] project onto the window." The dog would bare its teeth "during these episodes, and it barked, snarled, and growled. It also slammed into the window glass, as though it was trying to get through and attack." The worker asserted that the Goodfellows’ dog was "the most aggressive" he had ever encountered on his routes, and he was "sure" that "if the dog’s owners were home when these deliveries occurred or they have surveillance footage of the dog’s actions during these deliveries, they knew or should have known the dog was aggressive or dangerous before the attack" ...

The other postal worker ... said that nearly every time he delivered a package to the front porch, he could see the dog through the glass windows on either side of the door. It "was extremely loud, barking and snarling, and slamming its face and head into the glass in what looked to be an attempt to attack [him] through the glass." He "believe[d] that home residents would have witnessed the dog’s behavior," noting that the dog "was extremely loud and created a huge ruckus such that anybody home would have known of it" - Flanders v. Goodfellow

The trial court, which is the Supreme Court in New York (see diagram), awarded the Goodfellows summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The court found the affidavits from the postal workers insufficient because neither proved the Goodfellows were home at the time or that the owners otherwise knew about the dog's behavior. Thus, Flanders' cause of action for strict liability, which required proving the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities, failed.

Due to the Bard decision, which barred the negligence cause of action, holding that "there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm," Flanders' cause of action for negligence was dismissed too. Flanders appealed to the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, which affirmed both parts. Flanders failed to demonstrate the owners knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities and Flanders' negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.

The highest court issued a response to both parts, finding that both lower courts errored in granting summary judgment for the strict liability cause of action. "A court reviewing a motion for summary judgment must view the facts "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" and it may not "make credibility determinations or findings of fact," wrote the Court. In other words, the affidavits of the other postal workers were a "triable issue of fact" and sufficient to continue the litigation.

In this same decision, the Court overruled Bard, finally recognizing "negligence as an alternative to strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals." Again, the "rule of nonliability is out of tune" with "modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing," wrote the Court. Common law negligence is defined as, "the absence of care, according to the circumstances." A person acts negligently if the person "does not exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances."

The Court overruled Bard, attorney Phillips explains, because, "It shifted the burden of injury onto victims instead of negligent dog owners, and it discouraged owners from learning about their dog’s dangerous tendencies." Further, "36 other states recognized negligence; the rest had not rejected it." New York courts "had already chipped away at Bard through exceptions,1 and it was simply unfair." Flanders now gives New Yorkers two of the three legal options. But they also need the third.

A well-written statutory law enacted by a state legislature "offers compensation without forcing victims to prove the dog was known to be dangerous or the owner was careless. It’s limited -- it doesn’t apply to trespassers or those who provoke dogs -- but it covers most victims," writes Phillips. The ancient one bite rule and negligence are both common law. Modern law is developed through statutes, in this case a dog bite statute. The legal website urges the New York state legislature to "act now."

National Significance

The press release by dogbitelaw.com also states the decision in Flanders has national significance. Flanders "holds that negligence and the one bite rule are entirely separate grounds of liability," states the release. "The New York Court of Appeals’ emphasized that the one bite rule is entirely different than the negligence doctrine," Phillips tells CityWatch. "The one bite rule is based on what the animal actually did in the past, while the negligence doctrine focuses on what might happen in the future."

Many state courts and legislatures have mistakenly treated the two legal theories as one in the same, Phillips said. But as Flanders shows, the plaintiff can pursue compensation under both legal theories. "The one-bite rule demands proof that something similar already happened and the defendant knew it or should have known it. Establishing negligence does not require a prior similar act," Phillips tells CityWatch. "Therefore, the Flanders case has the potential to influence reforms in other states."

Watch the oral arguments: No. 29 Flanders v Goodfellow, March 12, 2025

Dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com explains Flanders v. Goodfellow.

1Prior to the Court overturning Bard there were several notable carve-outs ("ad hoc exceptions to Bard’s no-negligence rule"). In Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, the Court concluded that veterinary clinics could be held liable in negligence. The Court concluded, a clinic is "uniquely well-equipped to anticipate and guard against the risk of aggressive animal behavior that may occur in their practices." Seven years after Bard, the Court recognized the exception for harm caused by a wandering animal. "In Hastings v Sauve, a cow crossed a neglected fence and ended up on a public road; the plaintiff then ran into the cow while driving down the road. We carved "wandering animals" out from Bard’s no-negligence rule and allowed the case to proceed because it did not involve a vicious propensity and was thus "fundamentally distinct from the claim made in Bard."

DogsBite blog ::

What is “Criminal Strict Liability”?

Strict Liability Criminal Statutes in the United States

AI Prompts and Synopsis Choice Determined by DogsBite.org

Echo Chamber

Real or Not Real?