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

AI Prompts and Synopsis Choice Determined by DogsBite.org

Echo Chamber, a fatal dog mauling short story
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.

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.

Related articles:
02/17/22: 2022 Dog Bite Fatality: Hulking Pit Bull-Type Dog Kills Woman, Injures Another at Rescue
09/04/18: 2018 Dog Bite Fatality: Pit Bull Adopted Two Weeks Earlier Kills Woman in Maryland
12/15/17: 2017 Dog Bite Fatality: 22-Year Old Woman Dies in 'Grisly Mauling' by Her Own Pit Bulls
06/01/17: 2017 Dog Bite Fatality: Rescue Pit Bull Attacks, Kills Elderly Woman in Virginia Beach

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

dog bite victims 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."

Related articles:
03/24/25: Ohio's Weak Dangerous Dog Laws: 4-Part Investigation by News Organizations
01/13/25: 2023 Unreported Dog Bite Fatality: Family Files Federal Lawsuit After Woman Killed...

Northeast Houston Man Wanted for Murder Now Faces Three Felony Dog Attack Charges after Pit Bull Attack Kills Neighbor

Marshall Garrett is wanted for murder and faces felony dog attack charges after a woman's death.


Dog Owner Faces Felonies
Houston, TX - On April 9, Marshall Garrett, 38, was charged with three counts of felony dog attack resulting in death after his pit bulls killed a woman. The Houston Police Department said 65-year old Harriet Phillips was found dead in the backyard of her home in the 8000 block of Wayside Village Way on March 23. Three "Staffordshire-mixes" belonging to Garrett broke through a shared fence between the homes. Garrett did not witness the deadly attack but realized what happened and called 911.

The primary cause of death was "multiple blunt and sharp force injuries," according to the medical examiner. The manner of death was an accident. All three dogs were euthanized. At that time, no charges had been filed. On April 8, Garrett was charged with murder in connection to an unrelated death. The next day, he was charged with three felony dog attack counts. Online court records show that Garrett has an extensive criminal history dating back to 2005, including multiple felony charges.

KPRC obtained photographs of Garrett's damaged backyard fence and his three pit bulls: Boosie, Sophie and Cleo. The three felony dog attack charges -- one per dog -- were filed because Garrett failed to fix his damaged fenced to keep his dogs from accessing his neighbor's yard. Garrett's negligence resulted in her death. KPRC reports the murder charge stems from a person's death in October 2024. Garrett is "still wanted," not in police custody, and has a history of evading arrest.

Murder Victim Identified

KTRK reports that a surveillance camera on Phillips' house captured the victim trying to fend off the dogs with a hammer in her backyard. She is heard yelling, "Help! Help!" before she falls to the ground and is mauled. Earlier in the day, neighbors texted Garrett, alerting him that his dogs were digging holes under the fence and entering Phillips' property. Records obtained by KTRK show that Garrett responded with a text saying, "about to get it resolved." Hours later, Phillips was killed by his dogs.

At the time of the dog attack, Garrett was out of jail on bond for felony evading police. That case was filed January 11, 2025. He bonded out on January 13. The murder charge stems from a violent beating outside of a Family Dollar store in northeast Houston. Garrett is a co-defendant. A female suspect, Latrecia Washington, is also wanted. Garrett struck 69-year old Alton Martin in the back of the head with a blunt instrument, causing his death. The altercation stemmed from a dispute over $140.

Unintelligent Commenters

Several comments on the KPRC article stand out. Despite Garrett being charged with murder, three counts of dog attack causing death and having an "extensive criminal history" -- he is a criminal and a bad dog owner -- "Leslie" felt the need to "promote the breed" by talking about her "most affectionate" Staffordshire "ever" that lived "with two other dogs and cats and there was NEVER a problem." Though, one of her new pit bulls "is still learning who is alpha" and is animal-aggressive.

By the pit bull fan club's own logic, her comment is absurd. "Earth to Leslie," save your comment for when a "good" owner's pit bull attacks unprovoked.

But the next commenter, "Wayne" the troll, falls into a diabolical realm. He asks, "Where's the crime?" Then states, "Unlike guns, dogs are NOT inanimate objects ... These dogs acted on their own, and to charge their owner is beyond something I'm able to wrap my mind around." He next says, "I promise they weren't plotting and scheming on the woman." Wayne states that charging the owner "who wasn't even present" is a "miscarriage of justice." As if involuntary criminal offenses are nonexistent.

Wayne derails into unintelligence further. "I don't recall the owner of the tiger who attacked Roy being charged. So why this?" he asked. Well, because Siegfried & Roy, the famous animal-based magic show duo, owned the tiger that attacked Roy. There is no criminality when your own animal attacks you, be it in your home or on a Las Vegas stage in front of an audience. Wayne doesn't accept the concept of criminal negligence when a dog busts through its owner's fence and kills an innocent person.

wanted for murder felony dog attack charges

A man wanted for murder in northeast Houston is also facing three felony dog attack charges.

Related articles:
10/08/24: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Babysitter's XL Pit Bulls Kill Baby, Attack Teenager Inside Home
09/20/24: Prosecution Closing Arguments In Fatal Dog Attack Trial; Judge Issues Sentences

2024 Dog Bite Fatality: 1st Degree Felony Indictment Against Ohio Parents After Family Pit Bull Kills Infant

The parents of an infant killed by their pit bull in April 2024 face a 1st degree felony indictment.


Parents Charged with Felonies
Marion, OH - On Monday, Marion County prosecutors announced a felony indictment against the parents of an infant who was killed by a family pit bull on April 28, 2024. Until Monday, this fatal dog attack had not been reported to the public by media or police. The Marion County grand jury charged Blake Bates and Alyssa Smith with involuntary manslaughter, child endangering, and reckless homicide. Each defendant faces up to 11 to 16.5 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

The indictment comes five days after a mother and son in Pickaway County, Ohio were sentenced to prison after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter after their two pit bulls with a history of violence killed their neighbor. Susan and Adam Withers were sentenced to 14 to 19.5 years each, the maximum allowable, in connection to the death of Jo Echelbarger. In March, Echelbarger's family was featured in a 4-part investigation series by media outlets examining Ohio's weak dangerous dog laws.

The indictment comes two months after a father in Hamilton County, Ohio was indicted on the same charges. Warren Houston was charged with involuntary manslaughter, child endangering, and reckless homicide. On December 27, Houston woke up and found his young daughter -- who had been staying with him for the "first time" -- "completely torn apart" by his two "terrier-mix" dogs. He told 911, "I just woke up and my daughter is dead. There's blood everywhere, I don't know what happened."

Ray Grogan Marion County Prosecutor's Office
April 7, 2025

MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR RAY GROGAN ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT AGAINST PARENTS IN FATAL DOG ATTACK OF INFANT CHILD

MARION, OHIO — The Marion County Grand Jury has brought felony charges against Blake Bates and Alyssa Smith, the parents involved in the death of their infant due to a vicious dog attack. The incident occurred on April 28, 2024, at the couple’s home on Miami Street in Marion.

The Marion County Grand Jury charged Blake Bates and Alyssa Smith with Involuntary Manslaughter, Child Endangering, and Reckless Homicide.

Both Defendants were arraigned today on the charges. Smith is being held on a $50,000 bond and Bates is being held on a $100,000 bond.

Grogan and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mark R. Weaver will prosecute these two defendants.

The case will be heard by Common Pleas Court Judge Todd Anderson. Each of the defendants faces up to 11 to 16 ½ years in prison if convicted on all counts.

Anyone who lives in the Miami Street area and has information about previous aggressive behavior of the family’s pit bull “Kilo” should contact Marion Police Lt. Dylan Reese.

All defendants who are charged with crimes, including these defendants, have a legal presumption of innocence until and unless convicted.

The fatal mauling of 6-month old Royal Bates occurred on April 28, 2024 at the parent's home in the 500 block of Miami Street. Despite the indictment already backed by evidence, the prosecutor's office is asking for help to identify other aggressive acts committed by "Kilo," the couple's male pit bull. "Anyone who lives in the Miami Street area and has information about previous aggressive behavior of the family’s pit bull “Kilo” should contact Marion Police Lt. Dylan Reese," the release says.

Marion County Prosecutor Ray Grogan said that a year before the dog killed the infant, Kilo attacked a neighbor's child, but no corrective action was taken. “When you have a dog in any instance that demonstrates aggressive behavior towards a human being, you have to take steps to either one put that dog down or ensure that the dog isn’t going to have access to do real harm to somebody, particularly a child,” Grogan said. “When you don’t do that, there are consequences for that,” he said.

Kilo was euthanized after the attack, authorities said. Online research of the mother's Facebook page shows there were at least three other pit bulls in the home, possibly offspring of Kilo. Multiple pit bulls remained in the home after Royal was killed. In January 2025, 10 months after Royal's death, the mother announced on Facebook she was looking for a "forever" home for one of the six pit bull-mix dogs in her home. "I just can't do it by myself anymore with 6 dogs I would keep them all if I could."

Bonds and Law & Crime Episode

Notably, Bates is being held in jail on a much higher bond than Smith, because Bates was already incarcerated for separate felony crimes when the fatal dog mauling felony indictment came down. On January 29, 2025, Bates was charged with "strangulation," a 3rd degree felony, after a domestic violence incident. A jury trial is set for June. On February 26, 2025, Bates was charged with "escape," also a 3rd degree felony in Ohio, after attempting to escape from the domestic violence charges.

On Monday, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mark R. Weaver appeared on a Law & Crime episode about the baby's mauling death (4:35). Weaver spoke about the circumstances around the attack. At approximately 10:48 am, the infant was under the care of his 8-year old sister in the living room. The father was outside, and the mother was in the bathroom, Weaver said. Royal rolled off the couch, and Kilo attacked him, ripping open his skull (6:58). This, horrifically, goes on for some period of time.

"The horrific facts about how this played out is that the mom and the dad are out of the room. The dad is somewhere outside. The mother may have been taking a shower. They left the six-month-old in the care of an eight-year-old child, the other child in the house. Some how or way the baby rolls off the couch.

In that moment the dog grasps and begins biting -- this is horrible -- the baby's head, the baby's skull. It takes a while for when the adults are finally back in the room to get the dog off the baby. Of course, 911 was called and heroic efforts were made to save this baby's life. It did not succeed.

As a result, they have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide." - Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mark R. Weaver

Weaver said the year-long investigation prior to the felony indictment concentrated on the dog's history. Confirming previous acts of aggression the parents knew of make them more culpable. Police interviewed friends, family members and neighbors, including neighbors that had moved away. Police learned that in the months leading up to the attack, Kilo had gone after a neighborhood child and the dog warden was called. As the press release states, police are still seeking information about Kilo.

Weaver also questioned the owner's mentality and breed of dog. "Only the people closest to the husband and wife will be able to tell us what the mentality of the owners was," he said (9:35). "Why would you want to have a pit bull? You could have had a poodle. You could have had a lab. Why a pit bull?" he asked. "The defendants don't have to testify. If they take the stand, I'll be asking them why they chose this breed and why they treated this dog in a way that would make it more vicious."

Both Marion and Pickaway counties are close to Columbus. So is Union County, where three weeks ago, the self-appointed "dog whisperer," Steffen Baldwin, was sentenced to 15.5 years in prison after being convicted of fraud, abuse, theft and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Baldwin had risen to fame in the no-kill sphere by secretly killing dangerous pit bulls he was supposed to be "magically" rehabilitating. As we write this post, another baby has been killed by a family pit bull in Columbus.

felony indictment pit bull mauling death in Ohio

Kilo, the male pit bull responsible for killing infant Royal Bates, seen on Facebook. The baby's parents now face a felony indictment of involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide.

felony indictment pit bull mauling death in Ohio

The baby's parents, Blake Bates and Alyssa Smith, allegedly had knowledge their male pit bull, Kilo, had a history of aggression prior to the dog ripping open the infant's skull, killing him.

map iconView the DogsBite.org Google Map: Ohio Fatal Pit Bull Maulings.

Related articles:
03/24/25: Ohio's Weak Dangerous Dog Laws: 4-Part Investigation by News Organizations
04/02/25: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Ohio Woman and Dog Killed by Vicious Dogs in Ashville
03/13/25: Unmasking a Con: How a Pit Bull Activist Rose to Fame in the No-Kill Community...
02/12/25: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: 3-Year Old Girl Killed by Dogs While Visiting Father in Cincinnati


Baseline reporting requirements:
Law enforcement departments across the United States should release consistent "baseline" information to the media and the public after each fatal dog mauling, including these items.