And meanwhile, I have enlisted a friend to help in the next wave of letting everyone know what's going on in Roscommon County. More on that later. But first:

Here's an example of what I'm dealing with in Roscommon. Below is my brief e-mail exchange (word-for-word) with Jerry Kent, editor of the Roscommon Herald-News. (Our exchange took place within a 24 hour time span.) I was sent a note by someone else, saying that the paper was going to do a story about this matter. I e-mailed Mr. Kent on Wednesday, April 25th. Again, this is word-for-word. Not a single word has been added or deleted:

Hi Jerry . . .

Just wanted to let you know I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Sincerely,

Chris Wright
www.thorswarriors.com

His response:

Do you have a phone number? I don't do business via websites.

My reply:

Hi Jerry . . .

E-mail is best; that way, we both have absolute clarity regarding my responses and statements. Let me know if you can make an exception, and thanks for your time.

Chris

His reply:

No.

So, I respond again:

Hi Jerry . . .

I will be happy to speak with you on the phone if I will be allowed to record the conversation. The only day I have free is Friday. Is there a time that would work in your schedule?

Thank you for your consideration.

Chris

And his reply:

Your suspicions dumbfound me. We're not talking Watergate here, and I'm certainly no Woodward or Bernstein. I've had an easier time getting security clearance to photograph visiting presidential candidates in Saginaw. I think we'll just forget it.

My final reply:

Hi Jerry . . .

Sorry we couldn't coordinate an interview. Thanks again for your time.

Chris

No . . . really! Stop laughing! He actually wrote that! What was so difficult with my request? I simply want to make sure that he and I both have clarification of what is said. I have interviewed *hundreds* of people, and, to date, no one has ever not granted my request to record them. Reason? I want to be able to go back and make sure my facts are correct when I'm working on the story. (In fact, I interviewed Mike Cox years ago, before he became our Michigan State Attorney General. He didn't have a problem being recorded.) Sure, there have been (and will be) times when I don't record people . . . but what's the big deal? I have a recording studio . . . why would this have been difficult for Mr. Kent? This is buffoonery, plain and simple. So if Mr. Kent prints in his paper something to the effect that I declined his interview, you, dear Warrior, will know the truth.

Mr. Kent also took his liberty to write an editorial, which, although targeted at me, I found a bit odd. In both his editorial and his article, he still doesn't address facts.

The main article states a few things about the condition of the dogs, according to Roscommon ACO Terry MacKillop and Roscommon County Prosecutor Mark Jernigan. Let's go over them, and compare them to what the treating veterinarians had to say. (The entire vet statement is posted on Chapter 5 of this site.) Who do we believe?

Roscommon Herald-News: "According to MacKillop, the dogs appeared thin, but not to the extent of the dog found in Crawford County."

Compared to three veterinarians, in a prepared statement: ". . .these six rescued dogs had very likely been in a condition of starvation for greater than three weeks in order to lose such a large percentage of their body weight . . ."

Roscommon Herald-News: "MacKillop met with (Roscommon Prosecutor) Mark Jernigan to discuss the situation and both men agreed there wasn't enough evidence to pursue animal cruelty charges in Roscommon County."

Yet, the veterinarians state: "Their poor Body Condition Scores were definitely not a result of an acute episode of starvation but rather a chronic process." (emphasis mine)

Roscommon Herald-News: (Prosecutor Mark Jernigan speaking) "In 2005 the (six) dogs were looked at by Roscommon County vets, and in '07, they weighed 3 to 5 pounds less than what they were in '05."

THREE TO FIVE POUNDS LESS?!?! Considering the ENORMOUS weight ALL dogs have put on since they were rescued, Jernigan's statement actually backs up the written and signed statement of the Riverside Animal Hospital: that the animals had been living in conditions of chronic starvation . . . and, according to Jernigan, animal control must have known about it, if they have reports from the treating vet from 2005!

Roscommon Herald-News: (Prosecutor Mark Jernigan speaking) "The guy (Baumgart) had been treating them, de-worming them, and taking them to the vet. There was food there, and he had shelter outside. It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and we didn't have that."

Compared to the statement of three veterinarians: " . . . it is our professional opinion that these six dogs were living in a chronic condition of neglect and starvation prior to their rescue."

And let's look at what Heather Smith, the woman who personally rescued ALL SIX DOGS and got them into foster homes, had on her website when she was pleading for help for 'SIX STARVED LABS': "Some are so weak and thin they can hardly stand. Others are very frail."

Heather goes on to describe one dog in particular: "He is the worst, I wish you could see pictures because it would make you seriously ill." (emphasis mine) Remember: this is one of the dogs that 'appeared thin' to Roscommon County Animal Control Officer Terry MacKillop.

Further, from the statement of Riverside Animal Hospital: ". . . on several occasions one of the other five dogs would randomly urinate or defecate in the room. Whenever that would happen, it was witnessed that all the other dogs would lunge in that direction and eagerly drink or ravenously eat the excrement, indicating that they were extremely hungry."

MR. JERNIGAN: DOGS THAT HAVE FOOD AND WATER DO NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY!

And let's hear from the vet tech, who also saw and treated these six dogs:

"I am stunned not only to know that these labs' health were allowed to deteriorate so gravely, but also that the owner was re-issued a kennel license in 2007! Apparently, things work much differently in Roscommon. It is quite evident to me, as an animal lover who has dedicated her career to helping animals, as well as a government employee that knows proper procedures for kennel licensing, that Roscommon needs to re-evaluate their kennel license procedures. The situation involving Thor and the other six labs should never have been allowed to happen in the first place and there is no way that 8 more dogs should be placed in harm's way."

Who are we going to believe here? We have two entirely different stories. Who is telling the truth: Roscommon ACO MacKillop and Prosecutor Jernigan . . . or three veterinarians, a vet tech, the rescuer that initially picked up the dogs and a half-dozen foster families who cared and treated the dogs, who all have provided written and signed statements documenting the absolute DEPLORABLE condition of these animals?

Bobby, right, (formerly Duke) weighed 49.2 lbs on January 30th; and 67 lbs on March 6th (a gain of 36.20%). This photo, taken last week, shows additional, healthy weight gain:

Clearly, MacKillop and Jernigan's claims are in stark contrast to what trained animal professionals have stated. (Again, for the complete vet statement, jump back to Chapter 5).

But, there's more: On January 23rd, the day the six labs were removed, Roscommon Sheriff Detective John Wybraniec told me that MacKillop told him that the dogs were living in "urine-soaked hay", as I mentioned in Chapter 3. In fact, MacKillop had detailed the six dogs' deplorable states and living conditions to Cheryl Postma, director of the Animal Shelter of Crawford County. Now, however, in the Roscommon Herald-News, Mr. MacKillop's story appears to be quite different. In fact, if we are to believe him now, the animals only 'appeared thin', and the all had 'food, water, and shelter.'

This dog is one of the six that 'appeared thin' to Mr. MacKillop. (She has since DOUBLED her weight, and her serious eye infection has healed):

Ladies and gentlemen . . . Any REASONABLE person can see the photos of those six labs, read the vet statement, the statement of the vet tech and the foster families, and realize that this is a case of ANIMAL CRUELTY. It is a fact that CANNOT BE DENIED. And yet, Roscommon County Animal Control Officer Terry MacKillop and Roscommon Prosecutor Mark Jernigan, according to the Roscommon Herald-News, state that there "wasn't enough evidence to pursue animal cruelty charges."

And to think: Mr. MacKillop has been an animal control officer for years. He is vice-president of the Michigan Association of Animal Control Officers. How is it that his opinion of six dogs can be so different from 3 DVMs and a LVT? Furthermore, the Roscommon Herald-News reports that "Terry (MacKillop) was still concerned about the overall conditions and asked (Baumgart) to voluntarily turn the dogs over to him, and he complied."

What in the hell?!?! 'ASK' him to turn the dogs over to him? I am not an animal control officer, but I've read the laws and Michigan statutes. Those dogs should have been SEIZED and Baumgart should have been ARRESTED and charged with animal cruelty. I believe the statements of the DVMs and the LVT provide an open and shut case. Those dogs were suffering horribly. Why is it that Mr. MacKillop and Mr. Jernigan appear to be defending someone who was starving his dogs?

I also wonder about Mr. Jernigan's statement about 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt.' (Above) Apparently, his 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' means discarding (or not investigating) the statements of three veterinarians and a vet tech, not to mention the foster families, all of whom took great lengths to rehabilitate six severely emaciatated dogs. And remember: when I tried to present this evidence to assistant prosecutor Robert Bennett, he didn't want to hear or see anything at all about these six dogs, and, in fact, refused to speak with me further. Is this how the justice system works in Roscommon County? Where is this 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt?'

Also: isn't it interesting how the Roscommon Herald-News presented only one side of this story? Obviously, Prosecutor Jernigan and Herald-News Editor Jerry Kent didn't do any real 'investigating' as to the condition of the dogs. Mr. Kent only wrote what he was told by a prosecutor and an animal control officer. (And there was no mention at all of this website and my ongoing crusade to get justice for ALL SEVEN dogs.) So much for fair and balanced journalism. Let's not forget: it was Mr. Kent who declined the interview ("I think we'll just forget it"), and not me, as he reported in the Roscommon Herald-News.

Trooper, one of the six dogs that 'appeared thin' to Mr. Mackillop, has made nearly a 30 POUND WEIGHT GAIN. Notice that proper care and attention has also allowed the open wound/sores on his mouth to heal. His new owner reports to me that Trooper runs six miles with him every other day:

A reader of this site sent an e-mail to Representative Joel Sheltrown, asking for his help. (Sheltrown is one of those I've asked readers to send mail and e-mail to.) Here is Mr. Sheltrown's reply:

Dear (constituent):

Thank you for your letter regarding the abuse situation involving Larry Baumgart in Roscommon County and Crawford County.

I have been in contact with the author of thorswarriors.com and also the Roscommon County Prosecutor’s office. The Roscommon County Prosecutor is cooperating with the Crawford County Prosecutor on this case.

As this is a legal matter, the local prosecutors have jurisdiction with this case.

Sincerely,

Joel Sheltrown
State Representative
103rd House District

While Mr. Sheltrown has not personally been in communication with me, a representative from his office replied to an e-mail I sent last month, which inquired as to whether the police had been notified. I appreciate the response, but I would love to speak one-on-one with Mr. Sheltrown, should he be available.

The great thing is that Mr. Sheltrown is the first official to acknowledge 'the abuse situation involving Larry Baumgart in Roscommon County and Crawford County.' Thank you, Mr. Sheltrown! Up until now, no elected official has reviewed the evidence and agreed that these six labs faced an 'abuse situation' in Roscommon County! According to Mr. Jernigan and Mr. MacKillop, there wasn't enough evidence of abuse to prosecute Mr. Baumgart in Roscommon County. Finally, an elected official agrees that the six labradors were 'abused' in Roscommon county. Now we're getting somewhere!

In addition, I'm hearing a lot of interesting things from many people, particularly those who have taken it upon themselves to contact Roscommon officials. CONTINUE TO DO THIS! Perhaps a few things need to be re-clarified, for those who've only skimmed this site, so you can ask the proper questions:

Larry Baumgart is being charged with one count of animal cruelty-abandonment in CRAWFORD county. If you contact Roscommon County Animal Control or the Roscommon Prosecutor, please ask:

Why, in light of the overwhelming evidence (I.E. vet statments, statement from a licensed vet tech, etc.) Baumgart is not facing animal cruelty charges in Roscommon county? (Remember: if Baumgart had been charged with animal cruelty in Roscommon, his kennel license could have been revoked, and this whole mess wouldn't even exist.) Being that Mr. Baumgart has been re-issued a kennel license, his 'kennel' can be inspected at anytime by Animal Control. Ask how many 'inspections' have occurred since March 9th, 2007. Ask how any prior 'inspections' helped the seven labradors that were in a state of 'chronic starvation' according to three veterinarians and a vet tech.

In addition: be sure to ask what day Roscommon Animal Control Officer Terry MacKillop met with Roscommon Prosecutor Mark Jernigan to discuss animal cruelty charges against Baumgart in Roscommon County. Also be sure to ask if there have been prior complaints against Baumgart regarding the condition of his animals. Ask Mr. Jernigan and Mr. MacKillop what their thoughts are after reading the vet statement, the statement of the vet tech, and the statements of the foster families. Ask why, if they haven't read these statements, did they decide not to review some very important evidence.

Ask if they are aware of any MORE of Baumgart's dogs that might have been starving . . . dogs that have not been accounted for. Dogs that might have been 'disposed' of? Dogs that might have recently been found by a few dilligent, private citizens?

This just gets more and more interesting (and sickening) every day.

Lots happening, but it's taking time. NBC 25 in the Michigan Tri-Cities area has done a two-part story on the situation, exposing what's been happening. In only a couple of days, the investigators from NBC 25 have been able to get to the truth: the truth Roscommon officials continue to deny. How long will they continue to ignore the facts? Because they *enforce* the laws, do they think they're *above* them?

Watch parts one and two of NBC 25's story:

Part One (aired 5/24/07)

Part Two (aired 5/25/07)

I still find it hard to believe that, in light of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE and FACTS, Roscommon prosecutor Mark Jernigan and Roscommon Animal Control Officer Terry MacKillop believe there 'wasn't enough evidence' to press animal cruelty charges against the responsible person. This past Thursday, I spoke personally with Dr. Greg Brown, D.V.M., one of the vets who saw all six dogs on January 30th. He stated that in his 18 years as a vet, he's "NEVER seen dogs in such deplorable condition." In fact, on part two of NBC 25's story, Dr. Brown states "Michigan is supposed to be known as the state with the strictest animal protection laws in the country, and I guess that's true unless it's in Roscommon County." How is it that Terry MacKillop, with all of his years and experience as an animal control officer, can't recognize obvious starvation, neglect, abuse, and cruelty? Why is prosecutor Jernigan so willing to believe the word of his ACO, despite the contrary statements of three veterinarians, a vet tech, and six foster families? After all: As far as I know, Jernigan never even saw the dogs, so he does not know their actual condition. He has relied solely on the word of Roscommon ACO Terry MacKillop.

Anna in January, and today:

And on that note: very recently, the remains of what is thought to be a dead dog have been discovered by private individuals (once again!) only a few hundred feet from where Thor was discovered. DNA samples have been sent to a lab for testing.

All of this only makes me wonder: is there more to this than animal cruelty? Is something being covered up that I don't know about?

And let's revisit another issue: my FOIA request for information from Terry MacKillop, regarding Baumgart. Remember: MacKillop sent me a letter (actually, I believe the letter was crafted by the prosecutor or assistant prosecutor) requesting the UNBELIEVABLE sum of $423.00 (estimated) for this information. My attorney sent MacKillop a reply weeks ago, asking him to break down this ridiculous cost. The inescapable conclusion, of course, is that there must be a *lot* in Mr. Baumgart's file regarding his kennel license, given the enormous amount of money it will take to provide this info. Why? What's in that file? I certainly understand that my FOIA request will cost money . . . but $423.00?

One interesting thing to note: Mr. Jernigan (and other Roscommon officials) are stating that I gained access to assistant prosecuting attorney Robert Bennett under 'false pretenses'. They claim that I told Mr. Bennett I wanted to talk to him about 'Breaking and Enterings' involving 'Roscommon officers'. This, of course, is completely untrue.

My actual request, on the phone with Mr. Bennett, was to speak with him in person regarding 'crimes' (and I was very specific in using that word) in Roscommon County. Mr. Bennett asked me if I had gone to the police, and I told him 'no, because it involves one of your officers'. (Meaning, of course, Animal Control Officer Terry MacKillop) Bennett then agreed to meet me. IN NO WAY DID I MISLEAD HIM ABOUT MY INTENTIONS, AND IN NO WAY DID I GAIN ACCESS TO HIS OFFICE UNDER 'FALSE PRETENSES.' Animal cruelty is a CRIME, and this matter involved an animal control OFFICER. Once again, instead of dealing with the message and the FACTS, Roscommon officials are attempting to 'discredit the messenger'. Thankfully, Roscommon residents are smarter than that.

Meanwhile, I have sent a copy of the vet's statement, and that of the vet tech, to the Michigan Attorney General's office, along with a note explaining that animal cruelty charges have not been brought in Roscommon County because there was 'not enough evidence' according to the Prosecutor and the ACO.

But let's keep the pressure on locally. Keep writing, keep calling. Keep demanding ACTION. Insist that Roscommon officials pay attention to the *facts* in this case. In fact, e-mail Roscommon County Commissioners, and ask each one to personally look into this matter. Ask, specifically, if they have seen the actual vet statement signed by three veterinarians, and the statement of the vet tech:

Larry D. Mead, Chairman
larrymead@roscommoncounty.net

Ed Nellist, Vice-chairman
ednellist@roscommoncounty.net

Bob Schneider
bobschneider@roscommoncounty.net

Marc J. Milburn
marcjmilburn@roscommoncounty.net

Lowell Souder
lowellsouder@roscommoncounty.net

Anna (left) and new pal, Cody:

JUMP TO:

Home/Welcome Page

LABS & LIES - Chapter 1: A Shot in the Dark

LABS & LIES - Chapter 2: It Doesn't take a Rocket Scientist

LABS & LIES - Chapter 3: And Then There Were Six

LABS & LIES - Chapter 4: Out of Sight, Out of Mind

LABS & LIES - Chapter 5: Rattling Cages & Furious Rages

LABS & LIES - Chapter 6: With Labradors and Justice for All

LABS & LIES - Chapter 7: Black Friday

LABS & LIES - Chapter 8: Puppygate (UPDATED 5/27/07)

LABS & LIES - Chapter 9: GUILTY! (UPDATED 6/22/2007)

LABS & LIES - Chapter 10: Justice . . . Crawford County Style (added 7/11/07)

e-mail the author of this site