Should this dog die? A legal battle after mauling death in Suffield

It has been almost five years since Janet D’Aleo, a 95-year-old woman and Enfield resident, was killed in a dog mauling incident that occurred at the Suffield home of Annie Hornish, a former Democratic State Representative and current State Director of the Humane Society. Even though Suffield’s Animal Control Officer (ACO) Ryan Selig ruled almost immediately after the incident that Dexter, the pitbull-pointer mix responsible, should be put down, the dog remains alive, confined at River Valley Animal Center, while the Hornish family and the Town of Suffield remain locked in litigation.

Annie and her husband, Neil Hornish, appealed Selig’s decision, kickstarting a legal battle that has cost Suffield taxpayers over $150,000 in legal fees and kennel costs, with no clear end in sight. Throughout the legal battle, the Hornish family has offered three separate settlement offers that would have spared Dexter’s life, but the Town has rejected all of them.

“I think it is safe to say that the Hornishes would like this dangerous dog to remain alive and the Town believes firmly that it is in the best interest of the public to have this dangerous dog put down,” said Colin Moll, Suffield’s First Selectman. “The vast majority of people we hear from cannot understand why someone would fight for a dog that did such a heinous attack and then try to stick the Town with the bill while they were doing so.”

While Town officials insist they are willing to bear the costs to ensure public safety, the Hornishes believe that they are unwilling to reach a settlement to punish them for being politically outspoken locally.

Inside Investigator spoke with the Hornishes and Moll, as well as other parties interested in the outcome, and analyzed Suffield’s Board of Selectmen meeting minutes and court documents, to share as complete a picture as possible of the saga, estimate the true taxpayer cost, understand the settlement offers proposed by the Hornishes’ and explore why the Town refuses to accept them.

On November 6, 2019, 95-year-old Janet D’Aleo, an Enfield resident, went to visit her longtime friend of 70 years, Agnes Wosko. Wosko, Annie Hornish’s mother, lived with Annie and Neil at the time. Annie and Neil were away from home at the time of D’Aleo’s arrival. The Hornishes said that typically Wosko would let them know if D’Aleo was coming over to visit, and they would be there to see that she got inside and seated safely.

“She [D’Aleo] called my mom, and we were not home when she called my mom, and my mom said ‘Come on over,’” said Annie. “Normally, we knew when her visitors would come, and we would be there just to make sure everyone got seated.”

D’Aleo was accompanied by her health aide during the visit, Elizabeth Nicholls. Nicholls walked D’Aleo into the house but then exited to move the car into the driveway. Dexter had run to the front of the house upon D’Aleo’s arrival, and Nicholls recalled him nipping at D’Aleo’s leg, but Wosko ordered Dexter into a hallway beyond the foyer and then shut the doors behind him.

Upon Nicholls’ return, she reported Dexter charging towards her, to which she slammed the front door to protect herself. She reported seeing the beginning of the mauling incident through the front door’s sidelight. She said that Dexter, who had burst through the doors he was confined by, grabbed D’Aleo by the leg, pulled her to the ground, and began to maul her. At that point, Nicholls ran back inside the house and attempted to stop the attack. She tried lifting a box to strike the dog with, but it was too heavy, and she instead grabbed a metal stool. She then struck Dexter with it approximately five to six times before running back outside.

“I was striking the dog, but the dog never stopped and let go of Janet’s leg,” read Nicholls’ sworn statement to the police.

Nicholls ran outside, panicking and in search of anybody else who could assist. Wasko reportedly was screaming and crying at this time, pleading with Dexter to stop, to no avail. It was at this time that the Hornishes arrived.

“I saw Elizabeth screaming,” recalled Annie. “I started calling 911 and running into the house, and then I ran in – this was seconds later, Janet was on her back. She looked unconscious to me, she wasn’t moving.”

Annie said that upon arriving, she commanded Dexter to go into a bathroom and then shut the door behind him. Meanwhile, Nicholls grabbed oxygen from her car in an attempt to revive D’Aleo, but Nicholls said that she was not breathing when she returned. Nicholls said that D’Aleo’s pants were torn and recalled seeing one of her legs swinging from Dexter’s mouth.

According to a legal brief submitted by the Department of Agriculture (DOA) during the first appeals case, Suffield Police Officer Thomas Kieselback was the first responder on the scene. He provided medical care until EMS arrived but reported D’Aleo as being “unresponsive with severe trauma to her legs, and with massive blood loss.” D’Aleo was pronounced dead at Bay State Medical almost 40 minutes later.

Another responding officer, Detective Shawn St. John conducted witness interviews with Nicholls and Wosko immediately after the attack. St. John reported Wosko as “very distraught, crying, and kept on repeating, ‘I can’t believe this happened,’ and ‘I couldn’t get him,’ and ‘there’s so much blood,’ and ‘I couldn’t stop him, he just kept biting her.’”

Photographs taken of D’Aleo’s legs after the incident “depict massive injuries to Ms. D’Aleo’s lower extremities from multiple deep bites, including to her left leg and ankle, with exposed tissue and muscles, all the way through to her bones.” Officer Selig said that it was “the most severe dog bite” he had ever seen. The injuries were so severe that Selig found it, “extremely difficult to count the number of times Dexter bit.”

Based upon their interviews with Nicholls and Wosko, both Nicholls and the responding officers reported that Dexter’s attack was wholly unprovoked.

Despite the gruesome picture painted by Nicholls’ and responding officers’ testimony, the Hornishes believed that D’Aleo likely died upon impacting the ground, after Dexter jumped up at her in an “exuberant greeting.”

They shared their reasoning in an interview with Inside Investigator , saying that any number of factors could have accounted for the grievous injuries sustained by D’Aleo; they hypothesized that Dexter’s claws could have cut D’Aleo’s legs on the way down as she fell, that Dexter could have been aggravated after being hit by the stool, leading him to then bite D’Aleo’s leg, or that the stool itself could have caused damage. In an interview and in the Court documents they also highlighted the fact that D’Aleo came to their house directly after visiting a clinic for treatment of a lower leg wound and argued that an existing wound in combination with her old age and fragility could have accounted for the wounds’ severity.

“We’re fighting this precisely because we don’t believe this was a vicious mauling, as the town has asserted,” said Annie. “We believe what happened was just an exuberant greeting.”

Thus far, the Hornishes have failed to convince the Town of Suffield, DOA, or Superior Court of these theories. The DOA said there was “a preponderance of evidence in the record that Dexter bit the victim,” and called the fragile-skin theory an “unsubstantiated assertion.” The Superior Court asserted that “the severe injuries were caused by bites, not objects such as a step stool,” and that “the nature of the victim’s skin and her on-going leg wounds did not contribute to her injuries.”

Still, the Hornishes contend that they have evidence to back up their argument. For one, they noted that Dexter was not found with any blood on his snout, but only on his claws, implying that he may not have bitten D’Aleo at all. They also noted the lack of blood on the walls.

“The accident occurred within a hallway off our foyer that was pretty narrow, maybe like five feet wide,” said Neil. “There wasn’t any blood splatter on the walls which, you know, if you think of a mauling you think of a dog grabbing and shaking, and ripping and tearing, but it wasn’t like there was blood splatter all over the walls.”

They also contend that Nicholls was blocked by their front door from having a complete view of what happened, drawing into question her testimony. They believe that she could have seen Janet fall but would not have been able to see Janet’s legs on the ground from her vantage point.

“We don’t believe she could have seen it, because she was looking through a narrow window on the side of our door from the outside,” said Neil. “And between her and Janet was Annie’s mother in this big power wheelchair.”

(Left) A view through the front door’s sidelight, as pictured by Neil Hornish. (Right) The scene at which Janet D’Aleo was mauled, as photographed by Suffield Police.

The Hornishes take issue with the way the incident was investigated and have levied hefty allegations both against the DOA hearings process, which Annie called a “kangaroo court,” and the testimony of Detective St. John, which they believe to have been perjurious. The Hornishes also criticized the use of a recording taken from D’Aleo’s LifeAlert emergency transponder. St. John claimed he heard D’Aleo pleading for help on the recording, which would be evidence contrary to the Hornishes’ version of events.

“The detective says that he thinks he can hear Janet’s voice on the recording, saying ‘Get him,’ or ‘Get him off of me,’” said Neil. “We heard that recording and the recording was played at the hearing, and her voice is definitely not on there.”

Neil said that despite the recording not audibly containing D’Aleo’s voice, the final decision issued by the DOA still cited it as supporting evidence. Neil also went as far as to say that Nicholls originally testified in the D’Aleos’ lawsuit against them that Janet was silent during the incident.

“The ACA [Nicholls] testified that when this started, she did not hear Janet shout or scream out in pain or shock or surprise or anything,” said Neil. “She just went down.”

The two paint an entirely different picture of Dexter’s personality than the town, and even offered testimonials of others who had experience with Dexter. The Hornishes’ shared several written character testimonies that were submitted to the DOA during its hearing process, most of them being from former owners or neighbors of Dexter, all of them speaking glowingly of the dog’s character.

There was also a testimony transcribed by Annie of her mother’s recollection of events, which the Hornishes submitted on record as witness testimony to Suffield police two days after the incident. It differed greatly from Wosko’s initial statement to St. John.

“I heard Dexter push through the doors, and when I looked back, Janet was on the floor and Elizabeth was screaming and hitting Dexter with a step stool about four times,” reads Wosko’s witness statement. “I remember Dexter having a shoe, not on Janet, in his mouth.”

Annie explained that her mother did not take the stand during the hearing, or any other court proceedings, as she has been battling dementia. She no longer lives with the Hornishes but is now in an assisted living facility.

“I do not think this started out as an attack,” continued Wosko. “Dexter knew Janet. I have no fear of Dexter. We never had any bad issues with him.”

The DOA ruling found the written testimony provided by Wosko to be less credible than her immediate testimony provided to St. John at the scene of the mauling. Moll has also made a point to highlight previous bite incidents Dexter was involved in prior to him being fostered by the Hornishes.

“The dog had three known bite incidents before it killed a 95-year-old woman in a gruesome mauling,” said Moll. “There is too great a risk that the dog will injure or kill another person if it is released. The Town would rather pay the legal fees and boarding costs to defend these lawsuits than to put another innocent elderly woman, a child or the general public at risk from an attack by this dog.”

Annie Hornish called the bite history, which was recorded from his time with a prior owner in Norwich, “misleading.” She said that the first case involved Dexter in a fight with another dog, which ended in only Dexter needing veterinary care. She says the second was a phone complaint, but when police arrived, they found nothing to report. The third case involved Dexter intervening in a violent domestic abuse incident, “where a man was repeatedly punching a woman in the face, and no photo evidence of any dog bite was present,” said Annie.

“The ‘bite history’ was so weak that even the DOA’s biased administrative hearings courts did not use it in their findings of fact,” said Annie.

Neil brought up the fact that, since his confinement in River Valley, the Hornishes have had three separate dog behaviorists brought in to inspect Dexter, all of which found no issues. Both the DOA’s final decision, and the Superior Court’s, acknowledged these exams but discredited them.

“The Dog Owner’s expert, Ms. Joyner, did not assess Dexter’s behavior on November 6, 2019, she had no knowledge of what happened on that date, and she did not consider Dexter’s prior bite history (or any other evidence),” read the DOA’s decision . “Both experts provided their opinions with blinders on – they did not consider or assess the reason that Dexter was in confinement and those experts did not have the benefit of the evidence that is in this record.”

The Superior Court’s final decision simply stated:, “the plaintiffs’ experts were not credible.” They also did not find any issue with the way that the DOA conducted its hearing, stating that the “rules of practice for such hearings were followed.”

Regardless of the rulings made thus far, the Hornishes’ belief in the innocence of their dog remains unshakeable.

“My 94-year-old mother – Dexter slept with her, that’s how confident we were with this dog,” said Annie. “She knew Janet too, and was always good with her.”

The tragic death of D’Aleo and the disagreement about what should happen next have led to years of expensive litigation. The Hornishes did not want to divulge how much money they have spent on legal fees, beyond saying it’s been “a lot,” but they did admit to paying $42,000 in kennel fees for Dexter. Moll said that the town has spent upwards of $150,000, taking into consideration “all but a few months of boarding costs,” but did not give exact numbers.

Through analysis of Suffield’s board meeting minutes, Inside Investigator was able to determine that the Town has paid at least $75,321 in kenneling costs as of April 2024. According to a FOIA request submitted by the Hornishes, the town has paid $87,263 in legal fees on the case as of August 2023. So, $162,585.36 in total. Regardless of the exact figure, the number only stands to climb as litigation drags on.

“The judges have told us, this might be a two-to-three-year process,” said Annie of the ongoing appeal case , which has no court dates scheduled yet. Currently, their civil suit against the town, the only other currently ongoing case, has court dates scheduled as far out as July 17, 2025.

Thus far, the Hornishes have been privy to five separate suits, not including the initial DOA administrative hearing; a wrongful death suit brought against them by the D’Aleos, which their homeowner’s insurance company settled, their unsuccessful appeal of the DOA’s decision brought before the Superior Court, an injunctive relief they filed which unsuccessfully attempted to bring Dexter home until a final decision could be made, their second appeal, and a civil lawsuit filed against the town and River Valley.

The DOA hearing, which is an administrative hearing conducted outside of the state’s court system, was the result of the Hornishes appealing Selig’s order for Dexter to be euthanized. Selig gave this order on Nov. 14, 2019, and the Hornishes issued their appeal four days later. The Hornishes filed their injunctive relief on June 1, 2021, which was denied on Dec. 17. Ultimately, the DOA ruled in agreement with the town on Dec. 21. It was around that time that the Hornishes also settled for $2 million with the D’Aleo family.

The Hornishes appealed the DOA’s decision on Feb. 4, 2021, thus bringing the issue before the Connecticut Superior Court. That case was decided upon on Nov. 13, 2023, with the Superior Court also ruling that Dexter be euthanized.

The two cases still ongoing are the Hornishes’ second appeal for Dexter’s euthanasia, which is being seen before the State’s Appellate Court, and a civil suit filed against the town and River Valley.  The second appeal case was filed on Dec. 1, 2023, while the civil suit was filed on March 31, 2022.

The civil suit filed accuses the Town and River Valley of conspiring to charge arbitrarily high boarding costs to house Dexter, both in comparison to market value and in comparison to the level of care he’s receiving. According to the suit, Dexter has been confined alone in a 50-square-foot area. Selig reportedly visits and plays with Dexter almost every workday, and occasionally on his off days, for periods ranging anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour. The suit alleges that neither the Town nor River Valley maintains complete records of Selig’s visits.

“We felt that is just not an adequate amount of time to socialize, or be with a dog, you know,” said Annie. “We contend it’s barbaric, but the town is claiming Dexter is doing okay.”

The Hornishes are concerned by the standard of care Dexter receives at River Valley, claiming the facility has not sent them any photos or videos of the dog to assure them of how he’s doing. For a period of time, the Hornishes were able to visit Dexter at River Valley for one hour a week, but their visitation rights were revoked on Jan. 12, 2021. During their visitation, the Hornishes were denied physical contact, having only been able to look at Dexter through a window. Regardless, they visited River Valley every day to drop off food and fresh blankets for the dog.

Their visitation was revoked after a conversation the Hornishes had with Selig on one of their visits. This is another instance where there is disagreement on the facts. The Hornishes say they were attempting to persuade Selig to become an ally in their effort to convince Town officials to allow them to have physical contact with Dexter during their visits, and that some of what they said was misinterpreted.

“We were just saying, ‘Ryan, you know Dexter is a good dog, you know he’s not a threat to us,’” said Neil. “‘So, if you were to share that with the Board of Selectmen I think your opinion would go a long way.’”

Neil said he congratulated Selig on his recent raise, and that while he “can’t remember verbatim” what was said, Selig said something to the point that he had to follow the chain of command, to which Annie said, “Ryan you have to do the right thing, because people in power come and go.”

According to the final decision on the Hornishes’ request for injunctive relief , Selig testified “that Ms. Hornish said to him, in effect, that ACO Selig was being financially rewarded for ordering that Dexter be euthanized, and that, if Suffield’s leadership changed in the next municipal elections, ACO Selig’s job would be in jeopardy.”

Ultimately, the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to revoke Hornishes’ visitation rights at a Jan. 20, 2021, board meeting.

In addition to their concerns for Dexter’s condition, the Hornishes believe that they should not be held liable for the ongoing kenneling fees and are attempting to be reimbursed for the $42,000 they paid already. They cited several prior cases in which owners who appealed their dog’s kill orders were not found liable to pay kenneling fees.

Annie claimed she knew all along that she and Neil should not be held financially liable for kennel costs, but that the two decided to pay for the two years out of concern for what might happen to Dexter if they didn’t. The Hornishes said they had to stop paying because River Valley “could just raise the rates as high as they want.” She said the daily rate now exceeded $66. She also said that River Valley’s Owner, Mohan Sachdev, implied that Dexter may be euthanized after they stopped payment.

“When we stopped paying, the veterinarian, Dr. Sachdev, we believe he made a thinly veiled threat,” said Annie. “He said to us that if we don’t pay, he’s going to treat our dog as an unclaimed dog, and the inference there is he would be killed.”

The Hornishes claim that the State’s General Statutes provide only three circumstances by which owners are required to pay for their dog’s confinement by the state and that Dexter’s case doesn’t fit any of them. They argued that kennel costs are only covered by owners in instances of 10-day rabies quarantines, if the ACO has to confiscate a dog after owners fail to comply with a restraint order, or if owners don’t pick up a dog set to be released within a 24-hour timespan.

“Beyond that, it doesn’t say anything right?” said Neil.

This argument has also failed to hold up in court so far. The Town filed a counterclaim to the civil suit on Sept. 2, 2022, in an effort to be reimbursed for the kennel fees the town has covered since Hornishes stopped paying. On Dec. 1, 2022, both sides agreed to seek a partial summary judgment on the issue. Hartford Superior Court decided on May 19, 2023, in a memorandum of a decision on the partial summary judgment, that the General Statutes indicate the Hornishes are to be held accountable to reimburse the town.

“There is a statute that requires the owner to be responsible for these fees. The Hornishes disagree with that position,” said Moll. “Thus far, the Courts have ruled against the Hornishes on these claims.”

Throughout the four-year legal battle, Suffield’s Board of Selectmen has publicly commented on numerous occasions their dismay towards the ongoing expenditures this saga has cost the town’s taxpayers. At a Feb. 2022 meeting in which the board agreed to pay $12,254.04 to River Valley, Moll was recorded in the meeting minutes as having said that “he does not want to see the town pay any more of these [invoices] going forward.” Selectman Pete Hill even suggested placing a lien on the Hornishes’ home “to force their hand.”

In an Aug. 16, 2023, meeting, Selectman Mel Chafetz referred to the approved transfer of $24,000 from the town’s contingency fund to its Animal Control’s Veterinary Services fund as a “tragedy.” At an earlier meeting, held on Dec. 7, 2022, in which the board approved a $4,047.96 payment to River Valley, Chafetz was quoted as saying “it really bothers him that taxpayers are paying these expenses.” Selectwoman Kathleen Harrington agreed.

At that meeting, Neil Hornish fired back.

“Mr. Hornish claimed that he and his wife have offered this board three separate solutions which would have no cost to the town, and this board has repeatedly refused the Hornishes request to sit down and discuss those solutions,” read the minutes’ paraphrasing of his comment. The minutes go on to directly quote Neil as having said, “When any member of the board makes a public comment that it should not be the taxpayers’ burden to cover such costs, it must be made clear that any burden on the taxpayers of Suffield in this matter is a direct result of the decisions made by this board.”

This is a position that the Hornishes still maintain to this day.

“We have a free solution, and we’ve had a free solution from the start,” said Annie. Neil added that the board has routinely ignored their offers to settle.

The first proposal was a drafted fencing plan for their yard, which Anniesaid she ran by the Beardsley Zoo, who agreed it would be sufficient for maintaining a dog of Dexter’s size. This plan would also have called for Dexter to be always muzzled when in public.

The other two solutions they proposed would have sent Dexter off to facilities equipped to hold animals with aggressive tendencies. One is in the state of Connecticut, though the Hornishes chose not to name it out of concern they may receive social media backlash. They described it as having “worked extensively” with ACOs and said it “has an extremely good reputation for taking bonafide dangerous dogs.”

The other shelter that agreed to take Dexter in belongs to Annie Hornish’s former colleague and current friend, Diana Urban. Urban served 18 years in the Connecticut House of Representatives, from 2001 to 2019, and though she sat as Chair for the Children’s Committee, she’s most known for her work on animal rights legislation. Now Urban lives in Chatham, NY, a small rural town located in the Upper Hudson Valley, where she and her husband own a home and ranch that they lovingly call ‘Five Tick Farm.’

“From the very beginning I said we’ll take Dexter, Annie, we’ll take him, no problem whatsoever,” said Urban in an interview with Inside Investigator.

The 13-acre property is mostly fenced-in pastures. It has a barn and several outbuildings that house horses, donkeys and a massive 1,300 lb pig Urban rescued, whom she has since dubbed ‘Riggasaurus,’ or ‘Riggy’ for short. In addition to the barn animals, Urban said she works closely with Bridgeport Animal Rescue Crew and is currently fostering three of their rescue dogs; Rocky, Luna and Roo. Rocky and Luna are both pitbulls, while Roo is a terrier.

Urban’s beloved 1,300-lb rescue pig, Riggy

Urban vouched for her capability around animals. Though she hasn’t met Dexter, she is not intimidated by the potential threat he might pose to her in the least. Urban said that Luna was clearly bred to fight, owing to the scars on her shoulders and her skittish behavior, but that she has progressed leaps and bounds since being taken in. Urban described herself as a lifelong equestrian, who once rode in the U.S. Equestrian Team. She pointed to her rescued racehorses as an example of her work with aggressive animals, considering them to be truly dangerous.

(Left) Rocky and Luna enjoying one another’s company (Right) Rocky enjoying his walk down to the creek on Urban’s property.

“I have racehorses out of the kill pen, 1200 lb racehorses,” said Urban. “Thoroughbred racehorses can be a little bit spicy, OK? A 1,200 lb horse that’s a problem? That’s a problem.”

Urban said if she were to take in Dexter, he would never leave her property, and be harnessed any time he leaves the fenced-in areas on her property. She said that the remote nature of her farm would ensure no possibility for the dog to harm anybody. According to Urban, the farm is located at the end of a long driveway, tucked between a creek and a train track.

Urban said that the insistence on the town to kill Dexter, and its refusal of her offer to take him in, perplexes her.

“For the life of me, being in government and seeing what they’re doing there is – I’m agog, it’s so stupid,” said Urban. She doubted the $150,000 figure given by the town thus far and believes it must have spent upwards of $200,000 by now.

“I was in town government before I got into the state, I oversaw planning and zoning,” said Urban. “If I was spending $200,000 of the town’s money to kill a dog? People would be like, ‘We need band instruments’, or ‘we need potholes filled’, or ‘we need’ whatever. It’s insane!”

Neil Hornish said that they have met with the town twice in the past couple of weeks, representing the only times in four years that the Town has agreed to meet on the subject. Annie also noted that the only reason it occurred was because it’s standard procedure for an appellate case.

“There were no conversations with the board,” said Neil of the period prior to their recent meetings. “We would send an email saying, ‘Here’s what we propose, can we talk about it?, and we would receive no response whatsoever.”

Annie said that the proposed settlement offers, if accepted, would see the Hornishes dropping both cases and include a “significant payment” to the town, yet the Selectmen still refused. In spite of the town’s refusals, Urban said that her offer remains on the table and that the town would be indemnified, relinquishing it of any legal liability. Urban called it a “positive sum game.”

“Everybody wins,” said Urban. “The town stops spending money, the Hornishes stop dipping into their life savings, and the dog, whether he’s dangerous or not, is going to a spot where he’s not going to interact with anybody.”

What the Hornishes and Urban believe to be a win-win scenario has yet to be accepted by the Town. Annie said that it was clear the town would settle for nothing less than seeing Dexter put down.

“The town, they want to kill Dexter,” said Annie. “Even if they are made whole financially, they want a dog dead, is what they want.”

The Town of Suffield maintains its hardline stance against the Hornishes’ settlement offers is out of concern for public safety and out of the belief that sparing Dexter’s life would be an injustice to the D’Aleo family.

“The Town and the Board have always taken, and will continue to take, the position that the dog must be put down in order for the case to be settled and justice to be served for the D’Aleo family and Janet D’Aleo,” said Moll. “At the end of the day, everyone should remember that a person, Janet D’Aleo, was killed by this dog. That this continues is an embarrassment and we look forward to there being an ending point in the near future.”

The Town of Suffield certainly is not the only party to hold this belief; court documents show that at least 12 concerned citizens, many of them family and friends of the D’Aleo family, submitted testimony to the DOA calling for Dexter to be put down.

The Hornishes, however, believe that their repeated refusal of proposed settlement offers is politically motivated. Hornish, who was a Democratic State Representative, said that she and Neil have frequently been outspoken opponents of the town’s decisions and politics. Annie highlighted the fact that she ran twice for State Senate in recent years as a Democrat and feels that the town board’s conservative leanings play a role in their refusal to negotiate. She said that she and Neil have been “at the forefront fighting them,” on issues such as illegally noticed meetings and various LGBTQ policy decisions, including Suffield’s controversial town green policy , and its recent library debacle .

“Part of this is politically motivated,” said Annie. Urban agreed with that notion, saying there was “no question” in her mind, and cited several other dogs who killed people in Connecticut that have been sent off to sanctuaries.

Rick Sotil, a Suffield resident who first uncovered the town’s legal and kennel costs via FOI request, agrees with the idea as well and said there is “no doubt” that the refusal to settle was political. At the June 21, 2024, Board of Selectmen meeting, Sotil spoke in favor of the town taking the Hornishes up on one of their settlement offers. The meeting minutes quoted him as having said, “It’s just common-sense management. It does not make any sense to me to spend over $100,000 on a dog when there is a way out of it. By the time this is gone and over, it seems like it is going to go well over $200,000.”

Sotil described the Hornishes as “fighters,” and acknowledged that even though he himself would have put the dog down if he was its owner, that everybody is different and the town would be better off if they just accept a settlement “and move on.”

Sotil cited several past incidents that he believes showcase the Board of Selectmen’s “pettiness,” which he thinks is what has kept them from settling. One such incident was the town’s firing of their fire lieutenant after he filed a complaint alleging the town of shorting him on pay after he assumed fire chief duties , and another was a past battle he himself had with the town in which he accused them of trying to manipulate zoning laws to keep him from growing legal marijuana.

Moll fiercely refused this notion, claiming that the Hornishes are yet again pushing a false narrative.

“From the beginning, Mr. and Mrs. Hornish have tried to make this case about something other than what it is,” said Moll. “They have claimed their dog was provoked into killing an elderly woman. They have recently claimed the elderly woman died of a heart attack, and not as a result of the mauling by their dog. Now they claim the Town’s position that the dog needs to be euthanized is politically motivated. This claim, like their other claims, has no basis in fact.”

Moll said that members of the Board of Selectmen have acted “in a bipartisan manner.” He noted the fact that his predecessor, former First Selectwoman Melissa Mack, was a Democrat. Hornish referred to Mack as a “DINO” (Democrat in Name Only). Ultimately, Moll gave no indication that the Town had any interest in settling.

“Mr. and Mrs. Hornish are free to speak and do as they please, and they have done so,” said Moll. “The Town of Suffield is only interested in concluding this matter which continues to be dragged on by the Hornishes’ failure to allow a dog that killed a person to be euthanized.”

The post Should this dog die? A legal battle after mauling death in Suffield appeared first on Connecticut Inside Investigator .