Chronology of a dog-attack, foretold

Yes, yes; I am perfectly aware that the title of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s 1981 novel is actually “CHRONICLE  - not ‘chronology’ - of a death foretold”.

But that wouldn’t really work, in this particular context... because I wasn’t physically present, on site, to actually ‘chronicle’ the events that took place on Antonio Sciortino Street, Msida, on the night of Monday, April 17 (even though I could very easily have been: it is, after all, just two minutes’ walk from my own front door, in Ta’ Xbiex... which means that I, too, have been living in abject terror of those same dogs, for at least two years now).

But in any case: from now on, I will simply assume you are all familiar with at least the basic facts: i.e., how the ‘victim’ of this latest dog-attack - Andre Galea: who once described himself (on his own Facebook profile) as ‘a dog-breeder, specialising in pit-bull terriers’ – was unaccountably still in possession of ‘anywhere up to eight’ such dogs, in the confines of his Msida apartment, until just last Monday...

...even if he is separately facing manslaughter charges, over the fatal mauling of his own grandmother (also by his own dogs) back in September 2020: and as such, was supposed to have been observing ‘strict bail conditions’, all this time.

Likewise, you will doubtless already have seen that viral video, in which Andre Galea appeared ‘clinging for dear life’, to the roof of a blood-stained car... and by now, you will probably also know that he ended up actually killing one of those dogs himself: with a ‘knife’ that he – very conveniently, it must be said – just happened to ‘have on his person’, at that precise instant.

(Because, you know, it is considered perfectly ‘normal’ – anywhere in the civilised world – for responsible dog-owners to take their pets out for ‘walkies’, in the dead of night: armed with a lethal weapon, ‘just in case’...)

Meanwhile, another widely-known fact is that Galea’s long-suffering neighbours had been alerting the Animal Welfare authorities to the continued presence of those dogs – and the danger they so clearly posed to the general public (not to mention, the plight of the animals themselves) – for months before this latest attack... with no visible results, other than a couple of ‘inspections’ which – somewhat bizarrely – concluded that Galea’s dogs were actually being kept in ‘entirely acceptable conditions’.

Honestly, though: it makes you wonder if the AWD even got the right Msida apartment, to begin with. ‘Entirely acceptable conditions’, huh? We all saw photos of those two pit-bulls terriers that killed Inez Galea in 2020: and one of them looked like it had just been shot in the face, at close range, with a BLUNDERBUSS, for crying out loud! [See image, above.]

But never mind all that, because – as I was saying earlier – there is not much point in attempting to ‘chronicle’ events, which have already been so thoroughly documented.

So instead: let’s try putting them into some kind of chronological order, shall we? Starting with that fateful September day...

... no, not in 2020: when 95-year-old Inez Galea was savagely mauled to death, by two of several dogs her own grandson kept in the same apartment block. [Note: out of respect for that poor woman’s memory, I will do what the law-courts themselves did, a year later... and spare you the truly horrific details that emerged from her autopsy.]

Let’s fast-forward to just over a year later - on September 29, 2021 - when Andre Galea himself was formally charged in court with manslaughter.

During the very first session of that trial, Inspector Colin Sheldon testified that:  “in the house where the tragedy happened, there were a number of Pitbulls... SIX OF WHICH STILL LIVE THERE TODAY”. [my emphasis]

Got that, folks? It turns out that – a full year after two of Andre Galea’s pit-bull terriers had (quite literally) ‘torn his own grandmother to pieces’ – the same individual still remained the proud owner of as many as ‘half-a-dozen’ dogs of the same (or similar) breed... to which, by the way, he has evidently been adding, ever since (it’s ‘anywhere up to eight’ now, remember?)

And this information, please note, was originally made public in open court: that is to say, in front of a presiding magistrate; within earshot of representatives of both the Attorney General’s office, and the Police Force; and to be picked up (as it duly was) by all the local media, etc.

In other words: it wasn’t exactly what you’d call a ‘well-kept secret’, was it now? And yet, it seems that all of Malta’s law-enforcement agencies – the law-courts, the police, the AG, AWD: every last one of them – chose to simply ‘ignore’ that crucial detail, for no less than two whole years.

But wait, it gets a lot worse. Later in the same trial, we also got to hear the testimony of one of the vets who physically examined the dogs themselves. And what do you know?  It turns out that: “Both pit-bulls had scars, one on its face” -  presumably, that’s the one in the picture - and, more significantly, that: “these injuries were two to three weeks old, and were CONSISTENT WITH DOG FIGHTS” [my emphasis, again].

Now: it almost feels redundant to even ask the question at all, but... on what grounds, exactly, did Malta’s entire law-enforcement sector (once again) choose to ‘overlook’ that teenie-weenie little detail... which, at the end of the day, amounts to very emphatic evidence, that another crime – over and above the death of Inez Galea; and also involving ‘dangerous dogs’- may have been separately committed, by the same individual, just ‘two to three weeks’ earlier?

Well... to this question, at least, we do have an ‘answer’ of sorts. It was provided by the director of Animal Welfare, Patricia Azzopardi, in response to widespread criticism of ‘inactivity’ by her own directorate. And it went something like... this:   

1) “I was not going to put any AWD personnel in danger by just sending to the house where they would have to face these dangerous dogs. So I sent them to hospital to speak to the owner instead, who then sent another person familiar with the dogs, who brought them out one by one.”

2) “We are also lacking staff and space to keep these dangerous dogs. Our dog section is not yet complete, which means I had to find private kennels to take in the dogs. Am I expected to put my own people at risk to face such dogs? We would like to collect every single dangerous dog, but we cannot do it without space to keep them, and the staff to do it.”

Which brings us to the final – more recent, this time – part of our little chronology. Patricia Azzopardi herself was appointed to head the AWD in May 2021. At the time, she went on record saying that: “One major pain point for the department is a depleted workforce that is unable to stay on top of all calls and requests. [...] “There are a lot of measures that we’ve already begun introducing, including how we are going to increase our staff, and better the training.”

Separately, Azzopardi has also endorsed complaints by Animal Welfare Commissioner Alison Bezzina, to the effect that there is an ongoing ‘housing crisis’ in the animal sanctuary department (a point she seems to be reaffirming once again, with her latest comments).

Meanwhile it was only just a few weeks ago – on April 7 – that several animal rights NGOs issued a joint statement, lambasting Animal Welfare Minister Anton Refalo for a rather large number of ‘unfulfilled promises’...

... and, oh look: they happen to include, among other things: “plans for a national animal rescue centre at Ta’ Qali, that were announced years ago (but which are still evidently ‘in the pipeline’, all this time later); and also, a reform of the Animal Welfare Act to “include legislation to regulate animal-breeders, legislation to regulate and licence pet sitters, groomers and trainers; and legislation on zoos (to which end a public consultation document was once launched... only to be hastily withdrawn, “immediately after protests from zoo-owners”.)

You know: all the same issues that are now being raised by the Animal Welfare Directorate itself, as ‘excuses’ for having failed to take any action at all, in this particular case. ‘Lack of space to keep the animals’; ‘lack of proper training, and equipment, to actually cope with such cases, in the first place’... it’s all right there, isn’t it?

And it was all promised to us, not just by Patricia Azzopardi herself: but also by the only person who CAN actually deliver all of the above; and much more. The Animal Welfare Minister, no less: Anton Refalo... who could so very easily have ‘prevented’ - if not the death of Inez Galea; at least, this latest incident (not to mention the entire ‘culture of impunity’ that so clearly surrounds such issues, to begin with) - just by ‘keeping one or two of his own electoral promises’.

Ah, but who actually gets the blame, for all the Minister’s evident FAILURE in this regard? Anton Refalo himself? Patricia Azzopardi? Anton Grech? Who?

Why... the dogs, of course! What a silly question...