Gerry and Lolita in scuffle

Maybe that anonymous "tip" is from one of the greyhound owners.

And "Doggiegate" continues....

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6986322&rss=rss-wabc-article-6986322

Quote :

Someone from Butler's camp adding May Fly bit Lolita several times, although when asked for pictures or a vet bill, they refused.

Fred insists the bite never happened and that he isn't looking for money from the actor, says an apology would be nice.

And this writer is claiming the couple wants to sue:

http://celebriosity.today.com/2009/08/27/latest-news-gerard-butler-attacks-dog-in-new-york/#

Quote :

Can you believe that someone is suing Gerard Butler? I don’t know how anyone could sue this man but the Gamer movie star was in the morning newspaper.

We need to send Ninja Tex to investigate.

Quote :

We need to send Ninja Tex to investigate.

And I would have a lot of questions.....it's all a bit odd to me.




I question the timeline of 3-4 hours at the vet. There are reports that he was on set at 6 pm and Lolita was running around fine. Supposedly, the incident happened around 4 pm. If those reports are true, and if it is true that pictures or a vet bill were requested and it was denied, then I think that speaks volumes. Butler's camp doesn't have to release them to the general public, but it could be shown to someone in the media to quickly clear Butler from the claim that he struck an animal in anger. Simple way to nip this all in the bud and be done with it.

I personally think Butler is at fault for not having Lolita on a leash.* There is a leash law for a reason. It protects people and animals. If both owners had their pets on a leash, then they could have prevented the dogs from approaching each other and getting close enough to bite. You can't keep your dog from biting another dog, when the other dog is free to run up to yours. And leashed dogs tend to feel more vulnerable and can become aggressive (even when they normally are not aggressive) when approached by another non-leashed dog. Gerry wouldn't have had to "rescue" Lolita, if he had had her restrained in the first place. The whole incident was avoidable.

The remaining issue is whether or not Butler struck/pushed the other dog because he was separating them or if he did it in anger.

When the greyhound growled or lunged or whatever, I'm sure it scared Butler to death and he may have become angry at the reaction of the dog. But if he went back and struck that dog in anger as alleged, then the man has anger issues. I hope that his verbal tirade was the extent of his anger and he shoved the dog away from Lolita to separate them. If so, then his physical actions were defensive in nature and end of story.

But I have to say this, Butler needs to learn to control his mouth. I'm sure both owners were upset and emotions were high. But if Butler's response to them telling him that he should have her on a leash (which is the law) was "Piss off" and some other expletives, then he threw gasoline on the fire. He escalated an already emotional situation and came across as an entitled ass who thinks the laws don't apply to him. If all of that is true, then Butler is partially (or wholly) to blame for this whole thing escalating.

The vet visit and subsequent kindness to another dog owner could have been spin and/or a guilty conscience. Regardless of whether Butler reacted appropriately with the other dog, I'm sure he knows he should have had Lolita on a leash and feels some responsibility for the incident. Whatever the case, it was a kind thing to do, so kudos to Gerry.

As for the owners talking to the press, I'm sure the media initially contacted them because of the police report that was filed. They appear to be getting angrier as Butler camp allegedly spins. That is understandable behavior, imo. Thus, it makes me wonder what the truth really is.

As for the donation quote, it depends on the context. If a reporter asked them if they were going to sue or what they would like to see happen and they answered that they didn't want his money or anything from him but an apology - then I don't see anything nefarious about stating that if he wanted to do something to make up for the unpleasantness of it all, then he could make a donation because they didn't want anything personally. It also goes towards their supposed outrage of him striking the dog - Make up for it by contributing to this charity for these types of dogs.

Or they could be be milking it and are being goaded on by all the media attention.

Please note that I am not trying to throw Gerry under the bus nor am I defending this couple. I just think that the subsequent statements from Butler's camp have been so one-sided that it makes me pause. Add to that that they immediately released the fact (with the specific amount of money) that Gerry helped with a vet bill appears calculated to show what an animal lover he is and that he wouldn't harm a fly etc. It is all bizarre to me and doesn't pass the smell test. If I were representing Gerry, I would have some serious questions about these statements, the timeline, and the subsequent reactions of Gerry and the crew on set and the extreme versions of multiple bites vs. no bites vs. no documentation of bites etc. His camp could be contributing to making a mountain out of a molehill by their extreme defensive posturing.

Bottom line, I think Gerry needs to try to be less reactionary when angry or upset, and quit cursing at people. That, and leash his dog from now on. Like it or not, he's in the public eye and is a target.


*I am wondering if this is his habit as I have never seen a pic of him with her on a leash. In the few pictures that I have seen of him walking her, he has had the leash in his hand and has allowed her to roam free. Those may be isolated incidents, but if this is his habit, then he is and has been an irresponsible pet owner, imo. Unfortunately has learned his lesson the hard way.

DonnaKat wrote:

The more this couple talks to the press, the more they're making themselves look foolish. They should just shut their mouths and be thankful Butler isn't suing them for damages - or defamation of character, for that matter.

I don't disagree that they probably should quit talking to the press, but Butler can't sue them for many reasons, including his own negligence and that he is a public figure (thus defamation is near impossible to prove in this situation).

I won't bore you with it all, but suffice it to say that if Lolita was injured, there is a reason that he isn't seeking restitution. They are not liable.

DonnaKat wrote:

And this writer is claiming the couple wants to sue:

http://celebriosity.today.com/2009/08/27/latest-news-gerard-butler-attacks-dog-in-new-york/#

Quote :

Can you believe that someone is suing Gerard Butler? I don’t know how anyone could sue this man but the Gamer movie star was in the morning newspaper.

We need to send Ninja Tex to investigate.

That blog is poorly written and the author only cites the NY Post as a source. I think the author is embellishing or reading more into the story. Those dog owners have publically stated that they don't want anything from him, so I don't believe this story at all. The owners couldn't sue even if they wanted to. They haven't suffered any damages. Their dog wasn't injured and Butler swearing at them is protected speech.

Gosh I'm starting to bore myself. Sorry. I'm officially off the clock now.

I wish Gerry would pick his nose again.

You know, at first I was siding (mostly) with Butler because what I was hearing was that he was defending his dog. If that be the case, all well and good. However, there are some holes in his side of the story, and the more reports I read and comments from supposed eyewitnesses, I just don't know what to think about it anymore.

First of all, the vet report. His people are claiming he was there for several hours, yet there are conflicting reports that state he was on the set, and an assistant was walking Lolita. If that be the case, she must not have been hurt that bad. A statement from the vet would back up his side of the story, if indeed she was bitten. So why does his camp refuse to share it? Now, I do think the greyhound might have nipped and/or snapped at her, but I don't think she was as hurt as Butler's camp is letting on.

Then there's the point where Butler's people are saying the greyhound bit her three times? If the dog would have bitten her just once, more than a nip, and on the neck - Lolita would have been seriously injured, enough for everyone to stop arguing and cursing each other out, and take care of her. Two, three times - she probably would have been dead. Call me cynical, but I'm not sure I'm buying it.

That being said...

I'm sure both sides are exaggerating the story to fit their own needs. My guess is that the actual spat between the dogs probably happened so fast, no one really had time to process it. Here's my take on it: Lolita came near the greyhound, the greyhound snapped at her, Butler snapped and lost his head, the woman got angry at Butler and followed after him, tempers escalated and Butler hit the dog. Did Butler hit the dog to prevent it from attacking Lolita, or did he hit the dog out of anger? For his sake, I hope it's the former and not the latter. We do know he has a hot temper, based on losing it with that paparazzo last year. The problem is, this wasn't an obnoxious photographer this time - it was an animal. Most people will forgive you for punching out a pap, but not for hitting a dog.

The greyhound people are up in arms about this, and I can tell you that they're talking pickets and boycotting his movies. I can also tell you that the greyhound rescue people are as passionate about greyhounds as Butler's fanbase is about him. Being silent about it isn't enough. Some damage control needs to be done.

If I had a small dog and it was not on a leash and another large leashed dog bit my dog, the first thing I would do would be to PICK UP MY DOG. I would not stand there and argue. I would not leave my dog at my feet near the other dog. I would grab my dog. There wouldn't be a chance for a second bite.

I thought Butler's camp claimed 2 bites and that the dog went in for a third bite, and that's when Butler hit the dog - not that they dog actually bit her a third time. Whatever the case, my dog would not have been where the dog could try to bite it a third time. My small dog would be in my arms. I would not put a leash on a small injured dog and walk away (or whatever they are claiming). I would have her in my arms sprinting for the vet.

It doesn't make any sense to me.




BTW - my parents have a small dog. Smaller (or at least thinner) than Lolita. I was visiting about a year ago and took him for a walk in my parents neighborhood (on a leash, of course). As I was walking, I saw a neighbor outside in their front yard with their very large (lab/retriever size) dog walking around untethered. That dog saw us from across the street and ran towards us. I immediately grabbed my parents' dog and held him up high, preparing to kick the crap out of that dog if it attacked. The neighbors came running and yelling "he won't hurt you, he's friendly" - and he was. He stood in front of me wagging his tail etc. But for that split second, I had no idea what he would do. My instinct was to snatch my small dog out of harms way.

Therefore, I can't imagine Gerry not grabbing up Lolita right away. There shouldn't have been a second bite and certainly not a third attempt. My first concern would be my dog, not ignoring her while I scream at someone else.

I don't believe those facts as Alan stated them.*

*What happened was, Gerry was walking his dog, Lolita, who is this little, small pug, a teeny thing. You can hold her in one arm, she's that small," said his manager, Alan Siegel. "Then, suddenly, this greyhound, this huge, menacing dog, bites Lolita.
"She [Maria Varecka] and Gerry then have words. . . . [Then] the dog again goes over to Lolita and takes another bite."
Siegel said the movie star spent the next four hours at an Upper East Side animal hospital tending to Lolita's wounds.

The original NYPost article and the ABC affiliate in NYC have a more complete statement from the other dog owners claiming that Butler walked away carrying Lolita and then came back and hit the animal. I believe he did carry her away. If he came back and struck the other dog, he can't claim that it was in the course of separating the dogs. There is no middle ground with these two accounts. Someone is flat out lying.



Apparently it even made the local news complete with an interview. Click to watch the video.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6986322&rss=rss-wabc-article-6986322


*I have to say that I hate that he cursed out an older couple. The man is 67 and his wife is 61. I understand being upset, but they have to be close to his mother and stepfather's age. The man is not a big man either. It really makes me shake my head because it is distasteful to me. And it makes him look bad - kind of like a bully. What a mess.

Now the couple are claiming that their dog DID lunge at Lolita. See, I knew this couple was exaggerating their side as well. As I've stated numerous times - there's one side, there's the other side and then there's the truth:

WCBS-TV in New York reports that a couple out walking their two dogs Monday say they had a troubling encounter with Butler, who's starred in the move, "The Ugly Truth."

"I think he's got a real nasty temper and I don't think he's a very nice person," said Fred Varecka, who was walking the dogs with his wife Maria.

The couple says while taking their dogs for a walk, they came upon some movie trailers and a small dog, not on a leash. They say one of their greyhounds, "Mayfly," tried to lunge for the small dog.

"They went nose to nose. I will admit that he growled. I pulled him back because had him on a short leash," says Mrs. Varecka.

But she says her dog did nothing more.

With that, Mr. Varecka says he turned around and was face to face with Gerard Butler.

"The first thing that came out of his mouth, 'You should put that dog down; put that dog down,'" he says.

The couple says the actor was just ranting.

"He was like a child going on a temper tantrum," Mrs. Varecka says.

That's when Mr. Varecka says Butler's anger went to the next level.

"He said, 'You know what, that dog needs to be put down,' and he smacked my dog in the face, hit his ear and actually the dog hit the fence next to the park," he says.

Mr. Varecka says he asked the actor why he hit his dog, to which Butler said nothing.

Joy Fehily, a spokeswoman for the actor, issued a statement regarding the incident Wednesday.

"A larger greyhound repeatedly attacked Gerard's small pug, so he separated them to protect both dogs."

The Vareckas say their dog never attacked the other beyond growling.

"He did take a lunge for him, but we had control over our dog," he says. "He never bit the dog."

The Vareckas say all they want is for fans to see a different side of the actor and for him to get his dog on a leash.

The actor's spokeswoman admits the pug was not on a leash, and spent three hours in a vet's office.

http://cbs11tv.com/entertainment/gerard.butler.slaps.2.1146865.html

And let me add, none of this would have happened in the first place if Gerry owned a cat.

Cats rule!

I was partially thinking the same thing yesterday.

Not a gerbil, Nay! That would just bring a different sort of scandal.

Remember Richard Gere.

And no, not a chicken either.

The other dog's owners see Gerry as deep pockets to be exploited.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6986322

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/28/gerard-butlers-dogfight-f_n_271405.html

The owners have never said that their dog didn't lunge or growl. They said it didn't bite. I think one of the main problems in all this "reporting" is that many articles just take a one or two sentence quote, while others have a more complete interview. It makes it seem like the brief stories were all the couple (or Gerry's team) said and now one or the other is changing their stories.

I also think some of the quotes are not exactly accurate (word for word) so you see variations of the same statement, but they appear to be different (and possibly inconsistent). There was one article that said that Alan said Lolita was leashed. But all others state that he admits she wasn't. Did he misrespresent the facts initially, get clarification and correct himself, or was it a misquote all along? The media isn't as accurate as they should be and it's a big pet peeve of mine.

The saga continues.......

What ever happened on his arraignment?

I watched the interview with the elderly man, and the more I see the more I'm thinking he's trying to milk this to get attention. I mean, if Gerry really hit his dog that hard, then why didn't he take it to the vet to be checked out? The elderly man comes across as the type of owner who thinks his precious "little" pooch could do no wrong. You know the type - "don't you touch my animal/child/etc."....even though they just bit you in the leg or kicked you in the shin. It's the same as the parent with the bratty kid who won't leave you alone, yet when you yell at the kid you're reprimanded - "don't tell my kid what to do and don't tell me how to raise my child!"

And if Gerry was really being that menacing and scary to the "poor gentle little elderly man", then why did said elderly man follow after Gerry in the first place? My guess is that the "poor gentle little elderly man" might have lost his temper himself, followed after Gerry and maybe the dog spooked, snapped again at Lolita and that's when Gerry smacked the dog.

Oh, and when you invite the media into your home to put you on television - put on a pair of pants. I mean really, those white shorts are hideous. Is that a fanny pack he's wearing?

All that I saw with this incident is that he has a bone to pick with celebs...and as a former banker, I can see how he has that bone.

DonnaKat wrote:

And if Gerry was really being that menacing and scary to the "poor gentle little elderly man", then why did said elderly man follow after Gerry in the first place? My guess is that the "poor gentle little elderly man" might have lost his temper himself, followed after Gerry and maybe the dog spooked, snapped again at Lolita and that's when Gerry smacked the dog.

I dunno. Maybe because Gerry started to walk away with his dog, they thought it was over and the couple continued on their walk in the direction that they were going? I think the whole incident was probalby pretty quick. But if Gerry then came back ranting and struck the dog, that's when the couple got really offended (after being cursed out previously). I can see both sides, really.

I also think the media is the one calling and showing up on these people's doorstep etc. They've also contacted Gerry's people for statements. I've seen it in Dallas all the time, where the local news makes a story out of something small.

And I don't think him being a former banker has anything to do with his crediblility. Maybe I'm just sensitive because I hear my own profession bashed all the time.

I think both parties could have handled things better. People get in a twist over pets and children. I don't think we'll ever know the truth. But in any event, Gerry needs to watch his p's and q's and make sure that he doesn't find himself in another situation where people question his temper. He doesn't want to turn into the next Russell Crowe.....

I have to say, that despite this couple being called "elderly", they're not. Now 80's I can see, but 61 and 67? Nah ah.

And I don't see why they were so shocked by the cursing, even though they didn't know Gerry personally. Hasn't anyone been cursed at by a complete stranger? Then they're pretty d*** f****** lucky,

JMHO.