After reading through the 362-page document from start to finish –carefully, twice — we still don’t think we’ve fully absorbed everything in it.

But there are already a few things that really stick out to us.

1. The word “Independent.”

We found it interesting that the title of the document calls this an “Independent Municipal Review.”

As Humane Initiative has pointed out on more than one occasion, Canine Foundations was hired by the Town of Aurora to review what happened.

And while interviewing two of the witnesses, investigators from Canine Foundations stated that C.F. “likely trained the 2 officers” involved in the incident that resulted in Heiniu’s death.

That raises a very reasonable question:

How independent can a review be when the organization conducting the review may have previously trained the very officers whose actions it is reviewing?

We aren’t making a conclusion about that.

We’re asking the question.

And we think the public deserves an answer.

2. The necropsy.

We also found it interesting that the owners of Heiniu did not provide the necropsy report to Canine Foundations.

The report states that the Town made multiple requests for the veterinary necropsy, but that it was not provided to the review team.

What’s particularly interesting is that the review itself says the absence of the necropsy significantly limited what could be independently established about Heiniu’s injuries, physiological deterioration and cause of death.

So we have questions.

Why was the necropsy not provided to the review team?

We would genuinely like to understand the reasoning behind that decision.

3. The Town’s disagreement with the report.

We also found it interesting that when the Town released the redacted 362-page report, it specifically stated that it did not agree with every assessment or conclusion contained in the review.

We would like some clarification on that.

Which assessments and conclusions does the Town disagree with?

And perhaps even more importantly:

Why?

The public has now been given a 362-page report describing what happened and making numerous findings and recommendations.

If the Town disagrees with portions of that report, shouldn’t the public also be told which portions—and the reasons for that disagreement?

———-

4.  Why was Heiniu wearing a prong collar?

Near the bottom of page 196, the report states:

“[redacted] stated that at one point she placed her hand through the handle attached to the dog’s prong collar.”

So, apparently, Heiniu was wearing a prong collar when he was running loose.

For anyone unfamiliar with them, a prong collar is not simply a conventional flat collar. It is a training collar consisting of a series of metal links with blunt, inward-facing prongs that sit around a dog’s neck. When pressure is applied to the collar, those prongs press into the dog’s neck.

In Heiniu’s case, the description of the collar is particularly striking. Apparently, the portion across the top/back of his neck was cloth, while the pronged portion was underneath his neck, with the metal prongs positioned around the underside of his neck/throat area.

It is not a piece of equipment that most people would expect to see on a dog simply running loose.

Prong collars are generally associated with controlled training and handling, particularly when a dog is on a leash. Nowhere in the report does it appear to suggest that Heiniu escaped while he was being trained or that he got loose from someone who was actively training him.

So again, we ask:  Why was he wearing one?

Was the collar being used for training? If so, where was the leash? If he was not being trained or actively handled at the time, why was he running loose wearing a collar with metal prongs positioned around his throat?

And there is another question that seems particularly relevant given what happened next.

Heiniu was eventually subjected to attempts to control and restrain him, including people reaching for or handling his collar. Could having metal prongs positioned around the underside of his neck have made him particularly sensitive to someone grabbing or pulling on his collar?

We are not saying that it did. We are asking whether that possibility was considered.

It also seems fortunate, in hindsight, that the prongs did not puncture or otherwise injure Heiniu’s neck during the events leading up to Bailey and Michelle containing him.

There are certainly questions about the circumstances that led to Heiniu being loose and wearing this particular type of collar. Those questions should not be ignored.

But those circumstances do not change the fact that Heiniu was alive when Animal Control Services officers arrived and died during the encounter with them.

Both parts of this story deserve to be examined.

———-

These are just a few of the things that stood out to us during our first two careful readings.

There is a lot more to unpack.

And we will.