Finally, Justice Has Been Served in the Murder Hollow Basset Hound Cruelty Case!

May 1st, 2012 - 6:06 pm KY Time

Howllo Fellow Basset Hound and patience is a virtue lovers.

Wow!  I am so pleased to report the following breaking news….

As far as I can tell, I was one of 2 bloggers that was investigating the Wendy Willard Murder Hollow Basset Hound Cruelty Case. (See Case synopsis below)

My position was to defend the bassets and tell the truth as my investigating unfolded.

Even the Basset Hound Club of America stood by the side of Willard, who has never even been a member of the club! The put out repeated requests for money to defend Willard in her trial, all in an effort to protect their interests.  Never did they stand up for the bassets who were rotting with mange, infested with ticks and standing in their own waste when the investigators showed up to save them.  I did.  I repeatedly advised my club against this pathetic decision but I was shut down at every turn.  I was IGNORED!

My investigation started in August of 2009 and I have stuck with it all this time.  Close to 44 thousand folks poured over my investigative reporting on my basset hound town forum regarding Murder Hollow.

I am proud and pleased to bring you the wrap up!


Dog Breeder Loses Case Over 11 Seized Bassets
PHILADELPHIA (CN) – A dog breeder who says animal-welfare officers “decimated” her pack of 23 prized hunting basset hounds cannot sue, a federal judge ruled.
Wendy Willard claimed in July 2011 that the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and two of its officers trampled her civil rights by seizing 11 dogs from her pack, known as the Murder Hollow Bassets.
Willard accused officers of trespassing on her land to conduct surveillance, and said the search warrant did not rely on observance of any criminal activity.
During the July 2009 search, officers allegedly accused Willard of having more than 12 dogs in a home in violation of Philadelphia’s so-called limit law.
But Willard says that law pertains to residences, and that she kept 21 of her dogs in a heated barn.
Willard says she agreed to surrender 11 dogs because officers threatened to confiscate all 23 otherwise.
“As night fell, Miss Willard was forced to undertake the traumatic task of choosing which of her dogs – most of which had been whelped in her home and spent every day of their lives with her- to hand over to the PSPCA,” the suit states.
U.S. District Judge William Yohn Jr. dismissed the suit last week, finding that Willard failed to allege a plausible constitutional claim.
Even if the PSPCA’s warrant was unconstitutionally obtained through trespass, “it would not necessarily follow that the search of her property was unconstitutional,” Yohn found.
Officers were simultaneously executing two search warrants that summer day – one obtained by the PSPCA and one obtained by the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement (BDLE), part of the state’s Department of Agriculture, the judge said.
Though Willard did not object to the bureau’s warrant, she argued that the PSPCA and BDLE “are two separate and distinct organizations whose actions are governed by separate and distinct standards,” according to the court’s summary.
“Defendant PSCPA cannot shirk its responsibility simply by accompanying BDLE” on a search, Willard’s opposition brief states, arguing for application of the “stalking horse” theory, which addresses collaborations between law-enforcement agencies subject to differing search-warrant standards.
Police are generally required to show probable cause for a search, but parole officers often face a less stringent standard when applying for a warrant, as they need only show that reasonable suspicion of a crime exists.
Under the “stalking horse” theory, a search by a parole officer can be invalidated if it is nothing more than a ruse for a police investigation. But the theory did not persuade Yohn.
“Willard’s analogy to the ‘stalking horse’ theory is appealing insofar as the PSPCA’s and the BDLE’s burdens for obtaining search warrants are different, not unlike the disparate standards governing police officers and parole officers,” the 13-page opinion states.
The 3rd Circuit has rejected the “stalking horse” theory and held that “the mere fact of collaboration” between parole and police officers is not sufficient to invalidate a search, according to the court.
Yohn said the search of Willard’s home in July 2009 should be analyzed under the ordinary Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” standard.
“According to Willard’s own allegations, the search of her property occurred pursuant to a warrant obtained by the BDLE,” he wrote. “Willard does not challenge the sufficiency, reasonableness, or constitutionality of this warrant.”
“Nothing in Willard’s complaint suggests that the mere fact of collaboration between the PSPCA and the BDLE … should invalidate a search of Willard’s property pursuant to a seemingly valid warrant issued to the BDLE,” the judge found, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 


Justice was served and I was a dog on a bone.  It feels good to know that these bassets finally had someone stick up for them!  The Judge!

More investigative reporting later….Love, Cat, Chaps and Emma

PS – now on to my next case….

Watch Hound!



  1. May 1st, 2012 | 7:21 pm

    Hopefully now the pictures can come forward. I have seen some of them and I am sure the judge saw all of them. MOTIONS DENIED! YES!

  2. May 2nd, 2012 | 5:13 am

    Just in from the Philly Dawg…..


    A federal judge has tossed out a suit by a Philadelphia dog breeder who alleges animal welfare officers violated her civil rights when they raided her Bassett Hound kennel in 2009.

    The rulingby U.S. District Judge William Yohn last week blocking Wendy Willard from moving forward with her lawsuit against the Pennsylvania SPCA, said Willard “failed to allege a plausible claim for her deprivation of rights constitutional rights.”

    Yohn also wrote that Willard failed to state her claim for violation of the Fourth Amendment right prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure.

    Willard accused officers of illegally seizing her 11 of her 23 dogs after conducting what she described as an illegal search warrant and for trespassing during surveillance of Murder Hollow Bassetts in the Roxborough section of the city. Ten of the dogs were adopted through rescue groups working with the PSPCA. The eleventh dog died during a botched surgery, according to court documents.

    The July 2009 criminal complaint charged Willard with multiple counts of animal cruelty for failing to properly care for the animals that it said were living in filth and covered in fleas.

    Cruelty charges were dropped in 2010 after Willard agreed to surrender the animals, keep her dog population below the city limit of 12 and allow regular inspections of her kennel.

    That was when Willard, celebrated within the sporting dog community, which rallied to her defense, turned around and sued the law enforcement officers.

    The suit was brought by the law firm of Clymer, Musser, Brown of Lancaster which bills itself as the go-to firm dog breeders and owners in trouble with law enforcement. The firm, whose principle, Jim Clymer, incidently is the 2012 U.S. vice presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, has tried unsuccessfully on multiple occasions to sue the state over the implementation of the 2008 dog law and has represented animal abusers in failed attempts to win damages after their convictions.

    Their barrage of lawsuits has had a chilling effect on humane law enforcement in Pennsylvania. The PSPCA has not conducted a single raid on a puppy mill or hoarding case outside of Philadelphia in three years. Neither are smaller humane societies aggressively pursuing abusers, while some that have – like Cumberland Valley Humane Society west of Harrisburg – are still paying the cost of caring for dogs in cruelty cases as Clymer-represented clients appeal their repeated convictions.

    Posted by Amy Worden @ 11:00 PM Permalink

  3. MaureenandSlinky
    May 2nd, 2012 | 10:22 am


    I don’t think Williard should be allowed to keep any pets/animals.

  4. Gabrielle
    May 2nd, 2012 | 12:53 pm


    Well done!!! And congratulation!!! I am sure Chaps (Sheriff of BassetHoundTown) and Emma had a lot to do with this and they too deserve a treat to celebrate this wonderful outcome!

    And yes, it is all about perserverance and a lot of patience, but you done it!!!

    Also it is no wonder that the BHCA didn’t serve in the favor of the basset hounds involved and I do remember they didn’t curb the Nance’s either. Well that is politics at the very core!

    Love your kids and again congratulation and the bassets can always count on YOU!

  5. Cindy, Jethro, Rugs, Oz and Harriet
    May 2nd, 2012 | 1:03 pm

    Good deal! I agree with Maureen.

  6. Tina S Davidson
    May 2nd, 2012 | 8:49 pm

    Thank You (hugs)

  7. JK
    September 21st, 2012 | 11:37 am

    Curious to know full outcome. The article states the owner lost her battle against the state, but was she actually “convicted” of animal cruelty? I didn’t see the dogs in question, etc., but I do have an issue with anyone who simply wants to come onto my property because they have a badge. Believe originally, a neighbor allegedly made a complaint, but no neighbors admitted to doing so. Under the Freedom of Information Act, who made the complaint? Also, what was done about the dog that allegedly died in the care of animal control regarding this case? Did the other owners get possession of their dogs? I understand everyone is up in arms about this case, but does it not seem like the woman was bullied as an example because the officials knew she could not afford to fight them? With the likes of H$U$ being indicted on a RICO, it seems this was really not about the dogs, but merely a strong-arm tactic for publicity and to get donations which really don’t go to anything more than administration salaries.

  8. Cat
    September 21st, 2012 | 2:53 pm

    JK you can read all about the case on my bassethoundtown forum when it is back up. It is down for repairs. Just google Bassethoundtown Forum and you can find it. I think at the last check 48K people had read or were reading it. As in all cases like this, it depends on what political side you favor. I always favor the dogs. I did see the pictures. HORRIFIC! I would like to personally thank whoever complained about Willard. This person was a true hero. I feel sorry for the dog that died. Poor thing. Had to live it’s life in horror and then die during surgery. It probably just gave up thinking that humans were the enemy. As far as the other owners, their bad decision started with leaving their hounds with Willard. Wow, what stupidity. Willard coughed them up to the PASPCA. Gee thanks Wendy! Howl low can you go?

    Willard was not the victim in this case, the hounds were. Willard made bad decisions for decades and FINALLY she got caught.

    My first suggestion to anyone who has a dog is to check with the city and see howl many you are allowed to have. My second suggestion would be to return phone calls to the AC when they leave a note on your door.

    If Willard had followed those 2 simple suggestions none of this would have happened. If any one is up in arms it should be the hounds. Thank Dog they got out. Wendy’s dirty little secret was exposed for her entire town to see and now the bigger internet town. I know people like her. They think they can get their way just because they are the old guard.

    Again, I think all of your questions can be answered when my forum is back up and running. It makes for a really good read but you better brew yourself a pot of coffee. It is long and very detailed.

    Thanks for commenting!

    Cat Woman

  9. Alex
    December 2nd, 2012 | 10:06 pm

    SPCA stole and mutilated Ms. Willard’s dogs, butchering one to death. They refused to publicize their bogus “evidence” against her, and are still hiding it from public scrutiny. In the end, Ms. Willard’s fight wasn’t for naught, because the scheming thugs will never dare to bother her again.

  10. Cat
    December 3rd, 2012 | 10:36 am

    Alex – take a chill pill and tell your friend, Ms. Willard to follow the rules and the law. If she had been smart enough to answer messages and phone calls to the PASPCA none of this would have ever happened. Thank Dog she made the stupid decision not to work with the PASPCA and exposed the truth behind Murder Hollow. This case showed just how cruel Ms. Willard was (and most likely still is). I saw some of the pictures of the tortured souls she kept in secret behind her very comfortable home. Neighbors could smell them for miles and also heard their cries for help. If you had been so attentive before the outcome which exposed Willard for who she is you would have nothing to bitch about now. Where were you when your buddy Willard was hiding her dirty little secret? The hounds won in the long run and it was a very long run. I suggest you try living like they did. You could not make it a night before balling up in the fetal position begging for mercy. Justice was done in this case and the Judge was a fair and very wise man. If you comment again, please tell us how much money her attorneys collected. I imagine it is all down the french drain by now.

    Wonder if you have read, along with 50 thousand others, my forum on this topic?

    Oh, and one more thing….The PASPCA will hopefully keep a close eye on Willard. I know I would. She should have been banned from ever owning a dog again.

Leave a comment