As Joe Petit and Hal Phipps, both of Wayne, await Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser’s decision regarding Phipps’ shooting of Petit’s dog Ludwig, a few key questions of fact seem to be center stage in the drama.
On whose property was Ludwig shot?
Phipps, speaking through his wife Eileen, maintains that Ludwig was on the Phipps’ property when the shooting occured.
She said her husband was picking up “storm debris” on the couple’s property when Petit’s dogs approached him “snarling and snapping in a menacing way.”
“He’s 68 years old. He’s convalescing. He has two bad knees and carrying about 20 to 30 extra pounds,” she said in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times. “He isn’t going to outrun the dogs. He defended himself. He was in fear for his life.”
This directly contradicts the account of Petit’s close friend Kathleen Czaplewski, who was allegedly with Ludwig and his sibling Philotimo when Ludwig was shot. Czaplewski has said in multiple interviews that she was playing in the river with Ludwig when he was shot.
“The dog fell out of my hands and started floating, [then] sinking and then I saw a bullet hole in his chest,” she told the Sun-Times.
Where Mosser comes down on this particular issue will likely decide the case, since if Czaplewski’s version is correct, Phipps will have a very difficult time making the case that he was being “menaced” and was “in fear for his life.”
Do prior events have any bearing on the case?
Earlier this summer, Phipps was allegedly bitten by Ludwig while in his front yard. Petit was issued a citation for that event. On that same day, June 29, Phipps apparently went to the home of Caitlyn Ballard, a neighbor of both Phipps and Petit, and told her about the incident, according to a sworn affidavit Fox Valley Magazine recently obtained and published. In that affidavit, Ballard indicated that Phipps told her that Ludwig and Philotimo had also attached her dog that day, to which Ballard replied that that was impossible given the fact she had been gone with the dog all day. More importantly, Ballard testified that Phipps told her that he was going to “shoot and kill” both dogs if they ever went on his property.
Do the events of June 29 have any bearing on the disposition of the shooting incident – either way?
What is the implication of the apparent gap in the security footage Petit has presented as proof of Phipps’ crime?
Petit has circulated a video (see below) from his security camera which he contends proves that Ludwig never entered Phipps’ yard. There are, however, some issues with the video.
About halfway through, we see the dogs change directions from running down to the river with Czaplewski to going straight to the property line between Petit’s property and Phipps’. The video seems to cut to the popping out of the trees closer to the shore.
Does the part of the video seeming to show that the dogs did, in fact, enter Phipps’ property support Phipps’ story? Why is there a gap in video directly after the dogs disappeared in the trees? Even if the dogs trespassed on Phipps’ property, the video clearly shows them returning out of the woods and heading into the river. Does Phipps contend that they went back on his property after visiting the river?
The answers to these and other questions await the decision of State’s Attorney Mosser. No indication as to when her decision will be made has been given.
