An Investigative Report by Leslie A. Wootten
Officially, Christine Dorchak is co-founder, President, and General Counsel of GREY2K USA, a non-profit, 501 (c) 4 organization that has recently added "world wide" to its title. From the beginning, the group has been unapologetically anti-greyhound racing, with Ms. Dorchak leading the charge to denigrate and basically destroy the lives of honest, hard-working, individuals that don't deserve the disrespect cast upon them.
As an example of its success, the organization’s website states, “GREY2K USA was the first organization to successfully outlaw dog racing using the ballot initiative process. In November 2008, the citizens of Massachusetts chose compassion over cruelty and voted 56%-44% to close down Raynham and Wonderland Greyhound Parks.”
This statement is not correct. Dog racing in Massachusetts is still legal, and it is legal in 49 out of 50 states despite GREY2K USA’s widespread efforts to do away with it. According to comments Ms. Dorchak made in a “Pack People” interview, she had a hand in drafting Massachusetts Question 3, a law proposed by initiative petition that was placed on the November 4, 2008 ballot. The question received enough “yes” votes to go into effect, which meant wagering on greyhound races would no longer be allowed in Massachusetts. Greyhound racing itself was not then, or ever, “outlawed” in Massachusetts as the website claims.
Also on its website, the organization describes itself as “an independent, non-profit effort entirely supported by its members. People from all walks of life … have joined with us to help end dog racing.”
Between the “people” statement and a click-here button to “support our work,” an exclusionary declaration states, “GREY2K USA does not accept donations from individuals or corporations with a financial interest in commercial dog racing or the gambling industry.”
Except for those specifically excluded, donations are accepted from a wide swath of the general public. The website makes clear that donations are crucial to fulfill the group’s mission, and donation buttons are prevalent throughout.
Being an organization that is entirely dependent on public funds makes honesty and transparency essential requirements at every level. We have seen that the GREY2K USA website has holes when it comes to these two elements. Consequently, a valid question arises, “Are there shortfalls elsewhere?”
As the group’s president, Ms. Dorchak is expected to set examples and provide leadership for fellow officers, colleagues, and volunteers. She is certainly answerable to supporters who make donations in good faith. As its top officer, Ms. Dorchak is also the person most often featured in media profiles. More than anyone else, she represents the heart and soul of the operation, and in that role, she should be accountable for her actions and statements.
Enter her name on any search engine, and article after article pops up. A common component in these articles is a personal story involving Ms. Dorchak’s light rail vehicle/ pedestrian accident that occurred on September 10, 1992, when she was 26-years-old. The story is one Ms. Dorchak willingly, often tearfully, shares. Told in the classic “triumph over adversity” style, the story understandably connects with a vast majority of the population. And, let me be clear, I would not wish such a difficult experience on anybody. For Ms. Dorchak, it was the personal challenge of a life-time, and a tremendous price to pay for what she has referred to as a “second chance” (Dorchak, Deleuse).
One of the most emotional versions of the story is told in Ms. Dorchak’s own words in an “Animal Inventory” interview currently available on Youtube. The questions posed by the interviewer seem gratuitous as the camera focuses on Ms. Dorchak who needs no prompting. She owns the story, and this is apparent from the first frame that dwells on her.
Twenty seconds into the seven-minute video, Ms. Dorchak says, “One morning before work I was walking [my dog] Kelsey and life just totally changed.” The statement is gripping. The audience is captivated, eager to hear the rest of the story, which Ms. Dorchak offers at 1:30, “We were struck by two speeding MBTA trains. A woman who lived a couple of floors up in a building near the accident heard the crash. She rushed down and found me impaled against the rail and Kelsey sitting by me.”
 |
| Dorchak & Kelsey |
At this point, Ms. Dorchak is tearful. Her voice wobbles with emotion and her head nods unsteadily as she continues. “[Kelsey] had a broken hip. She could barely move, but she was trying to keep close to me.”
After composing herself, Ms. Dorchak continues in a verbal sprint that condenses days, months, and years. Here, the narrative has the feel of an oft-told tale, but, is, nevertheless, immensely compelling: "I was in the ambulance, and, miraculously, I started breathing again. When I woke up from my first coma weeks later, the first thing I said—could manage to say—was, ‘How’s Kelsey?’ It was my first thought. All the impact injuries are along the side of my body, not the front. She pulled on the leash and pulled me from a direct frontal hit from the train. I know Kelsey saved my life. We spent 2 years together in recuperation."
Next, Ms. Dorchak discusses the epiphany she experienced, which ultimately led her to seek to banish the regulated, legal activity of greyhound racing because she personally does not approve of it. She says, “I came to a realization during that time that I wasn’t here to do what I was doing before. I was here to help animals. Lo and behold, the obvious finally came to me. I should do what I intended to do which was become a lawyer. And, I should help dogs.”
The rest of the video is spent discussing how she actualized her epiphany. Following the accident, though, greyhounds were not in her radar for years. In fact, she states in a “Pack People” interview that she “worked at shelters, attended rallies, distributed pamphlets on vivisection, hunting, rodeo, circuses, and more.” Until she found her niche with greyhound racing, she appeared to be just another disgruntled protester with no particular vision. In “Pack People,” she states, “The greyhounds became my focus when I realized that their fight was one that could be won legislatively.” In the “Animal Inventory” video at 3:12, she underscores this point by stating, “I was so enthused that we could actually change the lives of thousands of animals by putting a question on the ballot and passing it.” She credits David Vaughn with starting her on that path. In a Pet News and Views article, she says, “In 1999, we were approached by David Vaughn, who recently adopted a greyhound. He said, ‘If you want to really end greyhound racing, put down your signs and get on the ballot.’ He invited us to the office of a lawyer friend of his. Our goal was to end greyhound racing in 2000. I collected more than 15,000 signatures. We got enough signatures for a ballot question.”
Along with Ms. Dorchak, Vaughn was one of Grey2K’s founders, as was Dr. Jill Hopfenbeck, and Carey Theil. The quartet worked together on the failed 2000 Massachusetts ballot against greyhound racing (Theil). Undaunted and determined to learn how to write ever better ballot questions and execute better campaigns, Ms. Dorchak started law school, graduating in 2005 from the New England School of Law in Boston.
Meanwhile, in 2001, GREY2K USA was incorporated as a non-profit, setting the donation machinery into high-gear. The donations would support—as they still do—legislative and political activities, plus salary, benefits, and expenses for Ms. Dorchak and her partner, Carey Theil. None of the funds would be earmarked for greyhound pet adoption or welfare.
An interesting aside is that her legislative leanings signaled an embrace of the “above-ground” method Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activists recommended as an effective political action counterpart to its “under-ground” acts of destructive sabotage to liberate animals (Platt, Career). Indeed, Ms. Dorchak has identifiable links with ALF, which has been designated a domestic terrorist group by the F.B.I. In 2003, she was featured on the ALF Website as a speaker at the Animal Rights National Convention, where ALF guru Rodney Coronado was also speaking. In 2006, she and John P. Goodwin were panelists together at the Animal Rights National Convention. By then, Goodwin had been on the payroll of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) for quite a few years, having left ALF and the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) for greener pastures (Pratt, An Unmarked).
Through the years, Coronado and Goodwin were convicted of various crimes, such as fur farm and laboratory arson, and they both completed stints in prison or home arrest. (Pratt, Careers). As proud as they were of their civil disobedience, they could see it wasn’t going to get them as far as they wanted. Coronado dreamed of ALF getting an “above-ground voice, a political lobby.” Goodwin had the same dream. He remarked, “I’m convinced that politics is the way to go, and to that end, I am taking classes in political campaign management. Targeting bad lawmakers and helping good lawmakers is what I feel this [ALF] movement has failed to do, miserably” (Pratt, Careers). When these two talked, Ms. Dorchak listened, took notes, and mentally crafted her own “above-ground” plan.
In the “Animal Inventory” video at 6:08, she circles back to the accident by stating, “When I got hit by the train, my life should have ended. I consider every day after September 10, 1992 extra. My focus on this particular mission is to end dog racing.”
Throughout the video, Ms. Dorchak’s voice is melodiously soft, her eyes genuine in their sincerity. When she provides details about the accident and its aftermath, the camera dwells on her as she speaks, cutting away to various photographs of her hooked to tubes and machines in a hospital bed and outdoors in a wheelchair with Kelsey standing close.
The video’s composition is effective. It is hard to watch her talk about the accident without feeling intense empathy for Ms. Dorchak. In fact, one feels compelled to reach out—to contribute—in some palpable way as a tribute to her endurance. The last thing a viewer wants is to test the veracity of what Ms. Dorchak shares.
However, it is imperative to test that veracity because Ms. Dorchak uses this story as a means to an end, which is to solicit public funds and sway citizens and legislators to support her anti-greyhound racing efforts. The story has, in fact, become larger than life, metaphorically parading into a room to announce her entrance. Or so, it would seem from reading many of the articles about her where journalists come across as being under her hypnotic spell. She wears the story like a Purple Heart awarded for bravery in battle, and it becomes her. Still, when public funds and public matters are at stake, the story should be comprehensive. Details that shed pertinent light should be provided as part of the package. In other words, honesty and transparency should be front and center.
Something Ms. Dorchak leaves out of the “Animal Inventory” video and every other sharing that touches on the accident is the lawsuit she brought against the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA). Filed in Suffolk County Superior Civil Court, docket number 93-1023, the case was tried by jury in 1995. An interesting, and crucial, note is that the jury ruled in favor of defendant MBTA, et al, and against Ms. Dorchak as plaintiff. According to the “Judgment on Jury Verdict for Defendant” signed on December 1, 1995, “The complaint of plaintiff is dismissed and the defendants recover costs.”
The thick file is public information, though it was “disposed in 1996” to use Suffolk County’s legal terminology. Newspaper articles were no help in locating the file because not a word could be found about the accident, let alone the lawsuit. References to other MBTA accidents and lawsuits popped up in Boston Globe and various online searches, but this one eluded discovery. Finding the lawsuit required a common-sense belief that there had to be one somewhere. Librarians and court personnel provided assistance as allowed by law, and, eventually, the docket number was identified. Getting the file in hand was difficult because it was buried with all the other disposed files in the archives of Suffolk County Court. But, finally, it surfaced from the depths, offering up a story of its own.
Background for the case is included in various court pleadings such as the “Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Trial” (1). Here is verbatim background from that document:
"This action concerns an accident which occurred at approximately 6:05 a.m. on September 10, 1992. A green-line MBTA Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) operated by co-Defendant Frank Osgood was traveling in a westerly direction in the area of Commonwealth Avenue and South Street in Brookline. The LRF was headed for Boston College to begin the first run of the day. The vehicle was traveling between 10 m.p.h. and 15 m.p.h. and had just come around a slight-bearing curve. Osgood was in the process of approaching the platform and had started applying the brakes of the LRV at the time of the occurrence of this accident.
Osgood observed Ms. Dorchak walking in the street on Commonwealth Avenue on the date of the accident. She was walking towards the oncoming LRV and against the automobile traffic. When Osgood was approximately one foot or less away from Ms. Dorchak, she crossed immediately into the path of the oncoming LRF. Osgood had initiated braking but could not avoid striking Ms. Dorchak. Ms. Dorchak was found lying on the side of the train away from street, between the LRV and a wrought-iron fence which separates the eastbound and westbound rails. A dog believed to belong to Ms. Dorchak was sitting next to her immediately after the accident (1-2).
It is revealing to compare Ms. Dorchak’s “Animal Inventory” story with that conveyed in court documents. The lawsuit file contains varied information ranging from pleadings and exhibits to depositions and interrogatories where respondents are under oath to tell the truth. Side-by-side, the facts conveyed in the lawsuit simply do not match up with the details shared by Ms. Dorchak in the “Animal Inventory” video. Comparative examples are provided below.
Twenty seconds into the video, Ms. Dorchak says, “One morning before work, I was walking [my dog] Kelsey and life just totally changed.”
This statement contradicts those she made under oath. For example, in her written interrogatories, Ms. Dorchak states, “At the time of the accident I did own a black Hungarian sheep dog. I do not know if the dog was with me at the time of the accident” (4). This is corroborated by her deposition in June of 1994, in which she denies having any knowledge of how the accident happened (61) and no memory whatsoever of the accident itself (65).
An interesting and puzzling point in her deposition is that she adamantly insists she has no memory of the accident except for one thing: she is sure she did not jump into the path of the train in a possible suicide attempt. When pressured by the deposing attorney as to how she could know this if she remembers nothing, she states, “I certainly – my statement is based on the knowledge of myself, and I know that I had no disposition to throw myself in front of a train” (63). The exchange continues in a kind of circular manner that frustrates the attorney, who says, “So the wild, speculative guess that the MBTA had, and you heard that in court as you said, is based upon your fact with your predisposition to know that you did not throw yourself in front of the train?” Ms. Dorchak replies, “I’m in a unique position to know myself.” Losing patience, the attorney says, “Please, we’re going to get – know thyself, that’s right. That’s a good one. You say that you did not – you know yourself and you would not throw yourself in front of a train. That’s what you just said to me.” Ms. Dorchak replies, “That is correct” (63). The circular discussion continues. After a few more futile back and forths, the attorney says, “You say, it did not happen by me throwing myself in front of the train. Is there anything else that you can exclude that did not happen?” Ms. Dorchak replies, “No.” The attorney says, “And the reason for that is because you have no memory?” Ms. Dorchak says, “That’s correct” (65).
At 1:30 in the video, Ms. Dorchak says, “We were struck by two speeding MBTA trains.”
Facts in court documents simply do not support this statement. Various pleadings such as the “Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Trial” reflect the “vehicle was traveling between 10 and 15 m.p.h” (2). The lead operator’s deposition also affirms the speed was between 10 and 15 m.p.h. (16). In the video, Ms. Dorchak says, “two trains.” In other interviews, she says, “trolley.” In her deposition, she says, “train.” In reality, it was a light rail vehicle (LRV) comprised of two LRVs with a lead operator (in the first vehicle) and a trailer operator (in the second vehicle). Regardless of the terminology, to use the term “speeding” is incorrect.
At 1:34 in the video, Ms. Dorchak says, “[A woman who heard the crash] rushed down and found me impaled against the rail and Kelsey sitting by me.” In some accounts, she says she was thrown under the wheels.
No court testimony included in the file mentions any sort of impalement or that she was thrown under the wheels. It would seem impossible to have both at the same time. Nor is any mention made of a woman who heard the crash and rushed to the scene. Court documents, such as the “Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Trial” reflect that Ms. Dorchak “was found lying on the side of the train away from the street, between the LRV [light rail vehicle] and a wrought-iron fence which separates the eastbound and westbound rails” (2).
At 1:54 in the video, Ms. Dorchak states, “[Kelsey] had a broken hip. She could barely move, but she was trying to keep close to me.”
 |
Kelsey standing on hind legs to greet Dorchak
less than 2 wks post accident |
Nothing in court testimony indicates anything about a dog being injured, treated, or transported for medical care. The only mention of a dog being present is a brief note that appears in court pleadings: “A dog believed to belong to Ms. Dorchak was sitting next to her immediately after the accident.” In court documents, Ms. Dorchak denies knowledge of having a dog with her, at all. The only clue to Kelsey’s medical condition is offered in a photo in the “Animal Inventory” video at 2:34, where Kelsey stands on her hind legs in front of Ms. Dorchak’s wheelchair. This photo actually contradicts Ms. Dorchak’s point that Kelsey suffered a broken hip (requiring hip replacement surgery per a GREY2K USA web page) because it is doubtful a dog with such a serious injury could stand on its hind legs so soon after the accident, if ever again.
At 2:14 in the video, Ms. Dorchak states, “When I woke up from my first coma weeks later, the first thing I said—could manage to say—was, ‘How’s Kelsey? It was my first thought.”
Various documents, such as medical evaluations by physicians at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, reflect that Ms. Dorchak was not in a several week coma. In fact, a Spaulding physician’s report dated July 17, 1995, indicates she experienced a “coma approximately 12 hours in duration (27a). Ms. Dorchak’s own written interrogatories indicate that in the emergency room, she “registered 8 on the Glasgow coma scale, which ranges from a low of 3 (completely nonresponsive) to 15 (normal orientation)” (6). Her interrogatories note that “by September 28, 1992, I was able to ambulate with a narrow based support” (8). This was just 18 days after the accident. Not quite a month after the accident, Ms. Dorchak was released to inpatient therapy at the Greenery Rehabilitation Facility for 2-1/2 weeks. Two months after the accident, she was released to home and referred for outpatient OT and PT at the Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. Outpatient notes indicate that on November 20, 1992, Ms. Dorchak “came to PT in good spirits wearing a dress, pantyhose and dress shoes (1/2” heel). Motivation was high and patient did well with balance/coordination activities” (41). A Spaulding physician’s evaluation on January 7, 1993, reflects that Ms. Dorchak was functioning well in an independent manner. The report states, “She does the grocery shopping without a list … she is able to negotiate her way around town dealing with crowds, traffic, and uneven surfaces” (22). In this report, the physician recommends that Ms. Dorchak “start jogging on a jogging track” and that she “attempt one or two days back at work to look at both her endurance and her capacity to function cognitively” (23).
At 2:25 in the video, Ms. Dorchak states, “[Kelsey] pulled on the leash and pulled me from a direct frontal hit from the train. I know Kelsey saved my life.”
Ms. Dorchak would have no way of knowing this because she confirms in written interrogatories that she does not recall having a dog with her on the day of the accident (4). In her deposition, she affirms she has no memory whatsoever of the accident (65). Kelsey may have pulled her from a direct hit and saved her life, but based on her own court testimony, Ms. Dorchak has no idea whether this is true or not.
At 2:35 in the video, Ms. Dorchak states, “We spent two years together in recuperation.”
As previously indicated, the dog’s recovery cannot be corroborated except for a photograph that shows her standing on two hind legs in front of Ms. Dorchak’s wheelchair. Such an action is not indicative of a dog with a recently broken hip that required hip replacement surgery.
With regard to Ms. Dorchak’s recuperation, she may have had residual issues for up to two years, but her recuperation was well underway much earlier. For example, a Spaulding physician’s report on March 16, 1993, documents that she was “finishing up” outpatient occupational and physical therapy (26). Therefore, according to medical records in the file, her inpatient and outpatient therapy lasted for approximately six months after the accident. In that report, the doctor notes that “vocational therapy is recommended” and a “return to work will need to be mediated by a trained vocational counselor” (26). Ms. Dorchak’s written interrogatories indicate she had not returned to full-time work as of July 17, 1993 (20). A Spaulding physician’s report dated July 17, 1995 describes limitations in life and work duties that were not yet resolved, but included the statement, “she is working full time and has resumed jogging or fast walking for about 30 minutes/day” (27B).
The point of this comparative analysis is not to diminish Ms. Dorchak’s injuries suffered as a consequence of a light rail vehicle/pedestrian accident. She deserves applause for her perseverance and triumph over adversity to experience a second chance in life. Nevertheless, many of the details in the “Animal Inventory” video (and a wide variety of other media platforms) with regard to the accident and its aftermath are either exaggerations or fabrications. The biggest red-flag on this is Ms. Dorchak’s own sworn testimony in depositions and interrogatories where she consistently claims to have no memory of the accident. Additionally, other court testimony contradicts information she now offers as fact. She can’t have it both ways. Either she lied under oath or she is lying in the video and other media venues. Before the lawsuit was discovered, she could make up details to fit the fundraising occasion and no one would know the difference. Having the lawsuit available to fact-check means this fast-and-loose tactic is not an option.
The jury involved in the lawsuit was comprised of average citizens just like the average citizens who donate hundreds-of-thousands of dollars annually to Ms. Dorchak’s non-profit organization, GREY2K USA. Back in 1995, the jury ruled against Ms. Dorchak and in favor of those she sued. Actually, the jury found her guilty of trespassing on the defendants’ property and determined the defendants’ actions involved no willful, wanton or reckless conduct. Nowadays, there is no reason to believe the story Ms. Dorchak so conveniently weaves, especially since it has been decorated with all kinds of emotional embellishments to tug at our heart and purse strings.
I am the first to believe we are all allowed our fantasies. If we want to make up stories about our lives, we are free to do so, but not when we earn our living, as Ms. Dorchak does, by soliciting donations from an unsuspecting public, particularly when the story told is riddled with false statements.
It is clear that Ms. Dorchak has taken unfair advantage of many innocent individuals in her quest to feather her own nest while building a worldwide empire. At the very least, she owes an apology to those who donated time and money to GREY2K USA based on lies she has spread. An apology is certainly due to folks in greyhound racing—and greyhounds, themselves—for her self-serving manipulations and misleading campaigns. Now is the time to make amends, if amends can be made after wreaking so much havoc. Meanwhile, let the public judge Ms. Dorchak and GREY2K USA based on facts rather than fabrications.
Dorchak v. MBTA. 93-1023. Suffolk County Superior Court. 1995. Print.
Dorchak, Christine. “The Fight to End Dog Racing Nationwide.” American Dog Magazine. Winter 2008: 142. Print.
Platt, Teresa. “An Unmarked Anniversary: A Dozen years on HSUS’s Payroll.” Fur Commission USA Commentary. Fur Commission. 23 Nov. 2011. Web. 17 Nov 2013.
Leslie A. Wootten is an investigative researcher and author specializing in greyhounds and greyhound racing in the USA.
© Leslie A. Wootten, 2013. For PDF reprint requests, contact the author at lawootten@msn.com.
Ronald McDonald House - A greyhound adopter has a greyhound therapy dog. She talked to RMHC and put together a presentation where a racer would run for a local RMHC charity and all earnings would be donated to the kids. When Grey2K found out, the Houses which were interested all received letters from Grey2K that pretty much spelled out litigation, negative press, bully tactics that would be used on RMHC sponsors.
