Complaint Review: Cristina Backman - Sykesville Maryland

Dr. Cristina Backman is a well-respected neuroscientist. During the month of April 2011, I was watching two of Dr. Backman’s three dogs, Dr. Backman was travelling in Europe at the time. I watched Dr. Backman’s dogs over a two week period. Both of the dogs I watched were not at all dangerous. The new dog (third), Kierra, Dr. Backman just adopted was in another place. I met Kierra two times, and the dog is playful and loves children.

While I was at Dr. Backman’s home, a woman arrived with a police officer, her mother and her daughter, looking for Kierra and claiming that Kierra bit her daughter. She tried persuading me; however I have no knowledge of such an occurrence. Also, her daughter had no noticeable injury whatsoever as the author exaggerated “kill or serious.” I was informed when her daughter visited to see her father and Dr. Backman, she and the dog played together.

I am very uncomfortable with the writer trying to control public opinion, pretending that the dog running outside to harm children and animals.  Also, through writer’s word choice within the article, the word ‘we’, gave a false impression to exaggerate as if it was a group of people involved as victims.  In fact, I am aware that the writer harbors feeling of jealousy and envy towards Dr. Backman for personal reasons. I firmly believe that the writer is slandering Dr. Backman in attempts to tarnish her reputation.

We are all responsible for our own lives and must respect others’ freedom. I suggest that the author control her own life and action instead of trying to control others’ lives and public opinion. Thank you.

Dr. Cristina Backman is a well-respected neuroscientist. During the month of April 2011, I was watching two of Dr. Backman’s two dogs. Dr. Backman was travelling in Europe at the time. I watched Dr. Backman’s dogs over a two week period. Both of the dogs I watched were not at all dangerous. The new Kierra, third dog Dr. Backman adopted was in another place. I met Kierra two times the dog loves children and playful.

While at Dr. Backman’s home, a woman arrived with a police officer, her mother and her daughter, looking for Kierra and claiming that Kierra bit her daughter. She tried persuading me; however I have no knowledge of such an occurrence. Also, her daughter had no noticeable injury whatsoever as the author exaggerated “kill or serious.” I was informed when her daughter visited to see her father and Dr. Backman, she and the dog played together. I am very uncomfortable the author tried to control Public opinion pretending that the dog running outside to harm children and animals. In fact, I am aware that the author harbors feeling of jealousy and envy towards Dr. Backman for personal reasons. I firmly believe that this woman is slandering Dr. Backman in attempts to tarnish her reputation.

We all responsible for our own lives and must respect others’ freedom. I suggest that the author control her own life and action instead of trying to control others’ lives and public opinion.

Dr. Cristina Backman is a well-respected neuroscientist. During the month of April 2011, I was watching two of Dr. Backmans dogs. Dr. Backman was travelling in Europe at the time. I watched Dr. Backmans dogs over a two week period. Both of the dogs I watched were not at all dangerous. While at Dr. Backman’s home, a woman arrived with a police officer, claiming that Dr. Backman’s dog bit her child. She tried persuading me, however I have no knowledge of such an occurrence. Infact, I am aware that this woman harbors feeling of jealousy and envy towards Dr. Backman for personal reasons. I firmly believe that this woman is slandering Dr. Backman in attempts to tarnish her reputation. 

I have proof that Cristina'a dog has bitten a child please look it up under Howard County Animal Shelter.

It is not libel if it is true and the intention is to protect children.  

So the individual responding  has a biased opinion and is a friend of Cristina.  If not her attorney threatening to silence her wrongdoing with libel Nonsense.

Our goal is to stop these types of attack since she refuses to take responsibility for her animal.

Due to her negligence any future child or animal that is attacked by her dog is considered to be Wreckless endangerment and considered a criminal act.  This post is based on the freedom to speak and find a remedy in Cristina taking responsibility for her animal.  So that no other child or small animal gets hurt.  Anyone who has been a victim to this animal and her negligence please contact me and together we can put a stop to it.

So don't let this respondent threaten you with libel.  You have a right to come forward and you can look up the incident in question.  The intention of this post is to protect children and small animals. I am sorry that her friend views this as libel.  It demonstrates her biased misinformed Perspective.

I happen to know Ms. Backman and can state with certainty that none of the information filed above is true. Yes, she does have dogs, but I would challenge the writer of the report to provide any evidence or parents' statements or a police report to support her claim. I've been around those dogs and have never known them to attack either small animals or children. They are well cared for and do not run loose as stated in the report.

Clearly this is a personal vendetta. In fact, if the person who wrote this is who I think it is, her name is infamous in the community and with the Howard County police department. I suggest you disregard the information above and consider it the work of a very troubled and unstable human being.

It's ironic that the writer was able to quote Maryland criminal law around animals, but failed to remember the following:

These are the elements necessary for a plaintiff to prove a case of defamation in Maryland:

“(1) that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person, (2) that the statement was false, (3) that the defendant was legally at fault in making the statement, and (4) that the plaintiff thereby suffered harm.  A defamatory statement is one ‘which tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of, or associating with, that person.’" Offen v. Brenner, 402 Md. 191, 935 A.2d 719 (2007), quoting Smith v. Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98, 115, 928 A.2d 795, 805 (2007).

It is just too danged easy to smear someone's good name on the internet.