By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
The dog trainer who claims Congo’s owner requested attack training for the dog before it mauled a landscaper said he gave that information to Princeton’s Animal Control Officer after the incident occurred — but the prosecutor in the case said he was only made aware of the account after the trial was over.
Congo’s owner, Guy James, vehemently denied the allegations that he requested such training, saying he only requested obedience training for Congo’s pups.
It’s the latest twist to the case that has spawned widespread attention and even legislation, all stemming from the German shepherd’s attack on landscaper Giovanni Rivera, and a judge’s subsequent ruling to have the dog deemed “vicious” and euthanized — a sentence that’s being appealed by the James family.
The trainer, Tom Wallace, who runs Alpha Dog Training in Robbinsville, said Mr. James made the inquiry about attack and protection training for the two older dogs — Congo and his mate, Lucia — during an initial phone call.
Mr. Wallace said Mr. James “kept reiterating the whole attack thing” during a consultation visit to the home, and said Mr. James requested the training so the dogs could protect his family while he was out of town.
But Mr. Wallace said he instructed Mr. James that German shepherds already have natural guardian instincts, and that he doesn’t provide “attack or protection training in any family environment.”
Mr. Wallace also said that Mr. James told him that his dogs had taken “nips and swipes” at some contractors who were recently at his home, and said a few of his dogs had recently strayed from the property before his installation of an invisible fence.
After leaving the property, he called Mr. James to tell him he had decided not to train his dogs, Mr. Wallace said.
Mr. James confirmed that last assertion, but said Mr. Wallace told him he didn’t have time to train all four of his puppies after charging him approximately $80 for the consultation.
He also denied that his dogs bit or nipped contractors or anyone.
He said Mr. Wallace’s allegations are fabricated and only intended to gain him publicity.
”If he was at all credible, why didn’t they use him in court anyway? (Animal Control Officer) Mark Johnson did know about him,” he said.
Mr. Johnson confirmed Friday that Mr. Wallace contacted him after the incident occurred in June.
But Mr. Johnson said he “couldn’t prove anything” and said it was “basically hearsay.”
Moreover, no one had come forward claiming they had been bitten or “nipped” by Mr. James’ dogs, he said, noting that Mr. Wallace’s allegations had nothing to do with his decision to impound the dogs.
”I asked Mr. James about it,” he said. “He denied that’s what occurred.”
After that, he considered Mr. Wallace’s account “a dead issue,” he said.
Princeton Municipal Prosecutor Kim Otis said he only learned about Mr. Wallace “afterward when he called me directly.”
Mr. Otis said he directed Mr. Wallace to call Mercer County Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor Doris Galuchie, who is handling the appeal.
Though he said “there might be some useful information there,” Mr. Otis said the record is now closed and no further evidence can be admitted for the appeal.
Ms. Galuchie confirmed that no further evidence can be added Friday, noting that the appeal will be based on the transcript from the original trial.
She said she and Mr. Wallace have been leaving messages for each other, but have not yet spoken.
She declined to comment on how or if she would use whatever information he divulges.
She said the legal arguments before the Superior Court are scheduled for April, but noted that briefs will be submitted before that.
Meanwhile, Mr. James said it’s possible there will be no need for the appeal if Congo’s Law is adopted by the state Legislature.
However, a full Assembly vote has not been scheduled.
Mr. Wallace said he decided to make his account public because of the recent consideration of the bill, which was introduced by state Assemblyman Neil Cohen (D-Union) in an attempt to amend the state’s vicious dog law — a move that could potentially spare Congo in the process.
”I just got kind of frustrated that they’re going to make a ruling or law,” Mr. Wallace said. “The powers that be making this decision need to have all the information. That’s the purpose of my coming forward.”
He added, “Why this was not communicated to the powers that be is beyond my knowledge.”
Mr. James didn’t rule out legal action against Mr. Wallace for his comments.
He previously announced a lawsuit against Mr. Johnson for comments published in the Trentonian newspaper.
Mr. Johnson has said he was misquoted.

