Yeovil, Somerset: Latoyah Stones

#TheList Latoyah Donna Stones (aka Lottie Devine), born 24/02/1992, of Hillcrest Road, Yeovil BA21 – neglected and starved a dog

Convicted dog abuser Latoyah Stones

Mother-of-three Stones caused unnecessary suffering to the female dog, known as Boston, by failing to explore or address her poor condition between March and September 2019.

The Dogue de Bordeaux had been taken to Vets4Pets in Yeovil on September 22, 2019 by Stones, who claimed the severely malnourished dog was a stray she had found.

Boston, who weighed just 30kg at the time, was taken to St Giles Animal Rescue by the local authority dog warden and social media appeals for information regarding the dog were made.

Stones’ name was put forward by members of the public who identified her as being Boston’s owner, which she later admitted when interviewed.

RSPCA inspector Jo Daniel, who investigated for the animal welfare charity, said: “The vet who examined Boston found her to be very thin, weighing just 30kg when a similar dog in healthy condition could be expected to weigh between 40 to 45kg, and said the dog’s condition was because of a failure to provide adequate food to maintain a normal bodily condition.

“In conclusion, the vet found no underlying causes that would have led to her being in the state she was, adding that she would have suffered for a number of months and have suffered hunger and fatigue during that time.

“This picture, which was taken ten days after she went into the care of the rescue centre, shows what an awful condition she was in.

“Thankfully, she’s now recovered thanks to simply being given an appropriate diet and the care she needs.”

Boston has since been rehomed.

Sentencing: 20 days of rehabilitation activity requirement; total of £365 costs and charges. Banned from keeping dogs for five years.

Somerset County Gazette

22 thoughts on “Yeovil, Somerset: Latoyah Stones”

  1. This is not about socks it was about a dog that a so called friend gave her after she couldn’t look after it socks is not a chocolate lab her children are devastated by this as they have been with socks all the lives her autistic 6 year old especially assicks has a calming effect on him lottie would never harm a dog

    1. She was prosecuted and convicted of animal abuse and is banned from keeping dogs as per the linked newspaper article. The only incorrect information was the identity of the dog she neglected.

      1. That’s not quite the whole story though is it… especially as she still has pets the dog in the picture is absolutely beautiful and wonderful with the children that picture shows a very healthy and well looked after pet those who know know the real story behind this and what lies were told very very sad

        1. She had her day in court and was still convicted on the basis of available evidence. The court would have taken any mitigating factors into account in sentencing.

          1. You aren’t even relevant in this conversation.. come back when you know what your on about @misanthropic

  2. They can write up false articles all they like, they clearly have nothing better to do with their lives, it must be real boring for them this lockdown that they make up stuff like this.. They really need to get all of the correct information before trying to ruin someone’s life, the dog named was a completely different dog and is happy, healthy with a forever family. The family dog is exactly the same and happy where he is! The nature of this case is all based upon completely false and incorrect statements, lies and slander And all that matters is we all know the truth. Both dogs are happy and healthy and that’s what counts. Furthermore, the person that caused all this – well her dogs are all cooped up together, never walked or see day light and the other 3, she got from a breeding farm were put down! Killed! Why hasn’t this been investigated I ask… rather than wasting time on lies regarding a happy healthy dog!

    1. The picture of the REAL victim, i.e. the abused and neglected dog Boston, speaks volumes. Now that the Somerset County Gazette have published an article on the case, we have much more to work with.

      1. But why isn’t the person who gave her the dog in the first place in the state which she tried to look after being punished

        1. You’ll need to ask the RSPCA that question. If there are other dogs at risk at the hands of this other person, as Hayley Robb claims, then they should be contacted urgently.

    1. Well said lottie and the kids are devastated the person this should be aimed at I hope her day will come

  3. Curious to know please……
    Did this lady have legal representation ?
    Did she plead guilty or did the court find her so on the evidence provided to it ?
    was this a trial by video/phone or actually at the court in person ?

    Anyone have an answer ?

      1. Thank you misanthropic…….
        This appears to be a case where the lady unfortunately and probably unwittingly convicted herself ?

        There is no refuting that the image of Boston shows a dog that is undernourished. However, there is no evidence that this lady which the RSPCA brought the privet prosecution against caused this, other than her own admission.

        I suspect that she voluntarily attended the RSPCA interview under caution, ( conducted on Police premises, to appear official and would have been frightening) without a witness or proper legal advise for her defense.
        She was probably handed a “Police information Leaflet” ?

        During this process, under duress the RSPCA probably advised that it would be much easier for her and her family if she made a guilty plea ? accepting a lesser penalty. Questions may have been posed so that she said things when upset and stressed which were useful for the prosecution case.

        The court would have little regard for mitigating circumstance when the defendant pleaded guilty to the charges. Only that it would give a lighter sentence within the guidelines of sentencing, which it did.

        It is indeed more likely that she acquired the dog from the other party intending to help it, in fact she went to Vets for Pets. It is perfectly possible that she said at the vets that the animal was a stray in order to protect the other person whom she viewed as a friend. As vet care can be expensive I think she took this step because the dog had not significantly improved with the proper care she gave her.

        The vet found no physical reason for the condition of the dog, (because she said it was a stray) the Local Council dog warden became involved but they are not bringing the prosecution, nor the Police, who have the authority to do so and the concerned Vet probably contacted the RSPCA, who`s primary objective is to prosecute any form of animal cruelty. Perhaps too enthusiastically in some cases ?

        The dog was a recent introduction to a busy household with children and an established older dog. It is plausible that the animal had psychological issues and insecurities, causing a reluctance to eat or the established Labrador ate most of the food provided for both dogs. That would not constitute cruelty or deliberate neglect but an unfortunate situation and I am pleased to hear that the dog is now thriving in a home on its own, which may have been all that it needed.

        This lady now has a criminal record, for life.
        It seems clear that she has supporting family who believe her innocent and I would urge that they seek legal advise.
        Legal Aid is available if you have been wrongly convicted of a crime and you should take this matter to an appeal court to clear your name, as soon as possible.

        I believe that would be the true test of whether this lady was actually guilty as I see this as a marginal case.

        I hasten to say I do not condone animal cruelty and find this site a good impartial platform for reporting facts not myth.
        Animals suffer at human hands and the perpetrators should face the consequences where it is abundantly clear abuse.

        Thank You

        1. Thankyou for this comment I think you are correct as my daughter in law sort of I know she would never harm a animal the state of the dog is how it came to her and she tried and failed and looked for help and i believe representation was not at it’s best for her

  4. Says it all really. How can anybody defend someone who finally admitted when interviewed the dog was hers. We all know the police don’t prosecute innocent people ……..
    Evil & wicked woman!

  5. Ann Bisgrove, the dog wasn’t hers, the dog was given to her by a ‘so called friend’ who then acted innocent in the matter after she called the RSPCA claiming the dog was Latoyahs to get out of it herself. (The same person in question that got the 3 dogs that were put down got them and Boston from a breeding farm which Latoyah was not aware of. Latoyah has fostered many dogs over the years, looked after them and gave them all the love and care they need then have gone to their forever homes eventually and the family dog was a rescue dog himself who’s been in the family longer than the children for 10 years, hes happy, healthy, loved and more than well looked after. He is also vital for the middle child in the family who has Autism and ADHD, by calming him and always being there throughout his life. This case as I said is all based upon lies and false statements (the people who wrote the statements do not know or haven’t even met to Latoyah before, the person in question asked friends to write up false statements. It was all over pettiness jealousy and control and her ‘friend’ getting one over on her and now Latoyah is paying for it. You only have to see the family dog to know she is innocent. Someone who has neglected and starved a dog would not have endless pictures of that exact animal – bathing with the children, eating with the family dog daily, having cuddles etc etc to prove otherwise. But unfortunately the way things go today lies and bitterness can ruin peoples lives. All that matters is Boston is happy and healthy where she is now, the other 3 dogs that were collected at the same time well as I said, were put down. Why dont the RSPCA investigate that? Because the traitor has a great cover. Especially being a member of the st Bernard’s trust. Sly or what.

  6. Ann Bisgrove, the dog wasn’t hers, the dog was given to her by a ‘so called friend’ who then acted innocent in the matter after she called the RSPCA claiming the dog was Latoyahs to get out of it herself. (The same person in question that got the 3 dogs that were put down got them and Boston from a breeding farm which Latoyah was not aware of. Latoyah has fostered many dogs over the years, looked after them and gave them all the love and care they need then have gone to their forever homes eventually and the family dog was a rescue dog himself who’s been in the family longer than the children for 10 years, hes happy, healthy, loved and more than well looked after. He is also vital for the middle child in the family who has Autism and ADHD, by calming him and always being there throughout his life. This case as I said is all based upon lies and false statements (the people who wrote the statements do not know or haven’t even met to Latoyah before, the person in question asked friends to write up false statements. It was all over pettiness jealousy and control and her ‘friend’ getting one over on her and now Latoyah is paying for it. You only have to see the family dog to know she is innocent. Someone who has neglected and starved a dog would not have endless pictures of that exact animal – bathing with the children, eating with the family dog daily, having cuddles etc etc to prove otherwise. But unfortunately the way things go today lies and bitterness can ruin peoples lives. All that matters is Boston is happy and healthy where she is now, the other 3 dogs that were collected at the same time well as I said, were put down. Why dont the RSPCA investigate that? Because the traitor has a great cover. Especially being a member of the st Bernard’s trust. Sly or what. Maybe people can go show interest in a real story now with a real perpitrator.

  7. Innocent people do get convicted,I’ll totally agree with you there Hayley,but that is AFTER they have DENIED all allegations against them & pleaded not guilty. The police say she DENIED all knowledge at first? Then changed her statement and admitted the offence,now I’ve never come across anybody who admits to something they haven’t done! I appreciate you may be attempting to blame or pass the buck elsewhere,how admission is 100% of the law! Again I admire your loyalty to your friend I’m assuming. But pleading guilty admits her liability

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *