Find instances of a woman torturing a male dog, and if the woman injure the dogs testicles

1. Known, documented incidents of genital-directed cruelty to dogs involve males or youths

Contemporary reporting from Chicago cases in 2012 describes a 22-year-old man and a 13-year-old boy who filmed themselves torturing dogs, including pouring rubbing alcohol on a dog’s testicles and applying duct tape then ripping it off — explicit acts that targeted the animals’ genital region and were captured on video used by investigators ^{[1] [4]}.

2. A woman accused of torturing and killing multiple dogs — what the reports actually say

Local Arizona reporting names Brook Scalero as a woman arrested after police recovered a journal in which she allegedly described torturing and killing several dogs; police say at least one dog’s remains matched abuse-consistent injuries but the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office declined to bring felony charges because there was no physical evidence conclusively linking the diary’s accounts to specific animals, and a photograph or confession alone could not meet the burden of proof ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

3. No published source links a woman to deliberate injury of a dog’s testicles

Across the provided sources, the only detailed descriptions of testicle-focused animal abuse (pouring alcohol on a dog’s testicles, taping and ripping) are attributed to male suspects in the Chicago case; the Mesa/Scalero coverage details graphic diary entries about torture but does not report evidence that the woman inflicted testicular injuries on dogs, and prosecutors explicitly noted the absence of physical proof tying diary entries to the animals ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Evidentiary gaps, prosecutorial caution, and the role of diaries and confessions

The Mesa case illustrates how visceral narratives (a diary describing torture) can prompt arrest and public alarm but still fail to produce charges when physical evidence is lacking; prosecutors cited ethical obligations and lack of a provable nexus between diary content and animal remains or veterinary necropsy results in declining to prosecute, underscoring that allegations alone are insufficient in criminal court ^[3].

5. Media framing, sensational sources, and differing levels of verification

Sensational reporting — exemplified by outlets that published graphic video clips or lurid summaries — can make genital-focused cruelty seem more widespread than vetted court records support; the Chicago videos were used as prosecutorial evidence and led to charges, while the Mesa diary prompted arrest but not conviction because of verification limits, a distinction highlighted in local ABC15 and other reporting ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Limitations of available reporting and open questions for investigators

The assembled sources do not provide any verified example of a woman documented injuring a male dog’s testicles; given the investigatory and prosecutorial notes in the Mesa case, the factual record is limited — the diary alleges sexualized and fatal abuse of multiple dogs, but authorities did not find the physical link necessary for felony prosecution, leaving open whether any of those alleged acts (including genital injury) occurred as written ^{[2] [3]}.

7. What this means for researchers and advocates

For those tracking gendered patterns of animal cruelty, the current reporting shows male perpetrators documented inflicting genital-directed harm, and a separate female suspect accused in graphic diary entries without physical corroboration; reliable conclusions about women committing testicle-targeted abuse against male dogs cannot be drawn from the supplied reporting due to evidentiary gaps, and any policy or advocacy response should differentiate alleged writings from verifiable forensic findings ^{[1] [2] [3]}.