The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The Nobody For President Campaign, 1940 to Present
What do the lines on Solo cups mean?
Cat that walked 3000 miles to find its owners, 1951
Mule elected G.O.P. committeeman, 1938
Tube of liquor hidden in prohibition-era boot, 1920s
Dog wins art contest, 1974
The Nazi Air Marker Hoax, 1942
The Cradle of the Deep, a literary hoax, 1929
Lord Gordon-Gordon, robber of the robber barons, 1871
The Diaphote, a television hoax, 1880
The Kitten Killer of Hangzhou
Status: Real (unfortunately)
A series of pictures showing a woman crushing a kitten to death with her stiletto heels is causing an uproar over in China. The pictures first appeared on the internet and have recently been published by some Chinese newspapers. The woman in the photos has been dubbed the Kitten Killer of Hangzhou, because the background scene has been identified as Hangzhou. I've been able to locate four of the pictures in the series, but I think there are a few more (far more graphic) ones. Here are the ones I found (I don't have larger versions):

image image
Image 3
(possibly disturbing)
Image 4
(possibly disturbing)

The big question is: Who is this woman? One theory is that the images come from a Japanese shoe advertisement. Another theory identifies the kitten killer as a "37-year-old woman from Hubei province with the internet identity 'Gainmas.'" The London Telegraph elaborates:

She had registered a website in Hangzhou and - the ultimate evidence - had bought a pair of stilettoes on eBay last year. She was also registered with QQ, a popular Chinese message service, where she wrote of herself: "I furiously crush everything to do with you and me." Before her QQ address went dead, its owner had several conversations. In one, she is coy, saying "So what?" when asked if the pictures are of her, and then, when asked again, replying: "In theory." When confronted by a reporter, she became defensive, saying: "Suddenly hundreds of people are on my QQ and cursing me. What's the problem if I crush cats? It's a type of experience. You wouldn't understand."

The Telegraph goes on to note:

No one seems to have suggested the serious possibility that the photographs could be a hoax - created by picture-altering computer software. But in the face of tight control of self-expression, young Chinese are seeking wildly different forms of sensation or satire on the state of society.

Without having seen all the pictures (and better quality ones), it's hard to judge whether or not they're real. But it certainly seems like this has already become the Chinese version of Bonsai Kitten (with the added twist that it may be real... in which case it's definitely disgusting).

Update: A "Crush" video is circulating around (you can find links to it in the comments, if you're interested) that makes it pretty clear the woman really did step on a kitten. Also, an article in the Shanghai Daily reports that the lady, and the guy who produced the video, have been identified. The producer, who is a camera operator at a TV station, has apologized. However, the woman, who works as a nurse at a hospital, has disappeared, leading to concerns that kitten commandoes may have abducted her (or something along those lines).
Categories: Animals, Gross, Photos/Videos
Posted by The Curator on Tue Mar 07, 2006
Comments (237)
Odd to draw a moral equivalence between killing a cat and killing human beings. I try not to kill anything unnecessarily -- even ants on a sidewalk -- but I wouldn't think to equate, say, the poultry industry with the Holocaust, or a mouse-trap with a man-trap. Or crushing a kitten with mass murder of innocents at the side of a pit. They are just different.
Posted by Sam  in  Delaware  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  05:38 PM
Hearts & Minds, I know I said I would speak no further on this subject but I had to post a link for you.
A pet is a beloved part of your family, and as a Christian, you should do everything you can to guarantee that this valued member of your family receives the glorious eternal reward for which Christ gave His very life.
Posted by Chuck  in  Rhode Island  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  05:41 PM
Well, Chuck, that's intelligent. But at least those parodied in this article in The Onion won't burn down businesses and embassies and threaten lives world-wide. So inadvertently you've provided us another lesson in the falsity of moral equivalence: rational people know that cartoons and satire do not warrant riot and destruction, and that the sick killing of a cat does not warrant death for the sicko. People who can't make these - er, simple - distinctions, are a threat to us all.
Posted by Sam  in  Delaware  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  06:14 PM
that is just awful, anything that lives have feelings too you know. The pain that kitten had to go through just sickens me
Posted by asdfgh  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  06:34 PM
I am so allergic to dead animals, it's not even funny. I'm not going to watch or view anything.

I do have to say, I like the Ads by Google on this page.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  06:34 PM
um Sam, who is warranting burning down businesses, embassies or threatening lives worldwide? Sorry if I missed your point, perhaps you could reiterate it.
Posted by Chuck  in  Rhode Island  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  07:23 PM
Chuck, Sam is pointing out that the satire on Christians you posted (you did know it was satire, right?) is unlikely to illicit the same extreme response as the recent publication in Europe of cartoons mocking Islam.

Interestingly, the Bible says that God gave man dominion over all other beasts, and there's plenty in the OT about wringing their heads off and scattering their blood around to keep the average fur-fondler in apoplexy for months; it's the Koran that says that the other animals are people too.

This is a sick person doing a sick thing, but the backlash is disproportionate. Those people saying they could happily do the same to her, or kill her for it, or wishing her a similarly unpleasant death aren't any better.
Posted by David B.  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  07:47 PM
I don't see why people can't say they would kill her. It's not like anyone is going to go out to China and actually kill her...it's just a way of expressing anger.

I'm sure at one point or another, everyone has wished someone dead.
Posted by Sakano  in  Ohio  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  07:53 PM
There once was a fellow named Chuck
With the seeming IQ of a cluck
Who perhaps played a game
With the object to flame
But was all logical thought sure to duck

Sorry, Chuck. Be more subtle in the next thread.
Posted by Sam  in  Delaware  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  07:55 PM
I forget, didn't Starship Troopers have a scene where a group of kids stamped on a load of real cockroaches?
Posted by David B.  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  07:56 PM
I hate the proverb of an eye for an eye, but I don't think it's wrong to wish her an unpleasant death, provided it doesn't go beyond wishing.

On another note, violent cruelty isn't endemic just to humans. I remember hearing about a bored elephant who would leave trails of bread crumbs around and then try to smash the birds that ate them (so her keepers taught her to paint). Also, in young animals, seemingly pointless kills may be made for the animal to learn how to hunt, or simply for entainment. I know my cat shows no mercy to smaller animals.
Posted by Citizen Premier  in  spite of public outcry  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  07:58 PM
There once was a fellow named Chuck
With the seeming IQ of a cluck
Who perhaps played a game
With the object to flame
But was all logical thought sure to duck


wow, thats just pure poetry Sam...I will extend you a courtesy you have not extended me and will refrain from posting any ignorant comments about you. Although maybe you should take your own advice about being subtle.

And David, I understand what you are saying however, I never said anything about wishing the lady harm so I was not really sure why that comment was directed at me.
Posted by Chuck  in  Rhode Island  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:04 PM
There once was a fellow named Chuck,
Who said, with the voice of a duck,
"I sure am-a spittin'
'Bout thet girl and her kitten,
But the rest of it, I don't give a f***!"

Now Sam was a poster quite rare,
And really he did seem to care
That people shouldn't fret
O'er some bint and her pet
While he wasn't getting his share!

But David's the lone voice of reason,
and truly a man for all season(s).
With a wit so sublime,
he's ne'er stuck for a rhyme.
Even though you all know he's just teasin'!
Posted by David B.  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:06 PM
>>I never said anything about wishing the lady harm so I was not really sure why that comment was directed at me.

What, mine or Sam's. In either case, I'd say that the comment was a response to your posts in the spirit of open discussion, this being a forum an' all. So, when you said "I will show you what it's like to have your head crushed under a boot." you were in fact volunteering to lie down and have someone stamp on your head for the purposes of demonstration. Wow, that's dedication!
Posted by David B.  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:15 PM
>>I don't think it's wrong to wish her an unpleasant death, provided it doesn't go beyond wishing.

So would it be wrong to feel enjoyment, vindication, 'justice had been done', or whatever if something unfortunate did happen to her?

Wouldn't that just be 'a wish come true'? Nothing to be ashamed of there, right?
Posted by David B.  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:28 PM
I can't say I would shed any tears if she was really mauled by a tiger, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Posted by Sakano  in  Ohio  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:30 PM
[emBut David's the lone voice of reason,
and truly a man for all season(s).
With a wit so sublime,
he's ne'er stuck for a rhyme.
Even though you all know he's just teasin'!

ok, that was pretty good.

So, when you said "I will show you what it's like to have your head crushed under a boot." you were in fact volunteering to lie down and have someone stamp on your head for the purposes of demonstration. Wow, that's dedication!

damn you and your pedantry David! *shakes fist at David* and yes, I am being sarcastic.
Posted by Chuck  in  Rhode Island  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:34 PM
i have to agree with you Chuck, that is tasteless not to mention cruel.

real or not, its still disturbing
Posted by Eva  in  New york  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:36 PM
>>I can't say I would shed any tears if she was really mauled by a tiger, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I doubt I'd shed any if you were, but not because of any personal antipathy.

I just have trouble with who's company "he/she/they got what was coming to them" puts you in with. It's what's behind those crowds you see celebrating the latest terrorist attrocity, and the lynch mobs, and fatwas.
Posted by David B.  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:44 PM
I doubt I'd shed any if you were, but not because of any personal antipathy.

I just have trouble with who's company "he/she/they got what was coming to them" puts you in with. It's what's behind those crowds you see celebrating the latest terrorist attrocity, and the lynch mobs, and fatwas.


Hm, sounds kind of hypocritcal to me.

Oh well. That's what you get when someone tries to lecture you on the internet. Save your moral superiority for someone who cares.
Posted by Sakano  in  Ohio  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:49 PM
I'm not looking at the pictures, I can't. I hate cats with a passion, but still. Disturbing images are not my forte. *shudders*

Sure, it sounds weird from a person who loves 'silence of the lambs', but I hate animals dying, people are different. Death of one is a tradgedy, the death of a million is just a statistic. wink
Posted by Dracul  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:54 PM
If a human were killed by an animal, the animal would more than likely be killed. I don't see why it shouldn't work the other way around.
Posted by Banana  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  08:57 PM
Anyhow, I'm taking myself out of this argument. I don't want to talk about this woman anymore. It's a waste of energy, and I just don't like to think about animals dying.
Posted by Sakano  in  Ohio  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  09:31 PM
Let's get off the human vs animal thing for a moment and just look at this as a woman sick enough to do something like that to a helpless kitten, that means she is sick enough to use those great gams to put you in a John Bobbit scenario. Remember even Dahmer started with animals.
Posted by Lonewatchman  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  10:40 PM
I don't think this kind of thing is anything new. If my memory serves me well (which it doesn't always) I'm sure I remember reading an article on the net, more than a year ago, about a new fetish emerging of pretty girls in stilettos crushing small animals. Not sure if it was to turn on the girls themselves or others looking at the photos (or both?!).
Is my mind playing tricks or does that ring bells with anyone else?

Whatever, it's still makes my stomach turn.
Posted by Adriana  in  Sydney  on  Wed Mar 08, 2006  at  01:17 AM
Hmm, unfortunately it seems I am right. After a little research (not something I want to delve into too much though)I found there are many videos out there for sale for those into the 'crush' fetish. Here is a link to just one article about it http://www.dazereader.com/crushvideo.htm .

So, maybe not just ONE little kitten after all.
Posted by Adriana  on  Wed Mar 08, 2006  at  01:30 AM
Ugh.. yeah. 'crush' videos are nothing new.

As much as you'd like to think that this one woman is the only one out there doing this sort of thing, she's not even the tip of the iceberg. There are a LOT of very sick, twisted people out there, who get off on the most disturbing things imaginable. One of the things that pops up is women crushing small critters underfoot, usually while barefoot or wearing nice shoes - it seems to be a sub-genre of foot fetishism. Throw in an asian woman, and you have made some incredibly perverted people very, very happy.

Honestly, the fact that it's making the news tells me one thing: Slow News Day. There's no way this hasn't been brought to the attention of media outlets before, who probably said something like: 'This is something that will generate a tremendous amount of attention, shocking our viewers like nothing else. Since it's not going to vanish overnight, save it for when we need a boost in ratings'. Perhaps the Chinese, insulated from the rest of the Internet, actually haven't seen this sort of thing until now..
Posted by Bobcat  on  Wed Mar 08, 2006  at  04:39 AM
Can
Posted by Unfairly Balanced  in  Earth  on  Wed Mar 08, 2006  at  04:54 AM
>>I doubt I'd shed any if you were, but not because of any personal antipathy.

>Hm, sounds kind of hypocritcal to me.

No, just impersonal. You can read about one tragic death or another in just about any day's news, are you permanently in tears? I doubt it.

>I just don't like to think about animals dying.

Ah, but if they had killed other animals, they'd just be getting what's coming to them, right?

The 'moral superiority' here is putting one's own thoughts and actions out of reach of the criticism one directs at another. It's the "I know I'm right" and "I'm only saying/doing this for good reasons", and mostly the "but that's different" in every argument.

Is it the crushing of animals people are objecting to? Or just the fact that this animal is 'cute and fluffy', whereas that harmless house-spider they flattened last week was 'icky and horrible'?

Or is it the filming of it? Would it have been okay if done in private?

So what about bull-fights? Or hunting? What about animal testing? And slaughter-houses?

Unless everyone here improbably turns out to be a practising Jain, we all hurt animals on daily basis. But suddenly everyone is so damn sure that where they draw the line is in exactly the right place? Sorry, but I see the old, old story; a group of people gather to determine the moral high-ground and lo-and-behold if its not under their very feet!
Posted by David B.  on  Wed Mar 08, 2006  at  07:15 AM
>Can
Posted by David B.  on  Wed Mar 08, 2006  at  07:18 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 8 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.