I’m going to remain firmly in the hoax side of this debate. Here are the only facts established in the case so far:
Two people were charged with animal cruelty.
Police are seeking a third person.
That’s all we know. Here are the allegations flowing around these threads:
The arrested persons were art students. (probably true)
A videotape was made showing a cat being skinned (unproven)
The video was intended as an art performance (unlikely)
This is a huge leap to make, from allegation 1 to 3. There is no evidence that any tape exists. There is certainly no evidence that any alleged tape was made with the intention of being shown as an artwork.
Chill out and wait for some facts. I haven’t seen so many people rant so wildly on such flimsy evidence since Bonsai Kitten.
Moderator’s note: In consideration to the visceral reactions some have had on reading the thread title, and with the permission of the OP, I have slightly modified the title.
minty I just sent you an email. In case you’re the type who reads mail about once a day but checks out the SDMB threads 29 times/day, this msg. is for you.
One consideration that our Canadian friends may confirm. Information about pending cases are limited by law.
In other words, if this happened in the US, the news cycle would spin this up into Chandra Levy/O.J. proportions. Not in Canada.
To give you an idea, here’s today’s AP story about another Canadian legal case:
TORONTO (AP) — A judge ruled Friday that her ban against publishing evidence from the preliminary hearing for an Israeli soldier and two youths charged with second-degree murder extended beyond Canada.
Andras Schreck, a lawyer for one of the accused youths in the beating death of 15-year-old Dmitri Baranovski, asked Judge Cathy Mocha to expand the ban imposed at the start of the hearing to include non-Canadian media.
Publication bans are common for preliminary hearings, where prosecutors present evidence for a judge to determine if the trial should proceed.
Because the evidence faces less rigorous standards than a trial, lawyers seek a publication ban to prevent the information from being published and influencing potential jurors.
(and later in the story)
Schreck cited a 1982 New Brunswick provincial court decision known as the Banville case, in which a journalist for the Bangor (Maine) Daily News reported on a preliminary hearing of a murder trial in New Brunswick.
The reporter, Beurmond Banville, “attended and reported many other preliminary hearings in Canada and had always believed that any order made by a Canadian provincial court judge was not binding upon either the Bangor Daily News nor upon himself,” the New Brunswick judge wrote in the decision on the case.
Though the newspaper was never charged, Banville was convicted of abetting the newspaper’s violation of the publication ban by reporting on the proceedings and fined $130.
So my point is that, just because you haven’t heard more about the case yet doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. If we were talking about a US incident, then I would agree it could be a hoax. Not necessarily in Canada.
Coosa – The following is an exchange between me and a journalist friend in Canada who is also an animal advocate and shared the original article with me.
Regarding what is and is not true. If you can’t accept that people are just selfish and cruel, well, then I want to borrow your rose-colored glasses sometime, because I’m afraid (as my contribution to the pit thread indicated) I’ve seen plenty to tell me that this is true. Add to this the response Phil and I received from the Toronto Police Service, and it takes no leap of faith (or disgust) for me to believe the facts as laid out in a major newspaper.
Chas.E – if this is proven a hoax (i.e. the artist’s produce the live unharmed cat and admit the tape was faked to provoke contraversy), not only will I bow to your superior skepticism and perseverance despite affirmations from the Canadian police investigators–I will gleefully cheer that at least a small bit of my faith in humanity has been restored…I’m afraid I’ve just been smacked in the face with too many really cruel acts of violence against humans and animals alike to be so optimistic at this time (again I refer you to my legacy page on my website, which as I warned in the pit thread is graphic and traumatic, not for everyone’s eyes).
Thank you, Peta. I am going to send you an e-mail so that you will have my e-mail addy, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would keep me ‘in the loop’ and share any info that will enable us to make our opinions heard where it will count.
I would love for this to be a hoax, but unfortunately know from personal experience that it is entirely likely to be true. How much of a hoax can it be if one of the people involved is hiding from the police? If it is ‘fake’, why doesn’t he just turn himself in, expose the fraud, and get on with his life? I fail to see where the publicity is helping him in any way!
I’ll have to step in on the side of Chas.E. Nothing has been proven yet, and none of us should rush to judgement about something that we haven’t seen. No video has been produced, no “headless skinned cat” has been produced, etc. When I see it I’ll believe it.
I think it’s great that so many people care about animal cruelty – but let’s not start a witch hunt until we have the facts.
One of the Charges is Anthony Wenneker. There is a listing in the Toronto white pages(at least on-line) for an "A. Wenneker, [note: number redacted – manhattan]
I had not realized the Canadian restrictions on pre-trial publicity. But I would think that one of our readers might try calling this number. The following things could happen:
l. number has been disconnected
2. person answering is not the person charged
3. Person answering IS the person, but will tell you nothing.
4. Person answering IS the person charged and will tell you little, but may tell you the result of the last hearing, when the next one is, etc.
BUT, I suggest that only ONE person do this, and that the person is singled out on this board as gonna do it, so there isn’t a stampede which will produce the opposite result we hope for.
My instincts tell me that there is less to the story than was first reported. Yes, I know that people commit all kinds of atrocities. But that is just MY instinct.
[Edited by manhattan on 07-21-2001 at 11:08 PM]
seth and jeff While I agree that publishing the number may not appear to be a good thing, I have another view.
When I used to be an active contributer to snopes, someone posted a thread about some apparently loonie in the Idaho/Wyoming area who believe some outrageous things. People swarmed all over the original statements.
I took it upon myself to search out the fellow in the phone listings, and called him. He was a rather nice older gentleman who believed quite sincerely that black helicopters were flying overhead, etc. He and I chatted for 15 minutes. I in no way tried to abuse him. I published the results of my conversation, and suggested that no one try to contact him, but rather that he was a real person(a bone of contention in the original thread) and had views that were sincerely held.
I posted the number, but laid down some ground rules that I thought might head off some problems.
seth I, in no way, meant to contribute to a witch hunt! If anything, if you read my post, I think that the original story is probably overdone, and there will be less to the story than was first published. There is no evidence as yet presented that says the original story is true in all particulars.
This board is about finding the truth. I hoped that I was only suggesting that a designated member of the board call the number and try to ascertain facts. I was in no way contributing to a witch hunt, IMHO.
This whole episode sounds a little like this thread–an outrage which gets people worked up, but which may be a bit too outrageous to be true and is never confirmed.
[sub]I’ll leave pointing out the obvious irony to others…[/sub]
Where you erred is underestimating the size and scope of this message board. Perfectly understandable – we were still pretty intimate not that long ago.
But now we’re running over 1 MM page views per week, from over 10,000 unique addresses. We just don’t have the freedom we once did, because who knows who’s looking? (Check our constant troll invasions for confirmation!).
Clearly, your heart’s in the right place. But things that might be possible on snopes or another small community just aren’t feasible for us anymore.
I hope to God it turns out to be a hoax. Wouldn’t be the first time art students used a hoax as part of a “performance” piece - a few years ago in Ohio a story was reported on the evening news about a group promoting a “Guns for the Homeless” program. Turned out to be an art student’s senior project.
Then again, visual art these days seems to be less a form of expression than a haven for kooks and sociopaths.
Um, except it HAS been confirmed, by the Toronto PD, at least to the extent that I linked to the National Post article that minty linked to in the OP when I inwuired of their corporate communications department, and the Toronto PD saw no apparent need to point out any part of it as inaccurate or untrue.
sethdallob: A “witch hunt” is usually a term used to describe mass hysteria towards people who have done nothing, or done nothing illegal. Are you ready to confidently state that these men did not kill this cat as described? If not, it’s time for you to buy a “Word-A-Day” calendar intended for a lower grade level.
