Amy would have to be lying, and Tiger’s owners would have to remain silent – surely they know that there’s a hullaboo going on about their cat. Maybe not? Then any friends and family who have visited their house in the past 2 weeks would have to either not see Tiger or add themselves to the conspiracy if they did.
The Austin County investigators have recommended charges be filed, so either they followed up on the information or they never bothered to verify if Tiger was still alive, or if there was a Tiger in the first place. Given your expert analysis of Texas animal cruelty law, what charges might they be recommending if they haven’t validated Amy’s claims?
Your conspiracy requires more than just Amy to be lying. It requires nobody else involved, including county investigators, not to have figured out that the cat is still alive.
Amy reports that Tiger was neutered. Many of the pictures of him show him casually lounging on a nice patio. Amy said that he was a “barn cat.” The area is very rural. People probably don’t stress too much about cats and dogs roaming around ranches.
"*While the post claims the dead cat was feral, Amy Hemsell believes otherwise. She cat-sits an orange and white tabby cat on a property on the same road as where Lindsey lives. He went missing shortly before the picture was posted.
“Disgust. Deplorable that anybody, not just a vet, that anybody can do that to a cat,” said Hemsell who also volunteers for a local animal rescue group."
*
Testimony. Same road. Missing shortly. Says *same cat. *
I have no idea of what you’re babbling about as* Lindsey would have to show she had permission. * The owners dont have to prove they didnt give permission. Where the fuck are you getting that idea?
If she is unable to do so, then the testimony of the Sheriff or the owners is unnecessary. I doubt she’d even make the claim as that would add perjury charges (but then yes, would require testimony from the owners).
Counselor, may I introduce Brother William of Ockham , who’d like to give you a rather close shave. Note his extremely sharp razor. Apparently you’ve never heard of him or his razor.
Collars can get caught on things and strangle the cat. Other cats go frantic trying to get them off. None of ours wear collars, they are all chipped. Some cats actually appear to like them, however.
However, if you have ever worked with ferals, it’s is very easy to tell them from a pet cat. They are not wellgroomed and sleek animals. The only ferals I know that could be mistaken for housecats are the ones at Disneyland, but they are cared for.
This also makes me doubt this idiots ethos- since if she is a vet she should know that’s not a feral. Also, it doesn’t appear to be a Tomcat- I would guess Tiger is neutered.
In order to convict a person of any criminal charge, DrDeth, the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
At her trial, she does not have to prove she had permission. The prosecution must prove she did not, just as they must prove every other element of the crime against her.
This is pretty basic.
Nope. She can simply say nothing. It’s then necessary for the prosecution to introduce some evidence that would allow the jury to find she did not have permission.
The only part of this post that is accurate is your claim regarding perjury: if she testified that she did have permission, it would then be possible to later convict her of perjury…assuming the prosecution could then show legally sufficient evidence that she did not.
In the United States, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
If they asked he “did you have permission” and she said “no” why would the prosecution have to introduce any evidence that she indeed, did not have such permission? In other words, unless she claims to have it, that defense cant be raised.
Should could remain silent when asked that question.
Honestly, though, if the cat was a pet it would be trivial to prove that she didn’t have permission by just, you know, asking the owner, so it’s not some great hurdle.
In the United States, the prosecution cannot call the defendant to the stand to testify. They cannot even say to the jury that the accused’s failure to testify means she might be hiding something.
And it’s not raising a defense. The prosecution must prove the element. The defense doesn’t have to prove anything.
Yes. And if the owner appears and says, “It’s my pet, and I did not give permission to Dr. Lindsey to kill it,” then we will have enough evidence to reach a conclusion.
Right. Either it was a pet, and there’s the implied assumption that no cat owner would say, “Sure, you can shoot my cat in the face with an arrow, I don’t mind at all!” Or we have The Great Cat Sitter Conspiracy.
Might as well just throw our hands up in the air, no way we can figure this one out. :rolleyes:
Wait, since when did “tomcat” imply no testicles? I’ve always known it to mean a male cat, and all of the dictionaries online agree. Tomcat = male cat. In fact, this thesaurus section even informs me of a new word, “gib,” meaning a castrated tomcat.
Would the tone have been as dismissive about the Great Stripper Conspiracy when defending Crystal Magnum? The Great Toddler Conspiracy when discussing the McMartin preschool? The Great Rape Victim Hoax when discussing Jackie at UVA?
If the cat turns out to be a pet, the prosecution still must adduce evidence that there was no such permission.
Otherwise, the law would not contain “permission” as an element of the crime. It would criminalize all killings of owned cat’s, and then say, “it shall be a defense to this section that the accused had obtained permission from the cat’s owner.”