VIN News service reports:
Based on this timetable, I win my bet.
However, given that I believe this is a loss more due to an arbitrary time deadline than a refutation of the side steronz was covering, I am willing today to withdraw the bet and call it a push – that is, a tie. No winner, no loser.
Agreed, steronz?
He had to say something and admitting that he was talking out his fourth point of contact would be unlikely to lead to future expert witness gigs.
The rebuttal witness (anther practicing TX vet) called by the defense said something along the lines of (paraphrased from tweets), “I can’t tell you anything about whether or not that cat was alive or dead from a single picture.” So was the cat alive or dead? “That cat was definitely dead.” How do you know? “It had an arrow through its head.”
That about sums up the usefulness of this sort of “expert testimony,” on both sides, IMHO.
I think I’d be a goddamn fool not to agree to that 
You’re a fair man, Bricker.
I think at this point, having recommended her license be revoked and dragged her through a lengthy and costly hearing/arbitration/hearing process, the TBVME has done quite a bit more than a sternly worded letter. However, none of that rises to the level of “punitive action,” and Lindsey has been allowed to legally practice this whole time while maintaining all of her certifications and professional memberships, so I can’t disagree with your assessment of how the bet would ultimately play out in the short time left on the clock.
From the linked cite, there were several videos, including Dr. Folger’s testimony as well as that of Lindsey, who give what seems to this non-attorney to be some pretty damning testimony, including admitting that her sworn deposition was incorrect, and the a vet should have the responsibility to determine if a cat really is feral before killing it.
It sounds like she’s in deep shit, unemployed and $150,000 in student loans. Despite that, she wears blue jeans and slouches in a hearing which will determine the fate of her career. She doesn’t come across as someone one would be sympathetic towards.
I was really just asking about Dr. Folger. But I take it you found Dr. Lindsey’s testimony truthful but not helpful to her case?
I did, based on the fact he was unbiased and Lindsey is certainly biased. Her testimony is worthless and self-serving.
What were the terms of the bet again? 
…
Based on what is recounted here, I don’t find either expert’s testimony convincing.
He is presumably being paid for his testimony, which can certainly introduce bias.
I agree that her testimony is self-serving, but it doesn’t make it worthless.
Hmm. Well, at no time did afaik **Bricker **espouse the opinion that she would be punished, just that’d it’d take some time.
You were simply unaware of how long this kind of stuff takes.
Morally, I think you are the winner. Kudos.
I think Bricker should acknowledge this, but no money change hands.
In theory, expert testimony, altho paid, is not biased.
What a quaint idea.
Shouldn’t Bricker wait to see what the Board finally does? And if they don’t take her license, shouldn’t the people that predicted they would acknowledge they are the “moral losers?” Starting with you?
No, I didn’t say I found it truthful. She denied making statements in the past but when confronted with evidence from her sworn depositions then she had to admit she had made them.
They don’t have the entire testimony online, so only going from what I saw, it did not seem consistent.
In reality, some expert testimonies are not paid, so called from biases due to payment shouldn’t enter there.
As a veterinarian, if I were at the Board judging to revoke her license, I would be in favor of doing so. She would have to prove how good she is a veterinarian and how good she represents her profession besides that incident, and so far I have not seen it promoted, all that is shown is her incident. Is she known to work with shelter animals, wild animal refuges and rehabilitation centers, low-cost spaying/vaccination clinics, foster programs, service dog programs, public education, etc.? Has she been solely focused on her private practice? Is she even specialized or board certified in any of the veterinary specialties? Is she an active member of the Texas Veterinary Association?
Even AVMA called her out (and called out those who used the AVMA euthanasia guidelines to defend her).
In terms of “face of the profession” and ethics and public relations, her actions are not something I would like to be associated with a practicing veterinarian. She would need to present a lot of other evidence to support her case for keeping her license. IMHO, but a different perspective (coming from someone who is a veterinarian) in this thread full of non-veterinarians.
To further expand on my answer:
I wouldn’t characterize it as sounding credible.
"So, you would say that “A” is “X.”
“No.” “A” is “Y.”
"Have you ever said that “A” is “X?”
“No.”
“Can you please read this from your sworn deposition.”
"‘A’ is “X.”
They only showed excerpts, so I don’t know how much else was said, but I’m sure that she could have been hurt much more.
She claims to have shot the cat at about 20 yards, which was one of the points which her testimony was in conflict with her earlier deposition in which she stated that she had never been closer to 30 or yards to the cat.
I was a skilled archer (state champion in my class my senior year) and unless she was more skilled by an order of magnitude or two, the odds of her getting an instant kill would be incredibly small. She would have had a much higher chance of wounding the cat rather than killing it outright or within a few minutes as the one expert suggested.
Even if it were feral, which there is more than reasonable doubt to suggest it may not have been; and that it was a tom, which the expert testimony disagreed about, but something she would not have known at the time, her method was extremely reckless.
I haven’t read the entire thread so I don’t know if that point was already covered.
As much as I’d love to see this vet pilloried, not really. Trying to base live or dead on a Facebook photo seems almost unprofessional.
OK, sounds fair.
But- I never said she’d be punished, I know how corrupt Texas is. I said she should be punished.
Here’s the other thing. She claimed to be a expert in calling whether or not a cat was dead. Sure. But she should also know what a feral cat looks like, as opposed to just a outdoor cat. That cat was NOT a feral. Ferals do NOT look sleek, well groomed and even a trifle fat. Anyone who knows cats should have spotted that.
I have seen many ferals who a Crossbow bolt to the head would be almost a act of mercy. Mangy, diseased, with open sores, emaciated. 
From that blurred photo, I cannot tell that the animal was sleek or well groomed.
How can you?
animaltrappersinorlando.com/feral-cat/
The cat in that photo is evidently feral, and appears well-groomed, sleek, and not emancipated. Can you explain?