Woman Indicted By Grand Jury On Animal Cruelty Charges
Posted: May 23, 2011 4:00 PMWARREN COUNTY, Tenn. - A grand jury has handed down animal cruelty charges against a Warren County woman accused of keeping more than 100 dogs living in squalor at a suspected puppy mill.
Wilma Jones faces 10 counts of animal cruelty, and five counts of possession of controlled substances.
Back in March, law enforcement officers and an animal rescue group seized more than 120 dogs from Jones' Centertown property.
They found most of the animals standing in filth, and suffering from infections, dehydration, and malnourishment.
She relinquished custody of all but four of the animals.
Just to refresh your memory, this is the case where a local person in Warren County, working with the Animal Rescue Corps (hello Scotlund Haisley!), spent three weeks visiting Ms. Jones's kennel and "gathering evidence," (or was that planting evidence?). Instead of trying to help Ms. Jones with any of her dogs or kennels, the Warren County humane society of McMinnville (sic) was hellbent on getting rid of her and having her arrested, no matter what they had to do.
The "controlled substances" in this story are unspecified. I have no idea what they were, or how they got to Ms. Jones's home. For all I know the person visiting Ms. Jones's home for three weeks may have left them there, or ARC "rescuers" may have placed them on the site. Maybe they were that uncertain about their "cruelty" charges sticking and figured they'd better add something to the mix, just in case.
As for the animal cruelty charges, those will have to be decided in court, but juries are often pre-disposed to be swayed by any sad pictures of animals. Logic usually flies out the window when someone is presented with sad-faced puppies, even if those pictures have been staged.
And, just out of curiosity, if 121 dogs were taken in the raid, and they were in such terrible shape, as alleged by "animal advocates" and "rescuers," why are there only 10 counts of animal cruelty?
I hope Ms. Jones has a good attorney representing her. Too often breeders are railroaded in these cases and don't really receive a fair trial. You can compare Ms. Jones's case to another case where an older woman was brought to trial over the care of her dogs. In this case Jean Cyhanick was charged in Virginia with endangering her dogs' lives because several of her toy dogs had dental problems. That's right. I'm not making this stuff up. She was convicted of animal abuse. Friends have raised over $35,000 on her behalf and she is appealing. Legal sources say she has a good chance of winning and overturning the current law in Virginia that allows this kind of charge to be made.
Posts
Are you seriously defending this woman? puppy mills are evil, bottom line. she was breeding way too many animals to take care of and was only out to make a buck, at the expense of the dogs and their health. I hope she burns in hell, or comes back as a puppy mill bitch
ReplyDeleteI apologize for not replying sooner. I don't get back to check this blog as often as I should.
ReplyDeleteI am defending animal breeders from these terrible seizure bond laws where animals are taken, often just on hearsay about their conditions, and then the breeder/owner has to come up with thousands of dollars for their upkeep PRIOR to any kind of trial. It has become common for courts to require two to four weeks of advance payment for the animals' care. If someone is a breeder and they have multiple animals, at $15-18 per day in some locations, that is THOUSANDS of dollars for them to come up with and they only have about 48-72 hours to post the money or security. How many people can do that? Not many. Seizure bond hearings are just a way to force people to surrender their animals without a trial and they need to be eliminated. They have been found to be unconstitutional in some jurisdictions. People shouldn't have to pay all that money in advance when the burden of proof is on the prosecution. People are innocent until proven guilty, so why are their animals being seized and then sold or "adopted" before there is any kind of trial? Seizure bond hearings need to be eliminated. If animal control or law enforcement wants to seize animals from someone then they need to be willing and able to pay for the care of those animals themselves. IF the owner/breeder is found guilty, then they can see about getting the money back from them for the animals' care. We would have a lot fewer frivolous raids and seizures if animal control had to pay those costs themselves.