Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



kittenmommy ([info]kittenmommy) wrote in [info]fandom_lounge,
@ 2006-12-18 20:11:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:*Snarl*

Please help get justice for a puppy that was tortured to death
Warning: Very disturbing content follows. Graphic description of animal abuse. I hope you'll read (or at least skim all the way) to the end where you'll find the contact info for the people who can make a difference in this case. I'm posting this here because I know that people from all over the world read this comm, and the more people who write in, the better.

As Peter Gabriel once wrote, "The eyes of the world are watching now."




Please help us get justice for this innocent, defenseless pup. A
mistrial was declared in the case Friday because, according to the
Atlanta Journal Constitution, one juror simply refused to deliberate.
The story is below, followed by a form letter and contact info for
Georgia's Governor, House Speaker,and the Representative who chairs the
delegation for Fulton County/Atlanta, where this horrendous crime took
place, requesting that the state increase criminal penalties for animal
torture. If you live in Georgia, please also contact your local
representative and senator. Thank you so much.


[Graphic content follows here!]


Gruesome detail in puppy torture trial
Brothers who killed dog in oven face animal cruelty charges

By D.L. BENNETT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/07/06
Jurors recoiled in horror and wiped their eyes Thursday as prosecutors
produced a series of grisly photos of a tiny puppy tortured and then
killed in a gas oven.
The blood-stained oven showed scratch marks on the door and walls,
indicating that the young dog - its mouth and feet duct-taped -
struggled before it died.

Beige paint also covered the puppy and the inside of the oven, a final
act of cruelty before the animal was tossed into the stove.
Two teenage brothers, Justin and Joshua Moulder, are on trial in Fulton
County Superior Court for the acts that even defense attorneys
described as "horrific and gruesome."
"The puppy struggled all the way until it death," said Laura Janssen,
senior assistant district attorney, in her opening statement. She held
a small, black stuffed dog to demonstrate the animal's treatment to the
jury.
She stressed that the two brothers didn't just kill the dog in a
sudden, random act of unexplainable violence. Instead, their treatment
of the dog was cold, hard, calculated and deliberate.
She said prosecutors will show the brothers first dumped paint on the
3-month-old puppy, and tried to set it on fire. They duct-taped the
puppy's paws to restrain it, and then lashed the same tape across its
mouth.
When they failed to burn the dog, the two brothers set the bound,
paint-covered puppy on a counter, opened the stove, removed two baking
racks and then stuffed it inside, Janssen said.
She described their behavior as "inhuman and barbaric."
The torture, police say, occurred on Aug. 21 as the two boys broke into
and then trashed the newly refurbished community center at the
Englewood Manor apartments.
Lawyer Timothy Owens, representing 19-year-old Justin Moulder,
acknowledged the puppy's fate was horrible but maintained his client is
innocent.
"He did not do it," Owens said.
Likewise, Kevin Schumaker, representing 17-year-old Joshua Moulder,
said there was no proof his client either trashed the center or killed
the dog. He said much of the case hinges on five neighborhood children
who fingered the brothers and may not be reliable. Other potential
witnesses disappeared, he said.
"Do we just have two young men being served up on a silver platter?"
Schumaker said.
Janssen said the state will eventually produce clothing and other items
that tie the two boys to the scene. She also said they bragged about
their acts to the five younger children, showed them their work and
later threatened to kill them for calling police.
The trial is expected to take up to two weeks.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Governor Perdue,
Speaker Richardson,
Rep. Holmes,


Due to an especially horrific recent case of animal cruelty in Fulton
County, I am writing to urge you to support an increase in criminal
penalties for animal torture in the state of Georgia. As you know,
people who commit heinous crimes against animals are much more likely
to harm human beings, and this particular case of animal cruelty is so
reprehensible it cries out for a change in the law.

According to the Fulton County District Attorney, in August 2006,
Justin Moulder, 18, and Joshua Moulder, 17, "brought a tan and white
puppy into the [Englewood Manor] Community Center. They tied her front
paws together with duct tape, tied her rear paws together with duct
tape, and then taped her front and hind legs together with tape. They
wound tape so tightly around the puppy's mouth and nose she could
barely breathe.

That was only the beginning. The puppy, less than five months old, was
immersed in white paint which the defendants tried to ignite with
matches or a lighter. When that didn't work, they removed two shelves
from a commercial gas range, put the pup inside, turned on the gas and
literally cooked this animal inside and out. The puppy's body was so
charred; the doctor who performed the necropsy could not determine
which breed she was."

Following this horrific case, the eyes of the nation are on Georgia.
Please demonstrate that you believe no animal should ever be treated in
such a manner in the great state of Georgia and should such a crime
occur, those responsible will be severely punished. Currently,
conviction under Georgia's felony Aggravated Cruelty to Animals law
is punishable by just five (5) years in prison. I hope you will
consider supporting a change in the law to increase that penalty to at
least ten (10) years.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

(your name)


Addresses:

The Honorable Sonny Perdue
Governor, State of Georgia
Governor Sonny Perdue
203 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
404-656-1776
404-657-7332 (Fax)


The Hon. Rep. Glenn Richardson
Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives
PO Box 1750
Hiram, Georgia 30141
glenn.richardson@house.ga.gov


The Hon. Rep. Bob Holmes
PO Box 110009
Atlanta, Georgia 30311-3203
bholmes@cau.edu



(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]kittenmommy
2006-12-19 04:57 am UTC (link)
That's terrible. Whoever did that is probably going to end up a serial killer. Agh.

Evidently that doesn't matter to lots of the people who've responded to this thread. Honestly, if I'd thought I'd get responses like these, I wouldn't have bothered. It was a waste of everyone's time as far as I'm concerned, because it doesn't seem like too many people here actually give damn, which really surprises me.

Kittenmommy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


iwanttobeasleep
2006-12-19 05:01 am UTC (link)
I think the problem is, we have no idea that they really did it. Five kids aren't the best witnesses. Hence my use of "Whoever" rather than "Those boys", and I was actually going to reply to that effect before I reread the letter and realized the point wasn't about the boys getting let off, it was about making the punishment harsher.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]shaysdays
2006-12-19 05:13 am UTC (link)
Right- but they're totally hanging the petition on this case. If the boys were already convicted on solid evidence and paying their dues it would be a lot more effective in relating it's message.

Hell, if the petition didn't mention them at all, I'd probably be all for it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kittenmommy
2006-12-19 05:32 am UTC (link)

Hell, if the petition didn't mention them at all, I'd probably be all for it.

There is no petition. I'm not sure why so many people have evidently had comprehension problems with my original post.

Kittenmommy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]shaysdays
2006-12-19 05:47 am UTC (link)
Sorry, I think of a form letter to sign and send in as basically the same as a petition. The major difference is instead of a list of signatures under one letter it is individual letters. (insert treehugger sentiment here)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kittenmommy
2006-12-19 09:01 am UTC (link)

I wrote my own letters - I didn't use any of the form letters provided, nor is anyone else obligated to do so.

Kittenmommy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]hallidae
2006-12-19 05:11 am UTC (link)
Okay, no.

The fact of the matter is that if there was enough of a problem to cause a mistrial, that means there wasn't enough proof beyond reasonable doubt, at least to convince all twelve jurors. While there may be more evidence presented in the next trial, as I'm pretty damn sure that the prosecutor won't let this one go, your idea of a fair trial obviously doesn't jive with that of the judicial system. Tougher laws? Cool. Tougher penalties? I'm down with that. I'll even write in. But your screaming that public opinion should force a guilty verdict and punishment, instead of there being due process? Not cool.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kittenmommy
2006-12-19 05:31 am UTC (link)

I didn't say that public opinion should force a guilty verdict or punishment. I just think that there should be justice for that poor puppy.

Kittenmommy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]hallidae
2006-12-19 05:38 am UTC (link)
Your own comments make it pretty damn obvious that "justice for that poor puppy" is to have two people against whom the evidence appeared to consist of, unless something is brought up in the retrial, nothing more than little kids' testimonies convicted and have the book thrown at them. Which, as mentioned previously, wouldn't happen to your satisfaction anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kittenmommy
2006-12-19 05:41 am UTC (link)
Your own comments make it pretty damn obvious that "justice for that poor puppy" is to have two people against whom the evidence appeared to consist of, unless something is brought up in the retrial, nothing more than little kids' testimonies convicted and have the book thrown at them. Which, as mentioned previously, wouldn't happen to your satisfaction anyway.

I want the person or persons who did this to pay for it - why is this so controversial? Why is lobbying for stricter laws against animal cruelty a wank-worthy topic?

Kittenmommy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]hallidae
2006-12-19 05:52 am UTC (link)
To repeat my original comment: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TOUGHER LAWS. My problem is that you've arbitrarily decided the guilt of two people who, to repeat myself again, have only the testimony of younger children as the evidence against them so far, and are attempting to force these tougher laws, again, something that wouldn't happen even if these laws passed, on them. That is my problem. If there was irrefutable proof that these two were responsible, something more than the testimony of little kids, which is hardly definite evidence, by all means, let them have it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]fernwithy
2006-12-19 12:54 pm UTC (link)
People do seem to give a damn about the puppy, but that doesn't mean that the justice system isn't working. It's always skewed toward the defendants--they're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a quantum leap forward in jurisprudence that no one wants to risk.

The article doesn't really say why a juror refused to deliberate, but if the case really just hinged on five younger boys, I can think of a few good reasons, including a plausible alternate theory of the crime: the five younger kids did it, realized how bad it was, then decided to pin it on the two older boys. The article doesn't say what any of the corroborating evidence against the defendants was. It's obvious that the reporter and the editor who wrote the headline believe them guilty--much more obvious than it should be in a mainstream news piece prior to conviction--but the reason we're hesitant about eyewitness testimony, especially by children, is that we have a history of being suckers. The Salem witch trials come to mind, and the McMartin trial.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]missdaisy
2006-12-19 02:05 pm UTC (link)
It's always skewed toward the defendants--they're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a quantum leap forward in jurisprudence that no one wants to risk.

Unless, of course, they're personally impacted by the crime. Then we can just throw the rules book out the window, because there is no way that can have a negative result for us in the end run.

/sarcasm (tag added since everyone is being so serious)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]fernwithy
2006-12-19 02:32 pm UTC (link)
Well, true, of course. I mean, that's obvious. I've I'm robbed, then clearly, a trial isn't even necessary for the miscreant who did it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map