Is HSUS more Guilty than Boudreaux, Court finds them ‘not’ Guilty

Boudreaux and son found not guilty

See how idiotic HSUS now looks, after all their claims about talking  dogfighting.

You might be thinking, who the hell cares about APBT dogs and alleged dogfight charges? 

Well, in case many of us have “forgotten” these days, one must be proven guilty of a crime, remember?    The standing talk on this long term case, has been that the government knew they lacked the evidence and were holding out for Floyd to maybe keel over early, or maybe they could compel him to take a deal? HA hahah  yeah right. There were no charges of animal cruelty filed, and there was no evidence of dogs being fought. 

If there was, they would not have killed the dogs.  HSUS is very GUILTY of trying to make itself the QUASI-POLICE running around with their Goodwin dude who thinks he knows everything there is to know about dogfighting, even though it has already been determined in court, that he is NOT an expert on the subject.  HSUS produced some type of video that they sell to Police, trying to tell them how to “SPOT” dogfighters.

 In fact, HSUS attempted to bring in Kathy Strouse, a person from the Chesapeake Animal Control (VA) as an expert witness for the state, who was allegedly involved in the prosecution of Vick……….HOWEVER, over objection, the Judge refused to allow Ms. Strouse to testify as the “expert” because the Judge agreed that her experience was inadequate and she had not helped actually investigat this case herself. She was also not considered an expert because she has not established written works as an expert on the subject.

  •  http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/30927744.html?index=1&c=y
  • Advocate Acadiana bureau
  • Published: Oct 14, 2008 – Page: 1BA UPDATED: 12:05 a.m
  • LAFAYETTE — The trial for a father and son accused of multiple counts of dogfighting began Monday after a delay of more than three years.

    All of the dogs were destroyed shortly after authorities seized them. Robideaux said evidence will show that the Boudreauxs were attached to their dogs. He said some of them were used for hunting. Robideaux said a veterinarian will later testify that he never saw any signs that the dogs were abused or used for fighting. 

    He said other retired federal officials and law enforcement officers have hunted with the Boudreauxs and will testify that they also never witnessed the animals being used for dog fighting. Robideaux said that the Boudreauxs also will testify in their own defense that they ceased fighting dogs long before it became criminal to do so. Dog fighting was outlawed in 1982. Robideaux said that the Boudreauxs did fight dogs in the mid-70s when it still was legal to do so.

    He added that all of the dogs the Boudreauxs sold came with a bill of sale that stated that the animals were not sold for any illegal purpose. He said some of the dogs seized and later euthanized had won national awards in weight pulling and confirmation events. Robideaux said one of the dogs belonged to Boudreaux’s grand son and lived inside but happened to be outside at the time of the raid. That dog too was euthanized, he said.  “This court will be outraged by the actions of the state toward these defendants,” Robideaux said.

    Prosecutor Ronald Dauterive spent much of the morning entering into evidence items seized from Boudreaux’s home.  Trooper Jacob Dickinson, of the State Police, was the first to take the stand and was questioned by the state about this evidence. Dickinson then was questioned about how he obtained a search warrant for  Boudreaux’s home.

    Dickinson said the search warrant followed an investigation that began in January 2005. He requested the search warrant after he flew over Boudreaux’s home in a helicopter and allegedly spotted, among other things, what he believed to be treadmills, which are used to train dogs, and a fighting pit, where dogs were believed to have fought. Robideaux asked Dickinson whether any of the treadmills were taken as evidence and whether investigators ever checked to determine whether the treadmills were operable. Dickinson said that they did neither.

    Robideaux also questioned whether anyone had ever witnessed a dog using one of the treadmills or the alleged fighting pit. Dickinson responded that they had not.  Robideaux also questioned Dickinson as to the basis for the search warrant, which contained information that Dickinson believed investigators would find evidence that the Boudreauxs engaged in waging bets on dog fights. However, Dickinson said no evidence of that was found during their search.

    Also, only one of the break sticks entered into evidence showed any signs of markings on it and those appeared faint enough that Dickinson said he could not tell whether they were markings from a dog’s teeth. The last witness Tuesday was Dr. Wendy Wolfson, with the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine.  Wolfson performed the examinations of each of the dogs after they were seized. Afterward, the dogs were all euthanized by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

     As photos and examinations of each dog were entered into evidence, Robideaux questioned Wolfson as to whether the scars could have been from something else other than dogfighting. She agreed that in most cases they could be.

    Kathyrn Destreza with the SPCA admitted on the stand that she could “not answer”  who it was that gave the direct orders to kill ALL the dogs BEFORE the lead investigator and witness (Jacob Dickinson) was even notified.

    ———————-When there is the amount of evidence submitted on a case such as this, a lot of people assume that this is enough to find people guilty.  Since there was a 3 year lapse of time in the case, and there was no jury, we can’t blame a jury. The judge made the decision. Rather quickly, actually. [It could be that the defense attorney made a motion for failure of the prosecution to bring sufficient evidence to prove the charges at the close of the people’s case, and then Judge granted the motion. If that was the case, then Judge dismissed the charges against them and they are acquitted. I have confirmed that this is what happened–]  

    If this case is any indication of HSUS’ ability to catch dogfighting and dog owners, we know one thing for sure……..HSUS believes it is law enforcement and tries to set itself up as “catching” criminals so it can further its “forfeiture” free for all when it “helps” catch criminals.

    Anyone that knows anything about HSUS knows full well that HSUS fully intended to confiscate and kill every single dog on that Boudreaux property, HSUS likely convinced the Louisiana SPCA that HSUS knows what fighting dogs look like, and they simply wiped every single dog out w/in 24hr.  HSUS had these people convicted in theory when they killed the dogs.

    Now that brings us to the question:  Aren’t the police SUPPOSED TO SAVE evidence?   see http://www.lacainfo.org/Louisiana%20State%20Animal%20Laws.htm and scroll down to 102.6A(2) which says that “fighting” dogs are declared to be “contraband” and notwithstanding R.S. 14:102.1, the officer may cause them to be humanely euthanized as soon as possible..”…”and shall not be civilly or criminally liable for so doing.” Hmmmmmmmm–looks like Wayne of the HSUS read the code before helping descend upon the Boudreauxs?

    Advertisements