Back in January, I posted about a luncheon I went to with some friends. One of the people attending had been part of an effort by local humane societies to rescue a tremendous amount of animals in poor health from some folks.
Why am I bringing this back up after six months? Especially since I have not even been blogging for several months?
Quite simply, because my post has generated comments from some folks who are very offended by the fact that I was on the animals side, based on the "testimony" of the person who first told me, as well as my reading of the media reports, and hearing the outcome of the trial of these folks.
In the interest of being "fair", I'm going to copy/paste the comments that have been received, and make any responses I feel are necessary. Quite honestly, I think it's too bad that whomever "anonymous" is didn't comment at the time - I'm always glad to have other opinions, and would use them to play devils advocate for honest and frank discussion when I could.
Perhaps by bringing this into current status, it will make it easier for anyone who might be reading this to understand what is going on. If you care to read my original post on this subject, you can look at my archives for January 7, 2006. I'm not going to repost something here that is easily looked up. However, most folks don't go back and read comments on really old posts, so that is why I'm choosing to copy/paste the new responses to an old post now.
The first anonymous post came in and said:
Did any of you know that there is 3 kids that live in that home as well. When is anyone going to go help the kids!!!!!!!!!
3:01 PM
I replied:
kate said...
I don't believe there has been any issue over the children in the household. If you know something, please let us know what's going on.
9:46 PM
That post came in a couple of months ago. Nothing further was said. Let's fast forward to last night, which was June 25, 2006. I received these posts in my email, again referring to my January post.
anonymous said...
i totally disagree w u guys cuz i was there the day of the seizure and i no that there was nothing wrong w thos animals. i have animals my self and i no what skinny ones look like.but if u need info heres some.I HEARED THAT THERE FISH WERE ALSO DEHYDRATED!!!!!
10:19 PM
I am not replying to that comment in the "old" reply section. Instead I'll reply right here - I am bringing it right back to the present, for if I can be challenged six months after the fact, then let's let any current readers be a part of it and add their comments if they so choose. And, let "anonymous" be aware: There will come a point when I'll decide that your commentary is old, tired and not worth mentioning any longer, so you'll be able to just take your ball and go home when I tell you to. But, the discussion is valid for the time being as long as you remain civil. If you cannot identify yourself as anything other than anonymous, then you have absolutely no right to be rude and obnoxious. Fair enough?
Now, in reply to your comment, anonymous, I feel for you in that you had to be at the seizure of animals which belonged to someone you apparently know. That had to be very difficult. There is a big difference between skinny and emaciated. I saw pictures taken at the site. The horses were beyond skinny. Now, as far as your "info" which you think I need to know about the fish being dehydrated - come on, do you think I'm stupid enough to fall for something you think you can catch me on later? If the owners of these animals (and purported fish) are friends of yours, why in the world would you add fuel to the fire and try to start stupid rumors about them? You want to see if I'll spread dirt around about them? Unless the court documents have been sealed, it wouldn't take much to get a listing of all the animals seized at the place. That would include the fish. It's a shame, isn't it, that I just don't think it's worth my time to get in a dither about it since I'm not personally involved in the rescue efforts? If you were simply trying to be amusing with a "dehydrated fish" story, then all I can say is, don't quit your day job. Comedy is not your forte.
anonymous said...
WTF?????? I don"t think that the kids health is any of your B.I buisness!!
10:24 PM
Hold on there, anonymous. *I* was not the person who brought up the children - you or one of the other "anonymous's" who are writing did. All I simply said was if there was an issue with the children to let us know. Period. There was no further reply to that comment from me. Was this another ploy on your part to elicit some kind of flame war or something? I want you to be aware that I AM a mandatory reporter for the state of Iowa and if you make some comment regarding abuse of children in some way, I will copy this blog and turn it over to the Department of Human Services for investigation if need be, so please keep your comments to yourself regarding any children in this case. (And please note, readers: I have absolutely NO IDEA at this writing whether or not the couple who was taken to task in this matter has children.)
Now, this morning I found two more email responses regarding this issue. Again, they are being copied and pasted for your reading pleasure.
anonymous said...
You know... it's really SAD that people believe 100% of things they see on TV and hear in the news. It's so negatively biased against the Andrews' because that is what MAKES news!! Have you EVER considered the Andrews' point of view in all this?? The fact that they have been literally TERRORIZED in their own homes by the general public after this completely blown-out-of-proportion and sickeningly UNFAIR incident?? The fact that their beloved German Shepherds and Cow Hearding dogs were mercilessly put to sleep by the Cedar Valley Humane Society due to "behavioral issues" (albeit NOT medical issues) and then were found NOT GUILTY on the neglect charges for those dogs... This is cruel and heartless treatment of HUMANS in my opion!!!
The reason that MOST of those horses were so-called underweight was because they had JUST been brought home from Kalona to, YES, save them from the glue factory. As I'm sure you all know, it takes a while to rehabilitate animals to a healthy state and you KNOW if those animals were taken to Kalona what kind of condition they would've been in. You don't think many of these animals were neglected BEFORE they came to live at the Andrews' farm? Consider the fact that Wendy's personal pet horses (the ones ridden regularly) were in fact NOT in that type of emaciated condition lends itself to show the TRUE nature of their care at that farm.
I beg of you not to let the media win this one!! Get the WHOLE STORY before you judge someone. Since God did not make us all perfect, I would take a good look in the mirror before pointing any fingers. Don't let this story turn you all into gossiping fools.
In my opinion, Wendy and Olin's hearts are in the right place. They are good people who don't have much, but who would also give you the LAST shirt off their backs if you needed it.
11:49 AM
Okay, anonymous, why were you not beating the doors of the media down while the trial was going on? I hope you were one of the people who testified in their behalf. You have to understand that in a situation like this, every animal will be looked at, not just the rescued ones. I've heard that the horses had been "saved" from the slaughter by the purchase from Kalona. However, it seems odd to me that there was not a single veterinarian who testified that the animals were being brought back to health UNDER THE CARE OF THE VET! I'd be surprised if a judge would rule harshly if the Andrews were able to provide bills of sale stating when they purchased the animals, and have their vet back them up with some facts and timetables as to when improvement could be expected. If, for example, the animals had been purchased the week before, there might not be noticible improvement, but a horse who has been cared for will show improvement in two or three weeks. How long had the Andrews had these animals?
We hear a lot on the news about kindly people who take in every animal who is hurting. Sometimes the task can be daunting, to say the least. While I would not accuse the Andrews of being 'hoarders' there has to be *some* reason why animal control officials got involved in the first place. They didn't just get a report, and suddenly go out to seize animals in a matter of 24 hours. According to the person who told us about the seizure, it had been literally weeks that the animals had been under observation. I'm sure you'll be delighted to inform me otherwise if that is not so.
By the way, I love your last paragraph, which tells me to look in the mirror and not to point fingers and turning "us all" into gossiping fools. YOU are the one who is bringing it back to life by making massive comments. Guess what? The rest of us had basically forgotten all about this until YOU brought it back up. Our lives have gone on...apparently you are still very focused on this event. I guarantee I'll only be focused on this event as long as you keep commenting on it, or it comes back into media attention once again.
I'm sure the Andrews are kind, loving people, who got caught in a nightmare. Unfortunately, it happens. Look at it this way. They now have a darned good idea of who their friends are. Are you their friend? Are you doing everything you can to help them in person or are you more interested in stirring the pot with untimely news?
bristol said...
I agree with "anonymous" above. There are always two sides to every story and in order to be respectable human beings, we always need to consider the flip side.
Where are you guys getting your numbers from anyway?? They don't have 20 dogs... most were put to sleep by the Cedar Valley Humane Society and it wasn't due to their health.
FYI... because of their missing cattle dogs, packs of coyotes have been coming into the barn and helping themselves to livestock, feasting nightly on their egg-laying chickens and compromising the safety of their other animals. Not to mention the rat population that have now grown to the size of rabbits, which the barn cats used to keep under control before reaching that size. Not to mention the poor little boy who cried his eyes out when he found out his favorite cattle dog was never coming home because the CVHS put her to sleep and I quote "She was the best dog a boy could ever have". (Gives you chills doesn't it??)
Yes, you are right, there is HELL on earth and apparently it's what the Andrews are now living after the fall out of this nightmare.
Death threats and vandalism are criminal acts! The kids are innocent in all this, but are sharing the nightmare with their parents. C'mon folks, leave them alone and focus on your own lives, not theirs!
12:25 PM
For your information, Bristol, the "20 dogs" was taken right out of the newspaper. And "you guys" is just little old me...this isn't a consortium of people conniving to bring old news to the forefront. I considered just ignoring all these new posts on this six month old subject, but after all, if there are folks who are intimately involved with the Andrews and know another side, then by all means, enlighten all of us. While I tend to be opinionated, I am more than willing to change my opinion when need be, and I certainly believe in trying to be as fair as I can be, even at the risk of bringing harm to myself. Ask my friends if you doubt me.
And, what's with the death threats and acts of vandalizm bit? Are you accusing the Cedar Valley Humane Society of unlawful seizure? Seems odd that they would take this issue to court and risk it being thrown out because of that simple a technicality!
Okay, folks, that's a wrap for now. We'll see what happens from this point on. Take care, everyone.
9 comments:
Sounds like someone with nothing better to do than stir up an old issue found your blog to troll in. If I were you, I'd delete the comments, this post, and any further idiocy and ignore them. Or you could go post harassing comments in bristol's blog, I suppose, but why make the effort?
That's absolutely true, Alia. But, it always strikes me as interesting when someone wants to bring up old news again...and, I'm more than willing to let people have their say, even if it's old news! I plan on seeing if they are willing to bring things right up in current times - if they want to keep dinking around on the January comment intead of here, than I'll be more than happy to let them blither away back in the archives. But, if they want to be upfront about it all, then they can comment right here. If they choose not to, then they are definitely NOT worth my time and effort. I have far more interesting things to talk about, I think! At least I hope so!
This person sounds a bit ... off key.
Either a troll or someone intimiately involved with the defendants who wants to try to clear their name with screams rather than facts. If they had a chance to clear it in the courts, they would have.
Animal cruelty cases are notoriously hard to prove - it takes something really beyond the pale to get a conviction. That tells you something right there.
Orion
First, I'm posting as anonymous simply because I've forgotten my logon and have very little time to try to find the scrap I wrote it on. Please just chalk it up to senility if you wish.
It sounds to me that these "anonymouses" (anonymi?) are simply trying to raise some cyber hell. For one thing, why pick on you? You're just a person who had the courage (and temerity) to voice your opinion. You weren't involved in the case (were you???) and can do nothing to change it. So you recant your opinion and agree with them? So what? What will change? Will these people get their animals back? Their lives? Of course not.
Maybe they're the type (some of them) who simply get off on verbaly abusing those with whom they disagree. Or they're playing some really stupid game.
As you and Orion said, if these people truly had proof of extenuating circumstances, why didn't they bring it out in court? Or the press? You know, Lane, that the media will publish any view so long as it sells papers.
Or, why didn't they bring all this up in January, when you first wrote it? So they didn't find out you'd written it until now? It's a tad late to be dredging this all up again, isn't it? I mean, the animals in question have all either been euthanized or fostered out and whatever damage was done to the humans involved should be at least beginning to heal. The media no longer cares, nor does anyone else but those humans who were taken to court - and, allegedly, these "supporters."
Frankly, I find all this blather now, some seven months later, rather boorish and futile. If 'twere me in your shoes, Kate, I'd just ignore 'em. You've replied to them. You need do nowt more. Let 'em grumble as they wish.
The Auld Scot
I agree with all of you. I've decided to simply see what happens here. If these folks don't want to "play" by giving solid information and courteous discussion in the next couple of weeks, they will be ignored. I'm not about to delete my posts, after all. I chose to write 'em, and I stand by them. But, if there is another side that should be told, then I'll be glad to hear it. I'm sure the media would too, Mr. White. ;)
Kate,
First off, I greatly appreciate and respect your willingness to allow these posts and your consideration to the other side of the story and in return I am willing to participate in a courteous fashion if the other bloggers will also oblige to your request. In no way, shape, or form am I trying to belittle anyone in these posts, I am only trying to open the eyes of folks (in a constructive manner), to the side the media refuses to tell. If an attitude shows in my writing, that is because I am passionate about this subject and the unjust nature of it. Rest assured, what I am telling you is FACT and not "idiocy" as previously described by a blogger. Quite simply, if you think I’m dishing out “idiocy” and don’t believe a word of what I am telling you, then please don’t read these posts and your response is not necessary. I will not participate in destructive/defamatory posts. My life has been in enough turmoil over this issue and maybe this venue will help me get this off my chest. This information is not up for argument, it is simply there for your enlightenment and possibly further constructive discussion.
In the next few paragraphs, I will try to give truthful responses to prior posts so that some those questions can be answered:
RE: "Old news... dredging up the past..." Unfortunately this issue is not in the past, this case is still in the courts pending appeal and is VERY front and foremost in the lives of the Andrews'. As "anonymous" said, you're right, we did not see this post until only recently and felt a compelling urge to respond and try to educate these readers as to some facts the media refused to tell or was not aware. I only wish I had seen this post during all the media frenzy.
RE: "Beating down the door of the media while the trial was going on..." The Andrews' did try to get the media involved when this all first started happening but their story fell on deaf ears and the media didn't want to present the story from that angle. It was very frustrating! The media was and is very one sided! Don't always believe what you see and hear from them!! What happened to being "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"?? In this case the media hung them before the case was even presented in court! How fair is that??
RE: About me being "a troll or someone intimately involved with the defendants who wants to try to clear their name with screams rather than facts…” Orion, how can you state that these are “screams” rather than facts?? Do you know for a fact that my statements are indeed fiction?? I highly doubt it because they are not. Yes, I want to clear their names. Yes, I am passionate about this subject. Yes, I want to scream at the general public not to believe everything the media presents. Yes, I have details that the general public does not have, but I am only reporting the FACTS. When it is my opinion, I will state it as so and you may disagree as we are all entitled to our opinions. It may seem that I am screaming this to the public, and I suppose you are right. This is not even happening to me, but I have nightmares about it (for Wendy and Olin) all the time. It’s such an emotional issue and all the sickening frustration of the apparent one-sidedness has caused all those involved, feelings of utter desperation and does literally want to make you scream! I am merely one single voice on behalf of Wendy.
RE: “While I would not accuse the Andrews of being 'hoarders' there has to be *some* reason why animal control officials got involved in the first place. They didn't just get a report, and suddenly go out to seize animals in a matter of 24 hours. According to the person who told us about the seizure, it had been literally weeks that the animals had been under observation. I'm sure you'll be delighted to inform me otherwise if that is not so”… Yep, you called it! I must respond… You are correct regarding the timeline as it did spread out over a few months. By law, the Humane Society must follow-up on every complaint regarding animal abuse. There was one “boarder” who wanted to purchase a horse from the Andrews but they refused to sell to her because she was not paying board on the horses she already had on their property and they finally asked her to leave. It was this ONE disgruntled ex-friend who started and caused all this raucous. She and/or her family would call the CVHS daily and cause them to appear out at the Andrews’ place in order to in effect, harass them from afar. This purely evil woman (to put it nicely) even went so far as to stage horrible sights (dead cat anyone??) and photograph them as so-called evidence. Each time the Cedar Valley Humane Society showed up after the complaint was filed, they told the Andrews that everything looked fine and then would leave without incident. Then one day they show up, take all their animals and say that everything isn’t fine after they had been there repeatedly and regularly for a few months?? Isn’t that a little fishy?? Doesn’t that make the CVHS partially responsible then for not telling the Andrews’ that there was a problem?? Did the Andrews have too many animals?? In my opinion, Yes, probably… However, they were working with the CVHS to spay and neuter all their dogs and outdoor farm cats and were willing to comply with all the requests the CVHS had made and they were in-fact, making significant progress on those requests. You tell me ONE farmer who goes out of his way to spay/neuter all his barn cats!!
RE: “Are you accusing the Cedar Valley Humane Society of unlawful seizure?”… Do you know that the Search and Seizure warrant (which I was able to personally eyeball myself), specifically stated that "if" they found any animals to be in immediate danger were allowed to be removed from the property? Instead, they took everything they could get their hands on… well, I know what you are probably thinking, that all the animals must have been in very poor health if they were all removed. WRONG! They had been through the house, they said the inside dogs were fine. The CVHS was loading animals from the pastures and dog kennels BEFORE the vets even arrived to evaluate them!!! I was told that they were overwhelmed with the number of animals to evaluate and felt they could not do them all on premises, so the decided to remove them and evaluate them at a different facility… That in itself DOES NOT follow the conditions of the Search and Seizure Warrant, PERIOD!. Plain and simply, they removed animals that were NOT sickly, were NOT in immediate danger, and ones that were in perfect health as some of the vets did testify later, which clearly goes against the nature of the seizure warrant!!! Unlawful?? To some degree, YES! If it wasn’t unlawful seizure to some degree, then why did the prosecution fight so hard to get it thrown out as evidence in this case?? The defense was not even allowed to argue the point. Not to mention, the Andrews were not given the usual 24 hours to comply like you see on Animal Cops on Animal Planet, the animals were taken immediately, no warning, no time to comply. The Andrews’ were later found innocent regarding some of those charges! The CVHS was clearly on a POWER TRIP that day and have been pressing their luck ever since! Who made them GOD? Who told them they were above the law and could fabricate their own rules? They put the majority of those dogs to sleep so they could never go back to the Andrews’. They say they put them down due to behavioral issues – not medical issues that arose from the so-called neglect. Well yeah, they were outdoor farm dogs that did not have indoor manners. Now tell me how that was in the dogs’ best interests to end their innocent lives? In my humble opinion, it was done out of pure spite.
RE: “if these people truly had proof of extenuating circumstances, why didn't they bring it out in court?”… They tried!!! Every time they thought they had a defense or response to the prosecutions accusations, the prosecution objected. I was totally flabbergasted at the sheer number of times they were NOT allowed to defend themselves… How can that be?? My mouth is agape and I cannot understand it and have yet to fathom it.
RE: “it seems odd to me that there was not a single veterinarian who testified that the animals were being brought back to health UNDER THE CARE OF THE VET!”… I know you are not gonna believe this because it is so incredible, but I have learned a lot about the dark goings-on in this town regarding this case. Wendy and Olin did have vets that were involved in the healthcare of those Kalona animals, however after the seizure apparently the Cedar Valley Humane Society called every local veterinarian within a 50 mile radius and instructed them NOT to get involved in this case. They were told (even threatened) NOT to have anything more to do with the Andrews’ but complied for fear of what Cedar Valley could do to their reputation or business. A few vets point blank admitted to Wendy and Olin that they were instructed by CVHS not to get involved, even in the routine health care of their animals!! Now how is that not some sort of neglect by the medical professionals?? Now the Andrews can no longer get medical care for their animals?? The Andrews’ were turned away as customers from 99% of the local vets until they finally found a couple of them that would help them with their animals and were not worried about Cedar Valley’s threats. Can you believe that?? Some of the vets even got on the stand (during the Civil trial) and lied about things in order to help the prosecutor’s case. Later some of those same witnesses changed their stories during the criminal trial!!! I know this information is almost too incredible to believe, but again I reiterate, there are ALWAYS two sides to every story.
RE: “…the "20 dogs" was taken right out of the newspaper”… Case in point! The media does not always report things truthfully. Why do most people assume that if they are seeing it on the news that it’s 100% truth?? The Andrews were originally allowed the return of 5 dogs, FIVE, not 20 of which they paid a hefty $10,500 for!!! Cedar Valley even wanted to regulate which 5 dogs could go back, not taking into account which dogs were considered the Andrews favorites (again POWER TRIP). The Andrews were charged for the care of all the seized dogs and cats (YES, even the stray dogs dropped off by people at the park and the barn cats!!) at an unbelievably inflated rate. They were charged for all the vet care provided by the practicing Kirkwood veterinary students, who in-turn pay tuition to the college in order to participate in that stuff, not to mention the fact that the dogs and cats shouldn’t have even been seized in the first place according to the warrant. What’s up with that??
On another note… the Andrew’s were to pay an additional $7,700 for the care of the horses, again some of which should not have even been seized. The money received by the Iowa Equine Rescue (IER) from the sale of those horses for adoption should have been applied towards the bill for their care (it wasn’t). The money collected in cans at the local Theisen’s stores for the care of those horses is now “missing” or "unaccounted for" and was not applied towards those bills either… In fact, a volunteer for the IER stated that he knew some of the money was being spent for “personal” items by someone at the IER!! Can you believe that?? That is definitely corrupt and criminal. Not to mention some of that $7,700 billed was for services that the horses didn’t even need because they’d been done, but that’s another whole story in itself.
RE: “Is the Judge mental or something??? How could he approve of these people to have more animals after that?”… Because after the civil trial, the judge realized that the dogs and cats were not “criminally neglected”, and that exact statement was used in his findings report. He simply felt the Andrews’ were overwhelmed and had more than they could care for, but that their hearts were in the right place. Therefore, he granted return of two more outdoor dogs to try and help control the rat population and try to help keep the coyotes away. Being a highly educated man, I’m sure he could make the determination from the case which was presented to him that the animals were not neglected.
RE: “I'd be surprised if a judge would rule harshly if the Andrews were able to provide bills of sale stating when they purchased the animals, and have their vet back them up with some facts and timetables as to when improvement could be expected”… Correct, and the civil judge did not rule harshly. I stated earlier that he thought they were not criminally negligent and their hearts were in the right place. The Andrew’s did provide receipts from Kalona regarding the horses they bought there. However, the Andrews’ also got a roster supposedly of “all the animals” taken the day of the seizure… which turned out that many of the animals were missing from the list or mis-represented. They had mares represented as geldings! Now how do you think someone who doesn’t even know the animals could possibly keep them all straight or connect them up with a Kalona receipt?? Even a vet that testified for the prosecution admitted that it was strange that some of the herd was emaciated where others were at a healthy weight. That is truly explained by the fact that some of the horses had just come from Kalona and had not been rehabilitated yet, versus the horses that had been on the property for some time and did show proper care. It’s black and white in my opinion!
RE: “There is a big difference between skinny and emaciated. I saw pictures taken at the site. The horses were beyond skinny”… How do you know that those photos were actually taken at the Andrews’ place?? And of the photos that were, how do you know they weren’t taken of the ones that had just come home from Kalona?? Some of the photos used in the trial were taken AFTER the seizure, even a month after they were seized… Now, if a horse can turn around from being emaciated to looking healthier in 3 weeks, then why weren’t they looking better after over a month in the care of the Iowa Equine Rescue??? THAT is the million dollar question… Not to mention those horses were rounded up from the pastures and loaded onto stock trailers like cattle!! Anyone who owns horses knows that you just don’t do that!! The horses were separated into pastures according to personality. Again, anyone who knows anything about herd dynamics knows that you cannot merge herds and cram horses into stock trailers and expect everything to be alright. They were frightened and panicked and kicked at each other in the trailers. They had numerous abrasions, bruises, cuts and scrapes that were largely due to the way they were rounded up and removed from the property that day. The whole premise of their removal was to take them somewhere else to evaluate them. Do you seriously believe it’s fair to evaluate them after the trauma of the way they were removed and then hold the Andrew’s responsible for those medical conditions when it wasn’t even their fault?
On another note: I personally adopted one of the so-called neglected German Shepherds and was privy to the knowledge that this dog was in a healthy condition before the day of the seizure… On the day I adopted her from Cedar Valley, 30 DAYS after the seizure, this dog was severely emaciated and for a 6 month old German Shepherd puppy should’ve weighed more than 32 pounds!!! I’m sorry, but I was shocked by her condition and the fact that these folks say they are on the animals side?? If a horse can be rehabilitated in about 3 weeks back to a healthy condition, wouldn’t you say that a smaller animal such as a dog could also be rehabilitated in the same amount of time or less? Therefore, let’s just say for the sake of argument, that the dog wasn’t in good health the day she was seized (even though I know firsthand she was healthy), shouldn’t she have been rehabilitated in the 30 days the CVHS had her?? I took her to two local vets, whom I highly respect, for evaluation. They took photos and documented her condition and gave me written reports to attest to the fact that she was severely underweight. I presented those findings to the Iowa Agricultural Dept for investigation of the CVHS!!! Isn’t that animal neglect?? Kind of hypocritical isn’t it?? How do they get away with doing the exact same thing they claimed Wendy and Olin did??? Oh yeah, I forgot… they are above the law!
RE: “what's with the death threats and acts of vandalism bit?”.. Yeah, nice isn’t it?? Due to this story and how the media presented it to the public, it caused anger and hatred toward the Andrews’ and some vigilantes took it upon themselves to mail them death threat letters (which are now in police custody as evidence). They spray painted writings on their vehicles, their home and their lawn that vowed to kill them for what they have done. They were told that the rest of their remaining animals would be liberated when they least expected it (meaning they would come and steal the rest of them away), and they have done that to some degree. The brake lines in their vehicles were cut, their house was ransacked when they were not home and valuable property (jewelry) along with horse registration papers were taken (little fishy huh?). The kids would freak every time headlights would shine through their windows at night and they were literally terrorized in their own homes afraid to walk out the front door, or afraid of who might be lurking in the shadows outside their windows. For each separate incident, a police report would be filed, but it didn’t seem like the Sherriff’s office was too worried about finding these criminals. I’m sorry, but no one deserves that treatment, especially when the Andrews were wrongfully accused in the first place and loved those animals wholeheartedly.
I hope you all are beginning to open your hearts at least a little to what I have told you so that you can somewhat understand how these poor folks have been railroaded. I have heard many a small town farmer state that he thinks they were wrongly accused and that they were glad they weren’t the target because it could’ve just as easily been them in the news! I guess that’s all for now, but rest assured, I will respond again if need be.
Thank you for responding, Bristol. Your letter was very much appreciated, and I know my friends to all be animal lovers and compassionate people; they are also fair minded folks, and I'm guessing anything you might have read into ANY of our posts can be looked at as a defense at what appeared to be a trolling gambit.
I am curious, though, if you would give us some idea of how you are "connected" to the Andrews, and I realize it's not any of our business; 'tis simple curiosity, though, that makes me ask.
It's a sad thing, though, isn't it, that there must be three sides to every story - Side One, Side Two, and the Truth. All I can hope for in this discussion is that people be open minded and read what is written carefully before forming an opinion.
As far as dredging up the past, please realize that for most of the readers of this blog, the only way they knew of this at all was because of my post. Most of the regular readers are from other parts of the world, hence, would not have even had any idea of this incident. So, when suddenly after several months went by the post was basically over and done with.
As a general comment, though...if they are not doing so now, I would advise the Andrews to document *everything* that happens on a day-to-day basis regarding this incident. I'd go so far as to make sure I had saved phone messages, and so on in case those things can be presented in court. I'd be tempted also to contact one of the TV news magazines like 20/20 or something to see if they might be interested enough to do a report on this, especially if you feel as though there was tremendous bias and behind the scenes tomfoolery against the Andrews. Hell, get Dr. Phil involved - might be a good show to let folks know what happens to a family that gets turned on by a whole community.
If the search and seizure warrent happened as you say, then I too am appalled. I will certainly keep it in mind, and though I will not bring the subject up with the person I originally heard it from, I will certainly be listening and commenting in the event she brings it up again. I'd like to see what she says. Now, she did adopt two of the horses from Kalona. I will, if possible, find out *where* the pictures of the horses were taken. I'm a former journalist, so things like this pique my curiosity and make me want to dig deeper. (By the way, if print media has become so dependent on slanted news, I'm glad I'm no longer a part of it.)
So, what's going on with the information you provided to the Iowa Dept. of Agriculture regarding animal neglect by the CVHS?
Thanks for writing. Please keep me informed how things are going, okay?
Kate,
For fear of my own safety and harrassment by the same vigilantes that currently terrorize the Andrews, I would rather not give too much information about myself, other than saying you were correct in your prior statement about the Andrews finding out who their TRUE friends are through all this. Wendy is like a sister to me and I have tried to support her through this terrible time and thus I have been privy to all the tiny details that the media and general public have not.
The Andrews are currently documenting and photographing everything, and have taken further actions in order to protect themselves. It's a shame they have to go to such drastic measures just in-case it needs to be used in the future. Wendy has always taken lots of photographs of her animals because she was so proud of them, but those same photographs were inadmissable in court because she did not have the auto-date function on her camera turned on (the feature that imprints the date in the lower right hand corner of the photo) and there was no way to prove how recent the photos of the healthy animals were.
The day of the seizure, the CVHS and Sherriff's department showed up first thing in the morning, before Olin and Wendy had been out to do their morning chores and top off the water troughs, etc. So, how fair is that to claim stuff wasn't done when they hadn't been given time to do it yet?? When Olin headed out to start on those chores, he was told to get back in the house. That day, Wendy was armed with her video camera and headed out to go document things on her property so she could use it in the future if need be, but she was told by the Sherriff to get back in the house or she would be cuffed and arrested. Therefore, they had no way to prove that there was indeed some water in the water troughs in each horse pasture and a bale of hay, or that the dogs in the runs had food and water, or that the sheep/goats had water, etc. She was flat out not allowed to get the evidence needed that day to protect themselves. That in my opinon is SICK AND WRONG! It became a game of their word against hers, and who do you think everyone believed? I found it quite ironic though to see the news footage from that day broadcast over and over again where the reporter was standing on the road in front of their horse pasture explaining how the horses were being seized at that very moment due to neglect and that they were found with no water or food, but you could clearly see the horses in the background standing around a large round hay bale filling their bellies! And for the volunteers who helped round them up that day, to hear them say that the horses bellies were bloated from being wormy?? I'm sorry, but the horses had hay bellies from eating TOO much, and you cannot tell a horse has worms by merely looking at them. Were they veterinarians?? Were they trained to be able to tell the difference between bloated wormy horses or horses that had hay bellies? I think not! I just had to laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of it all and then cry about the fact that the public was buying every word of it! C'mon folks!
Do you realize that those people STOLE (in my opionion) approximately $25,000 worth of livestock from the Andrews that day?? If there was a problem with numbers, why didn't they just get a judge's orders to lower and limit the number of animals on the property instead of taking them all?? And then with the break-ins to their home and the stealing of the papers for the expensive registered show horses... Isn't that interesting in itself?? Why would the burglars only take the relevant horse papers and nothing else? So maybe those horses would be worth more to whomever adopted them or sold them for adoption?? Those folks are the criminals.
Several months ago, John Stossal did a report for 20/20 on an issue that was eerily the same as this one. This story was however presented from the "other side", namely the side of the accused neglectors and was very much like Olin and Wendy's side of the story. I read notes from viewers that were outraged at him telling it from the opposite point of view, but myself I was thrilled that someone would finally show another point of view. After viewing the show, the Andrews immediately contacted John Stossal via e-mail and thanked him for his story and let him know of theirs. They got no response which was partly expected because he had just done a story like that, which means he wouldn't be doing another one any time soon. Pursuing the Dr. Phil or other avenues like that is a very good suggestion though. I think it would be such a great thing to expose the dark underhanded tactics of the CVHS and legal system in this county, then everyone would know and finally believe.
Regarding the Dept of Agriculture's investigation of the Humane Society... Again, the system appallingly failed us... Apparently the Humane Society FAILED to capture each animal's weight the day they were seized and brought to the facility. And apparently at the time the animals were being given all their vaccinations, wormings, flea and tick baths etc, they were too busy (albeit doing stuff they could charge the Andrews for) to write down the animal's weights (being sarcsatic here). Wouldn't you think it would be common sense to take the animals weight first thing, especially if the animal was involved in a neglect case??? ALL veterinarians I have ever visited get a weight first thing, even when you come in for routine wellness exams, but in a neglect case, I would think it would be an absolute MUST! Anyway, that mistake was their saving grace (GO FIGURE)... because we could not prove how much the dog weighed when it first arrived at the facility, therefore we could not prove that the animal had lost weight to become emaciated during the 30 days in their care. This completely disregards the fact that even if the animal came to the facility weighing that amount, there is no excuse for that animal STILL WEIGHING that amount after 30 days, especially a growing puppy, woudln't you agree?? Within 30 days, if the animal arrived emaciated, the animal should not STILL be emaciated!! I think it was a clear-cut case, especially with the documentation I had provided from two veterinarians and the photographs I had taken of her. But again, it seems that no one wants to go up against or challenge the Humane Society (because of all the so-called good things they do??), so again they are seemingly above the law... Can I throw up now??
Bristol,
I understand your concern about divulging your identity. But, thanks for telling me as much as you did.
One thing I wanted to mention in regard to the lack of photo dating on the pictures, if by some chance the pictures were 35mm and not digital, and she had them developed someplace, the photo shop should have a log that would have identifiers as to when the pictures were printed. If they were sent out, there should have been an identifying number on the filmstrip as well as the envelope, and that envelope number should have been logged by the store. I don't know if that would help. I'm sure that Wendy is now making sure everything is dated.
And, thanks for the comments. I'm finding all this very interesting...so seldom do we get to hear other aspects. Feel free to keep us informed if you like and when time permits.
Post a Comment