| From the Gracia’s compound |
Hair Balls couldn’t help but scratch our head today over the arguments and testimony spewed forth in the second trial of exotic bird breeders Juan and Bertha Gracia, who were found guilty of animal cruelty last August. Although that scratching was mostly to keep us awake.
Although Harris County prosecutor Linda Geffin presented enough evidence the first time around to persuade a judge that the Gracias didn’t adequately feed or water their animals, she’s taken heat from a surprising number of advocates for the Gracias around the country. (A Houston Chronicle story about the online support for the Gracias cited one fervent blogger who refers to Geffin as “Attila the Prosecutor.”)
Ordinarily, we would not expect a so-called animal cruelty case to
put anyone to sleep, especially one that involved the HSPCA and
constables siezing over 1,000 birds and an assortment of dogs, rabbits
and hamsters. We’re also not sure about what appears to be a knee-jerk
reaction by fans of the Gracias to instantly demonize Geffin. But the
witnesses Geffin put on today — a neighbor of the Gracias,
and Colorado-based “national avian behavioral consultant” Julie Murad —
lacked what we might call substantial firepower.
Someone wanting to find out whether birds were indeed neglected or
abused would’ve been frustrated by the proceedings, bogged down as they
were in the most monotonous of minutia. Murad, founder and president of
the Gabriel Foundation, testified that photos Geffin displayed of
shit-encrusted water bowls and sorry-looking bird cages were indeed
below the standard of care that her organization strives for.
This
left defense lawyer Jennifer Gaut in the rather unfortunate position of
arguing that perhaps Murad loves parrots a bit too much and that,
depending on who you talk to, some folks might think it’s perfectly
acceptable to hardly ever clean water dishes.
But what surprised
us the most was how evasive Murad appeared under cross-examination.
Geffin objected to Gaut’s questions about how Murad felt about breeders
in general; when Gaut finally was able to get Murad to read a portion of
her organization’s position on breeding, Murad herself complained about
having to read something “out of context.” But we wondered why she was
trying like the Dickens to evade Gaut’s question, because the Gabriel Foundation is not anti-breeder. And
even if an organization has a stance against breeding, would that
somehow make it acceptable for the breeder of parrots to not feed their
birds or a breeder of dogs to kick their freaking dogs?
Hair Balls really got our dander up when Geffin put on her next
witness, a neighbor of the Gracias….who testified that they were good
neighbors, and the only evidence she saw of animal abuse or neglect was
the fact that their basset hound was on the thin side, and that he was
outside during Hurricane Ike. Now, Hair Balls thinks it’s a total dick
move to leave your dog outside during a hurricane. But it might also be
considered a dick move for the prosecution to put on a prosecution witness who testifies that the defendants were good neighbors. And, um, remember those thousand-plus birds everyone’s been talking about? Yeah, the neighbor couldn’t testify about that.
Gaut told Hair Balls that the Gracias have been in business for over
15 years, and have had many satisfied customers. Moreover, she said that
if conditions were as deplorable as authorities contend, investigators
would’ve found a property full of dead and diseased birds, which they
did not. (The defense hasn’t called any witnesses yet).
The pictures we saw today didn’t instill a lot of confidence in the
Gracias — dudes, if you decide you want to make a living by making
birds fornicate, try to have the courtesy to clean a food bowl often
enough that dried shit doesn’t completely cake the outside, and if you
can’t do that, then go be a freaking accountant or something — but we
also have about the same amount of faith in the HSPCA, an organization
that operates very much in the dark. The HSPCA doesn’t often tell the
public what becomes of the animals they seize. We hope that, at some
point in time, the Harris County Attorney’s Office will demand that the
HSPCA lets the taxpayers know what happens to each and every animal that
they seize in the taxpayers’ name.
Because the way things stand now, the HSPCA has been using public
servants to further a goal that is about as clear as the water in the
Gracias’ bowls.
This article appears in Oct 21-27, 2010.
