On June 26, the Animal Legal Defense Fund issued a press release explaining their intent to review the Austin County District Attorney Office’s handling of the criminal case against Kristen Lindsey.
Austin County District Attorney Travis J. Koehn has been asked to produce all records under the Texas Public Information Act (Tex. Gov. Code § 552.001 et seq.) after the Texas Grand Jury determined there was “insufficient proof” to charge Kristen Lindsey with animal cruelty.
Since there wasn’t enough evidence provided to charge Lindsey, the case is now considered closed. Now Scott Heiser, former prosecutor and current director of ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program has expressed the desire to examine the case stating:
“The Animal Legal Defense Fund is pleased to see the Austin County District Attorney taking animal cruelty seriously and we are grateful to the members of the Grand Jury for their work as well,” said Scott Heiser, a former prosecutor and current director of ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program.
“Unfortunately, it is possible that the investigation was incomplete and that the prosecution misconstrued Tex. Pen. Code § 42.092(b)(2). We simply want to have a detailed look at the file in an effort to ensure that justice is served.”
Under the Texas Public Information Act, the prosecutor can refuse to share what is essentially a closed file when a suspect is not convicted. The Animal Legal Defense Fund hopes Austin County District Attorney Koehn won’t exercise his right to do so, and will allow the file to be examined.
The two issues the ALDF hopes to examine are whether the prosecution acted correctly into the legal analysis of the application of the Pen. Code listed above, and whether steps were made during the investigation to try to establish jurisdiction as to where the cat alleged to be Tiger was killed. There are apparently a few witnesses who stated Tiger wasn’t the cat killed, but that shouldn’t determine whether charges should have been filed, as any cat should have been protected under Texas law.
Tiger advocates everywhere are pleased to see the Animal Legal Defense Fund probe into the case, with many feeling the District Attorney’s office did too little to convince the Grand Jury to pursue the case, knowing full well the fault would fall on the Grand Jury, rather than with the District Attorney.
Good luck, ALDF, and may your investigation prove too little was done to bring justice to a little cat named Tiger. Since the case is officially closed, it’s alleged that Lindsey and her attorney are working hard to have as many Facebook pages and groups that gave her a bad name are removed, since she was never charged with a crime.
Please feel free to leave your thoughts on the pitiful manner in which this case has been handled.
Documents and screenshots from throughout this case can be found seen below:
In her blog from 2011, Kristen Lindsey stated she enjoyed killing and trying to kill things (animals):
Below is the photo that started it all on Facebook:
Below is her license to practice veterinary medicine in Texas:
Below is a screenshot of her mother’s saying that she and Jack watched:
For a short time on Saturday, April 18, Kristen at her Facebook page backup and addressed the death threats saying “I’m just ignoring all the death threats. Insulting me doesn’t make you any better:
Below is a screenshot where Kristen says she’s too awesome to be terminated:
Below is a reply from Facebook for a photo on Carnivores4Kristen page. Facebook doesn’t consider an arrow through a cat’s head as against their policy:
Below is a Lindsey press release issued by Austin County district attorney on April 29, 2015:
Letter from her lawyer:
Source: ALDF
Thanks for commenting Laurie.
Thank God it wasn’t my cat or there would have been way more publication–what kind of veterinarian takes pride in killing any animal?? Poor Tiger and his parents! Please continue with a civil case as animal cruelty is still out of control…
An amazing comment. First class and very informative. Thanks a lot Jean. I am going to turn this into an article within the hour. I hope you are okay with that. Of course you will be credited as the author. Many thanks. I also knew the the police and prosecuting service did a very poor job (deliberately I’d say) and you post adds real detail to that.
QUESTION: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUBPOENA AND A SEARCH WARRANT?
ANSWER: AN INDICTMENT
At least that seems to be the case when DA Travis Koehn conducts an investigation. In what may have been the fastest grand jury hearing in history, the Kristen Lindsey case was settled in a few short hours.
The jury convened in the morning, and by early afternoon it was a done deal. It’s hard to believe that experts testified, law enforcement testified, the DA argued his case, the jurors deliberated, results were presented to the DA, findings were analyzed, and a press release was written and published- all in the space of 5 hours or so.
Wow, things sure move fast in Koehn’s neck of the woods! So fast that maybe – just maybe- the investigation wasn’t as thorough as the DA claimed it was. Maybe he didn’t bother to get the evidence he needed to convince the grand jury to indict.
Here is one of many troublesome aspects to the Lindsey investigation: Travis Koehn stated in his press release that “Subpoenas to Facebook failed to produce useable evidence, as the account was deleted the same day law enforcement became aware of the matter.”
On the surface that sounds almost reasonable. The man issued a subpoena, and Facebook complied. The subpoena didn’t turn up much. What’s a fella to do? He tried, right?
Oh wait, not so fast… first let’s take a look at what a SUBPOENA to Facebook will actually produce in terms of evidence. This is what you get: “name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es) and a recent login/logout IP address(es), if available.” Oh boy, all that for the price of one subpoena! Travis Koehn must have been thrilled to find out which credit cards Kristen Lindsey uses.
Golly gee whiz, if only he had obtained an actual SEARCH WARRANT as required by law to get account information that might actually have incriminated Lindsey…
Here’s what a SEARCH WARRANT will get you: messages, videos, wall posts, photos and location information.
Oh, and Facebook typically stores info for 90 days. Anyone taking bets that Mr. K got right on this? In addition, Mr. K could have applied for Facebook “Account Preservation” to make sure KL’s FB data didn’t vanish. Maybe he was just too busy thinking of ways to get Lindsey off. I mean, the bow and arrow = humane euthanasia theory of his—now that’s a reach! And, let’s not forget the “Well, darn, we don’t even know if this happened in Texas” dodge. A three minute interview with KL’s parents, who witnessed and photographed this joyous family bonding moment, would’ve cleared that right up.
Here’s the real kicker though: it appears that KL never deleted her account, but only deactivated it, meaning some of the old stuff she posted might still be there. How do we know this, you ask? Last week, KL briefly displayed a FB account under the name Kristen Erin, which showed friends and a timeline going back as far as 2009. Pretty cool trick to backdate a brand new Kristen Erin account— we’d love to know how she did this.
Now, are we positive that Mr. Koehn didn’t obtain a search warrant for KL’s Facebook records? Not really, but keep in mind the DA only mentioned a subpoena in his press release. Quite a boo-boo for a lawyer if he meant to write “Search Warrant”… or maybe he thinks it’s none of our business, as he seems to think justice is none of our business.
For those who are interested in learning more about Facebook’s compliance with the law, here’s the fine print:
This is Facebook’s policy about law enforcement requests for data:
“US Legal Process Requirements
We disclose account records solely in accordance with our terms of service and applicable law, including the federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2712. Under US law:
A valid subpoena issued in connection with an official criminal investigation is required to compel the disclosure of basic subscriber records (defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(c)(2)), which may include: name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es), if available.
A court order issued under 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) is required to compel the disclosure of certain records or other information pertaining to the account, not including contents of communications, which may include message headers and IP addresses, in addition to the basic subscriber records identified above.
A search warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent state warrant procedures upon a showing of probable cause is required to compel the disclosure of the stored contents of any account, which may include messages, photos, videos, wall posts, and location information.
We interpret the national security letter provision as applied to Facebook to require the production of only 2 categories of information: name and length of service.
International Legal Process Requirements
We disclose account records solely in accordance with our terms of service and applicable law. A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or letter rogatory may be required to compel the disclosure of the contents of an account. Further information can be found here:facebook.com/about/privacy/other.
Account Preservation
We will take steps to preserve account records in connection with official criminal investigations for 90 days pending our receipt of formal legal process. You may expeditiously submit formal preservation requests through the Law Enforcement Online Request System atfacebook.com/records, or by email, or mail as indicated below.
Emergency Requests
In responding to a matter involving imminent harm to a child or risk of death or serious physical injury to any person and requiring disclosure of information without delay, a law enforcement official may submit a request through the Law Enforcement Online Request System atfacebook.com/records. Important note: We will not review or respond to messages sent to this email address by non-law enforcement officials. Users aware of an emergency situation should immediately and directly contact local law enforcement officials.
We also may retain information from accounts disabled for violations of our terms for at least a year to prevent repeat abuse or other violations of our terms.”