You may remember the bizarre case of Jalan Greer. He is a young black man, 23 years of age. He has or had a large following on Twitter and Instagram. He was admired by many until now.
Weird and disturbing cat sounds were emanating from his apartment. It transpired that these were the sounds of a cat being strangled and crushed by the bare hands of Jalan Greer in the kitchen, it is alleged.
The cat was found on the kitchen floor, dead, with blood oozing out of her mouth and ears. Jalan Greer admitted, subsequently, to shaking and squeezing the cat too hard (perhaps) and electrocuting another cat (no, the cat stuck his paw in the socket) and then there was a third cat which died because he said that a towel rail fell on him. The whole thing is bizarre and disturbing and it all points, allegedly, to Mr Greer indulging in sadistic acts on animals. I use the word “sadistic” because Jalan Greer used the word “zoosadism” involuntarily. This was an implied admission.
In short, the words that Mr Jalan Greer used when confronted by the police are an indirect admission that he had killed the cats in a brutal manner.
Accordingly, at his early court appearance his attorney has had to find ways around that incriminating evidence. It is evidence which is conclusive almost and Mr Jalan Greer’s lawyer can make no progress in defending him without removing that evidence from the case. Therefore, he is asked the judge to rule that what Mr Jalan Greer said is inadmissible as evidence notwithstanding it is key evidence.
His attorney says that his client gave statements to the police that were “involuntary and the result of duress”. In addition the attorney claims that the evidence taken from Mr Greer’s cell phone and a pair of gloves were “unlawfully seized and searched”. Are we missing something?
To an outsider, these look like desperate arguments. An attempt to defend what appears to an outsider to be the indefensible. Of course, I can’t prejudge the outcome of this trial but it would seem to me that Mr Greer is almost certain to be convicted unless the judge makes a very bad decision and once convicted he faces up to 6 years in prison because what he did is a felony, which is a serious crime.
I think this little snippet of information following up on the previous article is quite interesting as cat lovers will know that all too often people who abuse cats are sometimes insufficiently punished and sometimes unjustifiably acquitted. The law regarding animal abuse is already a little soft and not very well enforced, therefore when a lawyer wriggles and struggles to defend his client who has admitted in so many words that he has cruelly abused and killed three cats, people can become enraged.
Reported by: kfgo.com