Kristen Lindsey Revisited: Grand Jury Statements Seriously Flawed

You may remember Kristen Lindsey’s long-running case. She is infamous. Most people in the cat world know about the killing by her of a cat called Tiger. The public knows the name of the cat that was killed and they know the name of the owners of this cat (Mr and Mrs Johnson).

Tiger was a domestic cat who had a habit of wandering. He wandered onto a property rented by Kristen Lindsey (from a landlord who was a veterinarian) where she killed him with a bow and arrow to the head. They were facing each other. It was close range.


If you need to you can read about Kristen Lindsey please do so by clicking on this link. It is a long running saga.


Lindsey was sanctioned by the veterinary authorities but she did not lose her veterinary license and neither was she prosecuted for a crime. I have before me some statements of the Grand Jury (thanks to positively.com) at which it was decided that she would not face a trial for a crime animal cruelty. I am going to examine the statements.

The first statement that the Grand Jury gave which needs to be examined is as follows:

“If the state could prove an incident did occur in Texas, Texas penal code 42.092 essentially requires the state to prove that either (1) a defendant killed a stray cat in a cruel manner or (2) a defendant killed the cat without the owner’s consent.”

The point to make here is that the defendant killed the cat in a cruel manner. I think we have to take a commonsense approach to that. In addition we can say that the cat was killed without the owner’s consent. The interesting aspect of this is that the owners, we know, have said that they wish no ill to befall Kristen Lindsey.

“[They] wished no ill will against Dr Lindsey” and “had no desire to pursue charges against Dr Lindsey”.

I think the lawyers involved in this case have taken that to mean that they give retrospective consent. Here lies a complication. The lawyers have turned this around somewhat but in truth consent was never given quite obviously.

Another Grand Jury Statement is as follows:

“Investigators were never able to positively confirm the identity of the cat seen in the social media photograph. Although one witness believes the cat to be named Tiger, three different area residents had fed similar looking cats at one time or another that had no collar and had strayed. Evidence was insufficient to positively identify an owner for the cat in the online photograph.”

My comment on this (and I am sure almost everybody else will agree) is that Tiger’s owners are well known. We know that Tiger was a domestic cat. Therefore I cannot understand why the Grand Jury could not come to a more sensible conclusion.

A third Grand Jury statement is as follows:

“The American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines state that physical methods of killing animals such as a gunshot or bolt to the head can be humane when done correctly. When performed properly, the animal may exhibit in voluntary movements but is unaware and unable to experience pain.” (I left out reference to the relevant sections of the AVMA guidelines).

What the Grand Jury is saying is that Tiger was killed humanely. The AVMA themselves were surprised that the Grand Jury statement included reference to them and their euthanasia policy. They were not consulted they say and nor were they asked to provide information regarding the case. They say that the District Attorney’s application of the euthanasia guidelines were seriously flawed.

I think only a fool could decide that Tiger was killed humanely. If that is killing a cat humanely we are turning logic on its head.

The conclusion really on this appraisal is that the Grand Jury came to some rather bizarre conclusions all of which can be undermined and argued again successfully. Their decision is seriously flawed. It is as if the prosecutor went out of his way to find Lindsey not guilty at the Grand Jury stage of proceedings.

The grand jury should have concluded that Kristen Lindsey should have faced a trial for the crime of animal cruelty.

5 thoughts on “Kristen Lindsey Revisited: Grand Jury Statements Seriously Flawed”

  1. A) Killing a domestic animal with an arrow is not humane
    B) Posting her murdered victim as she did (though some debate as to him possibly being alive at the time of the picture which makes it even crueler with HOW she was holding him in the air) with that smile is PSYCHOTIC
    C) Any respectable person would’ve caught the cat and returned him alive to his owner. She is trash.
    D) She is a veterinarian. Don’t they have a similar “do no harm” rule/oath as doctors?
    E) This is inhumane premeditated murder and it should be treated as a felony.
    F) Any veterinarian who thinks killing a cat with an arrow because they wandered into your property should, at the very least, be stripped of their title/degree/whatever legal term for a practicing veterinarian. At the most, they should be forced to pay for burial/cremation and apologize meaningfully to his humans.

    Anyone who thinks she’s fine to get off is just as bad as she and the other veterinarian. If they own their own practices, they should be shut down. Who would want their pets, mich less their pet cats, to be seen and treated by cat killers? Not I.

    Reply
  2. I am disgusted and angered to hear this. Life is not fair, nor is death. I imagine she can’t be tried again because of double jeopardy? I am miffed at Tiger’s owners for the stance they took. That did not help at all. I hope the AVMA does something. An arrow through her head would be a great start. One day she will stand before Tiger’s Creator, and she will not escape that trial unscathed. That is my only comfort.

    Reply
  3. Tiger was killed as an innocent soul, and it was definitely an inhumane act. Any person with a thinking brain would agree. I have no conception how the court in Texas could come to any other conclusion. All they are doing is playing with semantics. Same old song and dance gets repeated. I do not understand why animal cruelty is taken so lightly. However many people view the human race as superior to all forms of life, so there it is.

    Reply
  4. Exactly. You’re conclusion is not flawed at all. There are a plethora of other examples where this sage went wrong as well. Certainly taken in their entirety, a serious miscarriage of justice occurred.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

follow it link and logo