Revisiting the notorious Kristen Lindsey criminal case

The last article on the notorious Kristen Lindsey case on this website is dated 10 August 2019. That’s getting on for two years ago but I’m in the mood to just touch base again on this notorious criminal act by a veterinarian who incidentally was never charged with a crime by the dilatory police. My initial purpose was to find out what Lindsey is up to now but that proved unsuccessful. I suspect she is struggling along practising as a veterinarian with a huge amount of baggage weighing her down. But I did bump into an article by Steve Dale in which he referred to Dr. William Folger, an expert witness in the case.

Kristen Lindsey in court
Sanctions to continue, Kristen must pay court costs (Tiger’s Justice Team News)


Dr. Folger is a veterinarian of 36+ years’ experience. At the time of Steve Dale’s article, he was serving as President of the Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics and therefore had the authority to be a witness and to have an opinion on this case. And the big discussion point was whether Lindsey should have been stripped of her veterinarian’s licence to practice.

Dr William Folger
Dr William Folger and daughter

Pretty well everyone who read about the case wanted to see her banished forever from the veterinary profession but she was suspended for one year and put on probation for four years with an order that she completed animal welfare training courses. She didn’t lose her license which I’m sure upset a lot of people.

Dr. Folger said that he wasn’t surprised by the decision not to ban her. He puts it down to the fact that the owner of the cat killed, Tiger, didn’t want her punished. Tiger’s owner, Claire Johnson, said that she didn’t want to be responsible for permanently damaging Lindsey’s career. Dr. Folger said: “I wasn’t surprised by the decision given the spiritual nature, grace and forgiveness expressed by Tiger’s owners”. Note: Lindsey’s career is permanently damaged or should be!

He goes on to say, “I think the judges’ decision was consistent with what Claire Johnson expressed. She didn’t even file (civil) charges against Lindsey.”

The reason why Lindsey didn’t lose her licence was the gentle views of Tiger’s owner who allowed her cat to roam around the area and ultimately get shot at by an unethical and apparently psychopathic veterinarian. So why did Claire Johnson have these views?

I can see only one reason which is that she did not value her cat highly enough. She wasn’t or isn’t a good cat guardian. She is or was a cat owner valuing the life of her cat quite lowly. I think we can blame Claire Johnson almost as much as we can blame Kristin Lindsey for the disappointing outcome.

Here was an opportunity to do justice for all abused cats in the world. This case was very high-profile. It was all over social media. It went massively viral. A statement could have been made against cat abuse and cruelty. It was a paradigm case which ended disappointingly. It ended in line with almost all crimes against domestic and feral cats, namely without justice being done. It was an opportunity to overturn that consistently disappointing outcome that we read about in the news media that the perpetrators of crimes against cats often get away.

It doesn’t always happen, I admit that, but if we had access to statistics about the percentage of criminals abusing and killing cats, we would find that a very, very small percentage end up in the criminal courts with a successful prosecution and a decent punishment.

The Kristin Lindsey case was a missed opportunity to put the record straight and to tell the world that crimes against cats are meaningful because they are crimes against all animals. It is time to improve the rights of animals and their welfare. This, by the way, is something that the British government is currently engaged in having left the European Union which has allowed them to express themselves more fully after being freed of the restrictions of the European Union’s eurocrats and their anally retentive ideas.


Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

Reason why Kristen Lindsey was not charged with a crime when she killed Tiger, a neighbour’s cat

Kristen Lindsey and Tiger the cat she killed

Lindsey DVM was not charged with a crime under Texas animal welfare laws and laws governing criminal damage because of two essential reasons:

  1. The crime occurred in Texas and;
  2. The cat’s owners, Mr and Mrs Johnson, “wished no ill will against Dr Lindsey” and “had no desire to pursue charges against Dr Lindsey”.

Of these two reasons the second is the more important. In short the people who could have provided critically important evidence against Lindsey on:

  • The fact that Tiger was an ‘owned cat’ and not feral and;
  • The fact that they did not consent to Lindsey killing Tiger (this second point sounds bizarre but it is a point which has been raised by Lindsey’s lawyer (more on that later)).

…did not do so.

Without the Johnson’s evidence a criminal prosecution would not have been successful. Therefore there was no point in charging her with a crime under the animal welfare laws of Texas or under laws concerning criminal damage. This was surely a crime under both headings. Cats are considered the same as inanimate objects under the law and if a cat is killed by a person other than under a proper version of euthanasia in the cat’s interests it is the same as a possession being broken and destroyed. That’s criminal damage.

An extract of Texas animal welfare law (Texas’ Animal Anti-Cruelty Law: Texas Penal Code 42.09 and 42.092.) is explicit:

“It is a crime to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: torture, cruelly kill, or cause serious injury to any dog or cat, including strays and ferals;”

As for the attitude in Texas concerning animals ‘trespassing’ (animals can’t trespass) on another person’s property and the cat being killed by the property’s owner, there does seem to be some vagueness over its legality. In my opinion it is definitely illegal to kill a trespassing cat, feral or otherwise but Texans would dispute that. Feral cats trespassing are fair game they say but I say they are wrong and as for domestic cats, as Tiger was, it is quite clear that it would be a crime but this inherent vagueness and lack of desire to comply with the law means that some trespassing domestic cats are killed illegally and the perpetrator gets away with it.

This attitude is evident in the Johnson’s attitude towards their own cat. They said that they were

“…very aware of the laws of Texas and people’s rights to protect their animals and their property. She understood that if the cat was indeed Tiger, that he was not supposed to be outside his property…”

This implies that Tiger’s owners agreed that Lindsey had the right to shoot Tiger as he as trespassing and was threatening Lindsey’s property (a rented property). It is an attitude problem which weakened the potential criminal case against Lindsey. It enhanced the natural reluctance for Texas prosecutors to pursue the matter.

One last important point: Lindsey asked about Tiger. She enquired of her landlord whether the cat was feral or domestic. The only reason why she asked her landlord is because she knew that to kill Tiger, if he was a domestic cat, would certainly be illegal and a crime. She should have ended up in the criminal courts. Although she did not have actual knowledge that the cat was owned she was unsure and therefore she was reckless in my view in assuming the cat was fair game. This attitude was partly brought about by her landlord (she rented her home) encouraging her to kill Tiger and partly because Lindsey had been trained to kill animals and by her own admission enjoyed it.

Feel free to comment and share your thoughts but I will neither read nor publish the comments of trolls, cat shooters and cat haters. The comments must be reasonable, well argued and not impolite.

Photos are in the public domain. The information for this article comes from court papers filed by Lindsey’s lawyer in her appeal against the board’s final order.

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

Kristen Lindsey’s landlord, another veterinarian, quietly encouraged her to kill Tiger the cat

Kristen Lindsey and Tiger the cat she killed
Kristen Lindsey and Tiger the cat she killed. Photos in public domain.

At the time Dr Kristen Lindsey killed Tiger with a bow and arrow she was living in a property which was rented from another veterinarian, Dr Buenger. Buenger was her landlord.

Tiger had been around the property quite a lot before Lindsey killed him. As a result, on April 14th, Lindsay asked Beunger whether he knew if the cat belonged to someone. Buenger told Lindsey that he had seen the cat. He said, “he’s been around”. He also told Lindsay that he did not own the cat and that Tiger did not belong to anyone else as far as he was aware.

Lindsey asked Buenger what she should do about the cat. The court record states that his response was suggestive (my assessment) in saying: “take care of it“. In other words by quiet suggestion he recommended that she kill Tiger. That would be the ordinary person’s understanding from Buenger’s recommendation in my view. This vet is not blameless.

Consequently on the next day Lindsey shot Tiger at about 7 pm on the evening of Wednesday April 15th.

Note: if you are unfamiliar with the long running saga and notorious cat killing case please clink on this link for previous posts.

It is worth stating that the court documents tell us that the court decided that Tiger’s death was instantaneous. I am surprised at that and I may return to it later. Does an arrow through the head cause instant death? I am not sure. But the vets were sure. I have read stories of cats shot in the head with bolts and lived. This instantaneous death decision seems convenient to me.

This short post focuses on one issue: the involvement of Lindsey’s landlord which I think is significant in encouraging her to kill tiger. Is he an accomplice in the alleged crime? Lindsey was not charged with a crime.

The reason for this may be because the cat’s owners, Mr and Mrs Johnson were unwilling to provide solid evidence to prosecute Lindsey. They said that they wished Lindsey no ill will and had no desire to pursue charges against her. There is a great weakness in the case against Lindsey: the failure of Tiger’s owners to participate with conviction in the matter. Clearly they were not as emotionally connected to Tiger as countless thousands of people associated with the Justice for Tiger campaign.

More to come…

Source: Lindsey’s appeal in the Texas appeal courts against the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiner’s Final Order affirmed by a court.

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

Kristen Lindsey’s license suspension remains in full effect and she has to pay court costs

On July 20, 2017, Kristen Lindsey and her attorney Brian W. Bishop headed back to court to dispute the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners’ (the “Board”) Final Decision and Order signed and entered on October 20, 2016.

(Facebook: Tiger’s Justice Team News)

Facebook: Tiger’s Justice Team News posted the update August 4

“Plaintiff appeared through her attorney of record, Brian W. Bishop, and announced ready. Defendant, the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Board) appeared through its attorney of record, Assistant Attorney General Ted A. Ross, Office of the Attorney General, and announced ready.

After considering the pleading and the administrative record, the parties’ briefing, the arguments of counsel, and applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that the Final Order should be and is hereby AFFIRMED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, JUDGED, AND DECREED that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners Final Decision and Order signed and entered on October 20, 2016, is AFFIRMED in all respects.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, JUDGED, AND DECREED that all claims for relief not expressly addressed herein are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, JUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall bear all costs in this proceeding.

This Final Judgment disposes of all parties and all claims pending before the Court and is a final and appealable judgment.

Signed this 25th day of July 2017.


In simple language, Lindsey lost, she’s responsible for the court costs and Bishop has already filed an appeal in the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals with Case Number 03-17-00513-CV. KL or her parents are forking out a fortune on costs on this case. And the appeal has to be questionable because it is likely to fail and it simply puts the matter before the public again.

Not only does Lindsey feel she’s done nothing wrong (click here for PoC article) by killing Tiger, she also doesn’t comprehend this case achieved global attention. It’s highly unlikely a veterinary clinic would hire her on and with the court costs falling on her shoulders, Lindsey may be financially unstable for years.


Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

Kristen Lindsey says that Tiger was killed with the consent of his owners!

In an extraordinary and desperate attempt to get her veterinary license back, Kristen Lindsey (KL), through her attorney Brian Bishop, has argued that Tiger’s owners tacitly consented to KL’s killing of Tiger with an arrow to the head. The phrase that the attorney used in his written argument is “apparently assented”.

KL is challenging the decision to suspend her license by an application for judicial review of the decision by the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (“the board”). As I understand it she is doing this by arguing that two of the board’s rules are invalid and unlawful. She won’t win this one.

In short KL wants her license back and she is finding any way possible to achieve that goal even when the argument is as bizarre as the one presented by her lawyer.

The idea of Tiger’s owners giving her consent to kill their cat comes from the law itself. The law is Texas Penal Code 42.092. It states that a person commits an offence [of animal cruelty] if “without the owner’s effective consent, kills….an animal'”

Texas law on animal cruelty does not make sense

This weird phrase “effective consent” is puzzling. KL’s lawyer appears to have used it to dream up a defense to his client’s criminal behaviour. The lawyer is arguing that as KL had implied permission to kill Tiger she has not committed a crime and therefore her license should be reinstated.

According to the Justice for Tiger FB page, in Texas a person can kill an animal on their land if the owner of the animal gives consent. This is very odd and I can’t fathom it out. However, KL’s attorney has argued that as Tiger’s owners know Texas animal welfare laws they gave their tacit consent to the killing of Tiger when he walked across a field rented by KL. On a common sense basis this argument is hopeless. It is a measure of the desperation of KL’s attorney to find something, anything to get her off.

To add insult to injury KL has never apologised to Tiger’s owners. Also she refused to admit that she killed Tiger. She must have argued she killed some other cat. It was proved she had killed Tiger. And to show the world what a nasty individual KL is she refused to return Tiger’s body to his owners for cremation having been asked to do so. She probably did this as a means to defend herself and muddy the case against her. It just goes to show how nasty this has become.

It has to be said too that the lawyers argument is hurtful to Tiger’s owners. It is insulting and immoral. I’d be livid if I was the owner.

The results of the hearing to reinstate her license is due out at any time. Elisa Black-Taylor will report on it the moment she hears. I presume that KL’s parents are paying her legal fees and the tax payer is paying the fees of the lawyers acting for the board. They’ll be expensive.

Note: the word “tacit” means: understood or implied without being stated. The word “assented” means: express approval or agreement.

Source: Tiger’s Justice Team News Page on FB.

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

Kristen Lindsey has some very strict rules to live by following DWI conviction

Kristen Lindsey, the Texas veterinarian who lost her license to practice following the very public trial after bragging about killing a cat named Tiger with a bow and arrow on April 15, 2015, has been sentenced by the state of Texas for her DWI case. It won’t be an easy summer for Kristen, to say the least.

Kristen Lindsey mugshot from March 2016

Lindsey appeared in Harris County Criminal Court on April 7. According to Harris County, Texas public court record Case Number 2081246, Lindsey was arrested at 1:22 a.m. March 21, 2016, in Houston after a breath analysis indicated she had a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.15, nearly twice the legal limit of 0.08. She was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), a Class A Misdemeanor in Texas and booked at 4:04 p.m. March 21. Lindsey narrowly missed hitting an off-duty deputy before running into a curb.This was reported to be her first offense in Texas.

An agreement was reached with the court to allow Lindsey to participate in an alcohol diversion program Commonly known as Pretrial Intervention or PTI, the program gives Lindsey the right to ask for the DWI charge to be expunged from her police record if she completes the program and behaves herself. Of course, this won’t erase the news media attention she gained, most likely due to her notoriety after killing Tiger.

Even though most first time offenders don’t get any jail time, Lindsey won’t have it easy, as there are MANY conditions that must be met. Tiger’s Justice Team News posted on their Facebook community page

Some of the conditions of Lindsey’s PTI include:
– purchase of a special ID card
– monthly administrative and drug testing fees
– periodic appointments with Community Supervision Officer, who can also visit home or work
– forbidden to use any controlled substance or substance that may interfere with drug testing
– forbidden to consume alcohol in any form or amount, including Nyquil, etc.
– forbidden to enter a liquor store
– submit to random urine, blood, breath, or other tests
– maintain Ignition Interlock Device or another similar device (PBT or SCRAM) on her vehicle
– must enroll in and complete alcohol/drug education course
– must remain within the state of Texas unless she obtains a written travel permit
– must return each day to home address
– must complete 16 hours of community service
– must enroll in and complete a Victim Impact Panel
– must enroll in and complete the DWI PTI Supportive Outpatient Treatment Program (SOTP), attending at least twice weekly for a minimum of 90 days
– must attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings two times per week until beginning the SOTP
– must pay all relevant fees

Some of these restrictions may be lifted if Lindsey is able to stay out of trouble for the next six months. She can’t even take Nyquil if she gets a cold! And being ordered to return home each day to her home address is just one step short of being under house arrest.

For more information on all things Kristen, be sure to check the Tiger’s Justice Team News page for the most accurate and up-to-date information.

Readers, how do you feel about the sentencing? For a first offense, I believe they hit her pretty hard (not saying she didn’t deserve it). Many of these cases end with only a small fine and a short license suspension.


Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

follow it link and logo