Another case in point –
I recently received an email from a person interested in my comments regarding an email she received from Animal People Magazine. The Editor, apparently responding to her query about the story written in a local magazine, wrote “…an impressive effort to gather & publish information, by a reporter who has relatively brief background, but I see some mistakes and omissions –“ This of course, coming from someone who probably never took the time to interview people regarding this case (like myself); this coming from a person who probably never submitted a Public Information Request from the Texas OAG or TCEQ; and no doubt, a FOIA request was probably never submitted. For if this “editor” submitted the records requests, he would never have written the following:
“First of all, [local magazine writer] used several critical sources whose credibility is dubious, in view of their own histories and the failure of past investigations to sustain their allegations. Some of these sources had significant conflicts of interest. I wasted a lot of time chasing their claims several years ago, & found nothing worth print space. The older allegations, from questionable sources, really should be viewed separately from the more recent allegations, from sources of much stronger credibility.”
Hmmm, do I fall under the “dubious” sources or do I fall under “sources of much stronger credibility”? I guess this could go either way, depending on whether or not he is in “tight” with the former sanctuary directors.
What this “editor” does not know is that the former directors hired people with “dubious” backgrounds for the very reason listed above – they lack credibility. Why else would a high number of young people or individuals with criminal records be hired by the former directors? It certainly was not because they brought in ‘years of experience’ into the workplace! Also, if the “editor” performed any ‘investigative’ work into this story, he would have learned allegations made in the early 2000’s were seen once again in 2005 to mid-2009.
Next paragraph (gggrrr):
“Second, [director of another local sanctuary] is a person of very strong credibility, and I find no fault in her comments. Nonetheless, it is significant and should have been mentioned, if [she] was to be used as a source, that [the former female director] was a former volunteer (and possibly an employee) of [the other local sanctuary], who went on to found [pseudo sanctuary] after splitting with [her] and making allegations against her that are similar to some of the allegations others later made against [the former directors]. Whether [she] fired [the former directors], or [the former directors] resigned, the history between the two of them has not been friendly.”
What in tar nation does this have anything to do with the current case? The former directors also worked for another animal “sanctuary” in Texas, and its not mentioned in the story either. If the editor bothered to call the other sanctuary director to find out what role the former female director played in her organization, then he may have learned for himself why she was distancing herself from the former directors—and with good reason too!
Third “point”:
“Third, the time frame of everything is important. [Oldest daughter of the former directors] grew up at [the pseudo-sanctuary], and was instrumental in operating it, right from the beginning. She gave me a tour of the original [pseudo-sanctuary] site in December 1994, & appeared to be much older than she actually was, in part because of her depth of knowledge of the animals and the details of the operation. Until [she] left in 2005, claims of malfeasance against [pseudo-sanctuary] were sporadic and not of a pattern.”
Okay, are you kidding me? The eldest daughter was a young teenager at the time he was given “a tour” of the sanctuary. She did not become aware of what her parents were truly doing to the animals and where the money was really going until 2009. Bless her heart, she really has her hands full today trying to clean up the mess her parents made of the sanctuary.
And now for the icing on the cake:
“[The pseudo-sanctuary] got very high marks from the late [board member], among others, who was involved with all of the sanctuaries in the San Antonio area, until her death in 2006. [The former board member] was one of the best investigators the humane field ever had, and if anything was really wrong then, she would have red-flagged it.
Things fell apart after [the older daughter] left, including between her parents.
Now that she is back, and in charge, in hindsight it seems apparent to me that she had a much bigger role in making everything work than anyone really realized before, & that probably no one could be better qualified to put [sanctuary] back together.”
How little he knew what was happening at the pseudo-sanctuary. The former board member was indeed aware of what was happening at the pseudo-sanctuary for several years prior to my investigation into the sanctuary. We spoke privately why she never spoke out on behalf of the animals when she SAW what was happening to them, and in respect for her memory, plus I made a promise to her not to disclose her reasoning [a promise made, a promise kept] I will not disclose her thoughts.
All those who were involved, who knew what happened to the animals, will forever have to live with their duplicity and guilt, assuming of course, these persons have a conscious to begin with – sadly, most individuals remained silent because either they were threatened into silence (and I have a lot of letters, written by the pseudo-sanctuary’s former attorney threatening legal action against said persons unless they kept silent) or they simply benefited financially some how from the arrangement.
Things “fell apart” well over 10 years ago; the former directors simply were never caught. Now that the truth is coming out, people are falling all over themselves justifying why they never investigated this case. Unless one goes through all the records filed with the State and Federal agencies, he/she really should reserve commenting on past information and/or events. No information is much better than misinformation!
Oh, and I should mention Animal People is “the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative [emphasis placed by me] coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992.”
No comments:
Post a Comment