Very sad: tortured dog

[amatazes]

the fine and jail time are the least of our problems. Clearly, however did this is ****ed in the head and is capable of killing a person in the same manner.

[Frenchy]

Un believable. :sad:

[SARAH]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Un believable. :sad:

That just about sums it up

[Love4himies]

Originally Posted by SARAH

I've read this thread on a nd off, not getting in before, but right now I feel that the old practice of mob-lynching would have it's place in that town!

What I can't understand, is that this judge, is a human too, no? Unless it's somone as cold and cruel as this Daniel fellow, how can he keep dragging this out for so long? It makes no sense at all!

Have faith in the judicial system ... sure

It seems like this guy is getting away with murder and our justice system is an absolute joke!

[amatazes]

the truth is, in ny a child molester only gets a max of 7 years. what would an animal killer get? nothing or close to it.

:sad:

[chico2]

Amatazes,we had a father here who sexually abused his little toddler and put it on the Internet,he was sentenced to 4 yrs,that's CANADIAN justice
It's a free-for-all on animals,they don't seem to matter:sad:

[amatazes]

you can really judge a society by the way they treat their youth, elderly and animals. so sad that we're not really up to par.:sad:

[growler~GateKeeper]

wholesaler your post has been reported to the mods

[dogmelissa]

Sorry I've been away so long... I've been stupid busy with my 2 jobs.

I agree with all of you.... :w all:

To answer a question about the judge: the biggest problem is that almost every single time I've been up there (omg, how many trips has that been??) it's been a different judge. The one judge way back last summer charged him a $1000 "bond" basically for delaying the court, as he'd seen Daniel 3 times with some lame excuse for why he hadn't shown up for something. Every other judge has only seen this case once, so really, it's not their fault. However, I would like to believe that the entire file gets handed to them for review before they hear the day's events and that any reasonable judge can see excuse after excuse after delay after delay and it'd be really nice if they'd just force something to happen faster. It's incredibly frustrating!

I was really hoping that Daniel would be convicted of assault and someone, somewhere in the justice system would realize that he's already taken that step from hurting animals to hurting people, and DO something! I honestly don't care if he goes to jail or not, but he needs to have some serious help--or something!

Urgh....
I don't even know what to say at this point. It's pretty much already been said.

It's so weird to think about how things have changed in my life since this all began. I wasn't even engaged when Daisy Duke was killed, and now I'm married. Ruby's son is getting married in March, and he also wasn't engaged when this started. I'll probably have given birth to my first child, that we're not even planning to try to conceive until September, before this is all over. And what has changed in Daniel's life? What about in T's? They can't meet each other in public (in Didsbury), and can't mail each other letters. That's about the only thing that has changed for them, I'm sure.

*sigh*
April still seems so far away, but I will update again with the next court date after that.

On a related topic, but a case I will not be following personally, here is another disgusting example of how horribly people can treat animals:
http://tinyurl.com/yquyfu

Dog's throat slit after neighbour loses patience
Pet had been seen loose on Sherwood Park property
Jeff Holubitsky and Trish Audette, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, February 21

STRATHCONA COUNTY - The death of a friendly neighbourhood dog named Sammy whose throat was slit has horrified people living in an acreage subdivision south of Sherwood Park.
"I was just shocked to hear somebody could do this to a dog," a tearful homeowner said Wednesday. "He was such a beautiful friendly dog."
She said residents of the Camelot Square neighbourhood have been talking about the medium-sized white dog's death since it happened on the weekend.
"It gets to me because I am an animal lover. It is disgusting," said the woman, who did not want to be identified.
She said the Sammy used to wander the neighbourhood and would play with the other dogs, including her own.
"Everybody is just really upset," she said.
A small memorial to Sammy, with a picture of him gently lying beside a calf, has been set up at the entrance of one homes. Most of the people questioned about the dog's death, including a woman who said she was his owner, said the matter was under investigation by the Strathcona County RCMP and refused to comment.
Another neighbour was in disbelief over what he had heard, because the person people suspect killed the dog is "an easy-going guy."
"I don't really know what is behind this," he said. "I find it hard to believe. ... It's scary."
Strathcona County RCMP said the dog was found with its throat slit behind its owners' shed Saturday night.
Cpl. Darren Anderson said the dog had been running loose in the subdivision, near Range Road 233 and Township Road 520, on Saturday afternoon when it ran onto another property and got into a fight with a smaller dog. Both dogs received minor injuries, the RCMP said.
The fight was broken up, and children playing nearby were not injured.
Hours later, at about 6:30 p.m., a man came after Sammy, police said.
The man tied a rope around his neck, saying he was tired of the Sammy coming onto his property, police said.
The neighbour who was caring for the dog followed the man until she heard a loud cry of an animal in distress, Anderson said. "It sounded like the dog was being slaughtered, (in) her words."
The dog was found dead soon after and the RCMP were contacted.
No charges have been laid, but the investigation continues. The RCMP has the power to charge a person under both the Animal Protection Act of Alberta and with animal cruelty under the Criminal Code.
"That is pretty shocking," said Edmonton SPCA spokeswoman Diane Shannon.
"The fact that the RCMP are involved is really positive."
The Alberta SPCA is not involved in the investigation.
"Obviously, somebody thought they were taking matters into their own hands and made a bad choice," Anderson said.

Continuation of this story here:
http://tinyurl.com/3dbm9d

Charges laid in dog slaying
By RENATO GANDIA, SUN MEDIA
The Edmonton Sun

The dogsitter of a pooch whose throat was fatally slashed south of Sherwood Park earlier this month said she's relieved police have laid charges.
"I was very happy to hear that justice is going to be served," said Patricia, who declined to give her last name.
"I did have fears that nothing would be done and wondering what it would do to ... people who want to stand up against something wrong."
Sammy, a white mixed-breed dog, was found with its throat slit behind its owner's shed on the evening of Feb. 16 in the Camelot Square subdivision near Range Road 233 and Township Road 520.
Strathcona County RCMP said the dog was running loose around 1:30 p.m. that day, when it ran onto a neighbouring property and got into a fight with a dog.
About five hours later, the neighbour came home and allegedly showed up at Patricia's house and led Sammy away.
"He said he's going to see the owner and left," Patricia told Sun Media.
Patricia said she immediately tried to contact Sammy's owner by phone. And when she couldn't reach her, Patricia ran out of her house in search of Sammy.
"I heard a horrific sound, like something was being slaughtered. I came running home and I said to my husband, 'I think she was killed.'"
Strathcona County RCMP later found the dog with its throat slit behind its owner's shed.
"I'm sad and very angry at the same time. This should not have happened," Patricia said.
Patricia said she has known the accused dog killer for about 10 years and has never thought of him as a violent man.
She hasn't spoken to him since Sammy was killed and added she probably won't ever talk to him again.
Yesterday afternoon, the neighbourhood was quiet. But Patricia said everyone is still reeling and talking about the horrific death of an innocent dog.
"I think this is going to be a lesson for everybody."
Edmonton's Voice for Animals is also pleased police have laid charges.
"It's a good first step and I hope the authorities prosecute him to the full extent of the law because he's an adult," said spokesman Tove Reece.
Shawn Eugene Rankin, 42, has been charged with one count of unlawfully killing an animal.
He is slated to appear in Sherwood Park Provincial Court on April 9.
Patricia said she's going to follow the case because Sammy was a part of her family.
"We have to fight for her; somebody has to fight for her."

*sigh* There really is nothing else to say. I try to keep my nose out of the news because I keep finding things like this (or the case of the cat that was microwaved to death by 2 teens in Camrose, AB) that make me throw up.

Melissa

[Frenchy]

Melissa , I understand your frustration ! It seems even judges don't give a flying f , they have more compassion for the accused than for the animals (victims) .... same here in Quebec.

[LavenderRott]

While I certainly don't think that the man above should get away with slitting Sammy's throat - I certainly hope that the owner is charged with something for letting her dog continously roam loose in the neighborhood.

Sorry - but the only thing I find MORE disgusting then animal abuse is owners who don't supervise their animals properly and then cry foul when something happens to them.

[chico2]

Thank's Melissa,for still hanging in there for Daisy-Duke and reporting to us,hopefully she somehow knows people care about her.
I really have nothing but sadness to add about Sammy,yet another horrorstory
Whether the owner allowed her to run around or not,a terrible crime was comitted against this poor dog.Sammy

[dogmelissa]

I'm so sorry I didn't get here to update sooner but I've had too many things going on in my real life to think about this site too much. First my grandmother went to the hospital, then I got a call from Ruby that Daniels date had been moved, then my grandmother died, and I'm just now getting my life back together.

So the long and the short of it is that Daniel's sentencing has been moved AGAIN!!!! The new date is June 27, apparently due to a scheduling conflict with the judge (at least they're going to have the same judge!).

Here's the most recent article about it:
http://tinyurl.com/5eh95m

Dog abuse sentencing postponed until June
Dan Singleton, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, March 14, 2008

Sentencing of a man charged in a high-profile animal abuse case in Didsbury has been delayed yet again.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 20, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of justice.

Haskett was charged after a Lab-collie named Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street in October 2006. The dog's injuries were so severe, it had to be put down.

Haskett was originally set to be sentenced on Oct. 17, 2007, but his lawyer withdrew on the day of sentencing. The case was then adjourned to April 21 for sentencing.

That date has now been pushed back to June 27 due to a scheduling conflict with Judge Ian Kirkpatrick, officials said Thursday.

The Airdrie and District Humane Society has been monitoring the case since October 2006. The latest delay is "very troubling and a constant reminder of a horrible situation," said society president Renae Warne.

Lucky for me (I guess) is that I'm currently working only about 9-12 hours a week and otherwise concentrating on being a housewife and building my business, so I have the time and ability to go to Didsbury yet again. Here's hoping this is the last time I have to go there - especially since gas is so expensive!!!!

I wish I had a better update - with an actual outcome - but unfortunately I do not.
Hope everyone is enjoying their spring (my garden is getting planted this week!), and talk to you later,
Melissa

[Love4himies]

Thank you soooo much for keeping us updated. I think of Daisy often and this should not be forgotten.

[chico2]

Melissa thank you for not forgetting about Daisy-Duke
Sorry about your grandmother

I have no great expectations that these evil young men will get punished,I am only hoping this long drawn out process is causing them some difficulty.
I will never forget Daisy-Duke or Kensington the cat in Toronto,who's tragic lives ended at the hands of evil people.

[Frenchy]

Thanks for the update. Every time I read and think about this , my heart turns upside down , thinking about this poor girl. :sad: I really wish this guy could go through the same suffering.

I'm sorry about your grandmother

[katherine93]

I myself beleive in corperal(not sure how to spell it) punishment. nough' said.

[dogmelissa]

I just wanted to post this article that was in the paper a few weeks ago, on an unrelated case.

Calgary man who beat puppy spared jail time
4-month-old beagle had to be euthanized
Daryl Slade, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, June 05

CALGARY - A man who severely beat a four-month-old beagle puppy after it urinated on him said Thursday he would "do anything to take it back."

"Nobody has punished me more than I have punished myself," said Christopher John Piasentin, referring to the beating he gave Levi the puppy on Nov. 1, 2006, which left the animal so badly injured it had to be euthanized.

Piasentin, 26, was spared jail time Thursday, receiving a five-month conditional jail sentence.

"I can understand why everyone is so upset," he said. "This is something that has changed me completely."

Provincial court Judge Anne Brown ordered Piasentin to remain under house arrest for the entire sentence and placed him on probation for another two years.

Piasentin must also continue taking counselling for alcohol and drug abuse and anger management, perform 100 hours of community service, not have any pets and donate $1,000 to the Calgary Humane Society.

As Piasentin walked down the hallway outside court after being sentenced, members of DAISY, an animal rights group, asked him if he ever thought about the puppy.

"I think about him every day," said Piasentin.

The court heard Piasentin had been drinking heavily and was at home with the dog while his then-girlfriend was out.

After Levi urinated and defecated in the basement, Piasentin sent a text message to his girlfriend saying he was going to kill the puppy.

Later, the puppy urinated on Piasentin on the bed. The man repeatedly hit Levi, rendering the dog unconscious. He then called his girlfriend and left a message saying the thought he'd killed the animal.

The dog had extensive fractures, a damaged liver, bruising and lung and brain hemorrhaging, according to the veterinarian's report.

The judge said it was a difficult case to sentence, because of the expressions of public outrage that come with animal abuse.

"While it speaks well of our society that we are angered by the mistreatment of the vulnerable - animals, children, the elderly or the frail - it speaks less well of us if we turn our anger into vengeful treatment of the offender."

This makes me sick to my stomach - as all animal abuse does - but this one is a little different. This is a man who obviously has drug and alcohol problems, shows a massive amount of remorse, and was sentenced in less time than was Daniel (though not much). He will not go to jail, but note that he has to pay a fine, get counselling, do community service & has house arrest/probation. All of this for a man who actually feels BAD for what he did.

My point here is that this is a man who lost control in a moment when he was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and feels terrible for it. He is getting a fair, but not harsh sentence, IMO. Obviously I don't know the details, but I would think that in such a case, the judge would mandate that his community service be something that would give back to animals, perhaps at the Humane Society or with another organization. I think his risk to re-offend or progress to abuse on humans is very low.
Daniel on the other hand... shows no remorse, shows no respect for the court or the judicial system, and will probably walk away with probation only. He deserves to go to jail, have a huge fine, do a ridiculous number of hours of community service (though I wouldn't trust him around kids or animals, perhaps he could be assigned clean-up duties at a horse facility or at the zoo - he is perfect for poop-scooping duties), and never ever ever be allowed to have an animal. Not like that "not owning an animal" thing makes any difference anyhow - all that means is that you can't get an animal from the Humane Society or the City. Places like Petland and probably every single breeder in North America (I include BYB in this) don't even question it - if you have money they'll give you an animal.

Anyhow... that's my rant for the day. I am going to go to Didsbury next week and in the mean time I hope that this case will be on the judge's mind when he decides how harsh Daniel's punishment should be. I know there's limitations based on the law, but I think that a couple of years (even a few months) in jail might be beneficial for this man. Give him a taste of where he can expect to spend a good portion of his life, because his next step will be hurting people.

I will update again on/after June 27.

Thanks for your continued support!

Melissa

[Love4himies]

I guess I am not as forgiving as you are and don't have sympathy for those who inflict pain and suffering on another life, maybe I am just a pessimist. I do, however, like that he is seeking counselling, I hope they can help him with his anger. That puppy could easily have been a baby.

Thank you for keeping us informed!

[chico2]

OMG Melissa,the pain and agony that poor little puppy must have gone through
I too am not very forgiving,people get away with murder,because they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol,nobody forced them to do neither.
Actually his sentence compared to what he would get in Ontario,is harsh.
Those young men who tortured Daisy-Duke,should definetly see jail-time,but it won't happen,I am sure and they don't even show remorse.
In all honesty,if one of my sons were capable of this kind of horror to another living beeing,I don't think I would want to see him again.
Thank's Melissa,for making sure we do not forget about Daisy-Duke,not that I ever would.
Daisy-Duke..

[dogmelissa]

Oh.




My.





goD.


Will this ever end???!?!?!??!
I can not believe I have to report this (I will have to post links to articles next week as we are going out of town for the weekend as of tonight).
If you're not already sitting, do it now.

WARNING: Descriptive text below may be too graphic for some readers. Please use caution.

Daniel Haskett filed an application to Vacate his Guilty Plea. As in he asked the court to pretend like he'd never plead guilty in the first place - remember way back when that he originally pled not guilty?

That is how the day started.... 2 hours later, the judge broke for lunch & to try to consider the evidence and make his decision. Brief synopsis of those 2 hours:

Daniel was called to testify, and first his lawyer questioned him then he was questioned by the Crown prosecutor.
First his lawyer basically suggested that there were problems with his original lawyer's consultation of Daniel, that Daniel didn't fully understand that signing the agreed statement of facts meant he was saying that he had done everything that was written there. They claim that Daniel changed his plea to guilty on the original date for his trial because he had been harassed repeatedly, had death threats against him and even been shot at - his logic was that he thought if he plead guilty people would see he was trying to "take responsibility for his actions and accept his punishiment" and would stop harassing him. He said that he thought it would make everything go away faster. He said he knows it's illegal to hurt an animal but that was not his intent.

The Crown prosecutor got up and asked him a lot of questions about when he decided to plead guilty - obviously the agreed statement of facts would take some time to draw up and though it was signed the day of the trial, it wouldn't have been written that morning. Daniel didn't really answer.
Then he asked if Daniel could tell him which parts of the statement of facts he disagreed with - which parts were untrue - and Daniel pointed out only 3 areas: A paragraph that talked about putting Daisy's head in a garbage bag and tying it with a rope to try to suffocate her. He said "rope was not used" when the bag was put over her head.
He claims that he wasn't present when T. (the young offender) hit Daisy over the head with a shovel, though it implied in the facts that he was. (He also said that the order of the events is not correct and that they had discussed where to dispose of her body before she was dragged into the garage, not while they were waiting for her to suffocate in the bag as the facts say.)
The facts also say that T. reported that Daniel had told him and encouraged him to drag the dog behind his car. Daniel said he would never encourage anyone to drag a dog because "it's grotesque" (his words!).

The Crown asked him to read the lines above his signature - the gist of which is that "all of which is admitted", and asked him to verify that it was indeed his signature there. Did Daniel understand this? Yes.

More questions:
Daniel somehow seemed to think that pleading guilty would take less time that a trial. He thought that if he pointed out the areas in the facts that were incorrect, he would have to PROVE that he was innocent in those areas and didn't know how to do that. But he never asked his lawyer, even though his lawyer went through this document with him in detail.
He said that what he understood from his lawyer was that he either had to accept ALL of the statement of facts or deny ALL of it - that there was no "negotiating" on what parts of it he pled guilty to.

The Crown then brought out the pre-sentence report issued by his Parole Officer. Daniel said he didn't remember this document and was unsure if he'd had this report discussed with him.
Crown attempted to refresh his memory of conversations with the PO that led to this report - and magically Daniel can remember conversations he had.
He agreed that he'd told the PO that the statement of facts was "a reasonable description of what had happened", but he says that "reasonable" doesn't mean "100% accurate" (he didn't mention this to the PO). Further, when the PO asked him why he'd changed his plea, Daniel had told him that he'd "lied lied and lied some more" and that he was done lying and wanted to come clean on what had really happened. But even at this point in time, according to the PO's interview with him, he was still in agreement with the statement of facts.

So, onto the psychiatric assessment, where the "truth" originally came out - if you remember it was the difference in the report that Daniel told the doctor and what the statement of facts said that was why his original lawyer stepped off the case.
Daniel (in his infinite wisdom) says that he told the doctor the truth because he didn't want the doctor to think he was a "lunatic" who could do the things the statement of facts said he did. He claims that he believed the doctor (who was ordered by the Crown as part of his pre-sentencing assesment) would not TELL the details of their conversation to the court. He thought it was for his mental health. (The Crown got really excited at this - it was actually hard not to laugh at Daniel's stupidity - especially when the Crown was asking things like "did you think you were ordered to visit this doctor out of concern for your mental status?")

Daniel further admitted he only saw his lawyer at the courthouse, so the reason he didn't ask many questions (like how long with a trial take?) was because he was distracted and had too many things on his mind. (At which point I was reminded of how few times Daniel actually showed up for court dates because of supposed job interviews.)

Daniel's lawyer got back up and presented some case references where a guilty plea had been reversed by the court - because of "some other motive or cause that led to the guilty plea" - his strongest case that of a police officer who pled guilty in an attempt to reconcile with his mother. When he later asked to vacate his plea, the court eventually let him.
He said that the courts have a duty for efficiency but also have a duty to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Efficiency???? This coming from a person who is representing a man who was previously fined by the court for failure to appear at 3 consecutive court dates? I actually had a full time job at the beginning of all this and *I* managed to get out there to all the dates!

Back to the Crown:
Crown argued that Daniel should not be believed when he said that he pled guilty because he thought it would get people to stop harassing him - because what he was "admitting" was worse than what people had originally thought he did, and no one could really think that he would believe agreeing to a worse crime would LESSEN the harassment.

He said regardless of the reason behind him pleading guilty, he is not saying that he had no fault in this crime. The charge was causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, and by his own admission today, he still accepts the portion of the facts that say he dragged the dog by a rope around her neck to the garage and attempted to suffocate her, and never called a vet or other person for help.

His examples of case references were very interesting. One of them said that "both the state and the accused BENEFIT from a guilty plea, as it usually results in much faster sentencing, no trials (which cost lots of money and time), and very rarely end in appeals".

He talked about how in most cases where a person applies to be vacated of a guilty plea, their original plea was entered without the guidance of counsel, even in the case of the police officer, and as such, it could be argued that they didn't really know what the consequences were - what it really MEANT to plead guilty. Daniel, however, pled guilty very late in the game - at the trial date - and under the guidance of competent counsel (they had previously spent about 10 minutes basically making the point that everyone agreed original lawyer had done nothing wrong).

He contined with another case that said when a guilty plea was entered when the accused believes it is "advantageous to do so" and for "reasons he or she deemed appropriate" should be viewed by the court as having a lot of weight - regardless of what the accused's perceived advantages were. He noted that if Daniel really didn't agree with the entire statement of facts, he had had ample opportunity to question the facts!! (He also noted at the beginning that he was only informed of the intent to apply to vacate the guilty plea Thursday morning this week)

They were both done at this point and the judge looked troubled. He said he wasn't sure he could reach a decision today, but he would like to break for a few minutes to see what kind of progress he could make. This was 12:15 (we started at 10), and he said he would return at 12:30.

At 1:00 the judge came back. He said that even if he could make a decision on the application to vacate today, and if he decided to deny it, another date would then need to be made for sentencing. He asked the lawyers if they would be agreeable to selecting another date at which he would present his decision, and if he denied the application then sentencing could happen right away. (Daniel's lawyer tried to move the case to Calgary at this point claiming that both the Crown and the judge were there more so it might be easier to find a date - the Crown vehemently opposed that based on community impact/involvement). They agreed to moving the application decision date and stepped out for a few minutes to find an agreeable date.

A few minutes later they returned and announced the date that was agreeable to both lawyers and the judge's schedule: October 21, 2008.

I kid you not. Daisy Duke was tortured and died on October 8, 2006 and assuming the application for vacating the plea is denied, Daniel will not be sentenced until October 21, 2008. If the application is approved, there will be at least one further date, for a trial (as his plea will be reverted back to not-guilty).

We left the court room and I seriously had to bend down with my face in my hands. I didn't know whether I was going to cry or puke. I simply cannot believe how long this is going on, or the fact that so many people are being forced to relive this over and over again with no closure for so much time.
Since Daisy Duke's death, I have gotten engaged, gotten married, suffered through my 92 year old grandmother's extremely painful and long illness and ultimately her death, and had to cope with the loss of my first childhood pet (Patchie was a 21 year old cat with multiple health problems. My parents made the difficult decision to have him euthanized). Before the next court date, my husband and I will be trying to conceive a baby - I could be pregnant by the time this goes back to court. And in this time, Daniel has been walking the streets, showing no remorse for the death of a young animal, having "job interviews", moving out of Didsbury (supposedly because he was too afraid to leave his house because of the threats and assaults he received), and the probation sentence on T. is at the point where he no longer has a curfew and can basically do whatever he wants again. Regardless of whether I believe that T. got the appropriate punishment (I don't), his time is nearly done - and Daniel hasn't even started his!

I am sick.

I don't know if it's because of the recent events in my family or just because going back there today brought all the horror of that day rushing back to me, but I just feel physically ill.

Thank you all for reading this. I will post links to the articles that come out over the weekend (there was quite a bit of media there again, thankfully) on Monday or Tuesday.

Thank you also for your continued support - whether that's in virtual hugs to me or in whatever way you are supporting things in real life. It is much appreciated.

I know that Daisy Duke has been resting peacefully, but I also know that these dates bring her pain back to her, and I can't stand for her to suffer anymore. I just want this to be over.

Thanks again, and don't worry, I will update again in October. *sigh*

Melissa

[chico2]

Melissa,I know this must be incredibly difficult for you and I would understand if you could not go on about this lunacy anymore.
Especially trying to get pregnant,you don't need the stress.
Thank you for the warning,I skipped that horrific part,I am tearing up as it is:sad:
I cannot believe this is stretched out like this,probably thousands and thousands of $$$ wasted on this young killer,for what???
We all know,in the end he will not be punished for the hell he put poor Daisy Duke through.
We can only hope that having had threats against him by angry citizens,having to relocate,going to repeated courtdates ,the media keeping the anger alive,is making him suffer somewhat for what he did.
Why the judge is dithering I don't understand,could the torturing of Daisy-Duke be any clearer???
Maybe the judge is hoping everyone will forget about her
Thank's Melissa

[dogmelissa]

Chico - thank you for your continued support. No, I certainly don't need the stress of this continued situation, but I really feel like I need the closure and that if I just tried to go on with my life, I wouldn't be able to get it out of my mind. I have my doubts that justice will be done, but we are dealing with the same judge who made Daniel pay a $1000 fine for "delaying the court" many months ago when he'd missed a few dates due to a "job interview", so there's a tiny amount of hope that he will not be allowed to reverse his plea (especially since he only had issues with 3 paragraphs out of 40+ and admitted the rest), and that he will get sentenced properly.
Fortunately, I don't think the judge is the problem. I think the entire problem is Daniel himself and more specifically, his lawyers. I never had a lot of respect for defense lawyers (I do appreciate they're there for the few people who actually are innocent of what they're accused of), and the fact that he can stand there and suggest that Daniel's entire plea should be reversed when he clearly admits he did many of the things that hurt Daisy Duke just makes me sick. I am fairly confident he is going to deny the application to change the plea, based on what he was saying when he came back and asked them to book another date, but of course I can't be certain.

Anyhow...
Here are the articles related to this recent date:

Accused in dog-beating case changes plea amid death threats
Stephane Massinon, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008

A man charged in a high-profile animal case now says he pleaded guilty to escape the harassment and threats aimed at him by animal lovers.

Minutes after the case was adjourned, Haskett found himself in a clash with one of the dozen protesters waiting for him. RCMP officers had to restrain Haskett after he swore at and charged at an animal rights protester who insulted his mother in front of rolling TV cameras.

Didsbury resident Drew Marceton said he wasn't trying to incite Haskett, and added he was frustrated police were protecting Haskett.

"We've been here countless days, week after week, court date after court date, and nothing seems to happen so maybe it's time the vigilantes of Mountain View County get after him," Marceton told reporters.

Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a street in Didsbury, 75 kilometres north of Calgary, early on Oct. 8, 2006. A veterinarian was forced to put it down.

The dog's mouth and legs had been duct-taped, a tow rope was wrapped around its neck, and it was suffering from a fractured skull, pelvis, lumbar spine, severe "road rash" abrasions and profuse bleeding.

In the agreed statement of facts, the accused admitted trying to kill the dog after it was accidentally run over by a 17-year-old friend outside the Haskett home.

The statement says that after finding the dog "whimpering and cowering" under the vehicle, Haskett and the youth put a tow rope around the dog's neck and dragged it into the garage "as they did not want to get blood on their clothing."

The pair then placed a plastic bag over the animal's head in an attempt to asphyxiate the animal. When it resisted, Haskett duct taped its mouth and legs.

In the courtroom, Haskett testified that tensions have run high in the small Alberta town since his arrest. He maintains he has received death threats -- and a mystery sniper even fired a shot through a window in his house.

Haskett has since moved out of Didsbury and has gotten a job. He has told a psychiatrist that not all statements in the court's agreed statement of facts document were correct, and that led him to apply to reverse his guilty plea on charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of police.

"I believe I made a really big mistake by just agreeing to the statement of facts just to move things along so that I don't get shouted at or receive nasty letters in the mail," Haskett testified.

Crown prosecutor Gord Haight said the guilty plea should stand, arguing that if Haskett hadn't done all he'd pleaded guilty to doing, he should have had gone through with his one-day trial.

In a surprise twist Friday, Daniel Charles Haskett, 20 -- charged with savagely beating a Lab-collie named Daisy Duke -- tried to take back his guilty plea in provincial court, frustrating a group of animal rights protesters who had gathered outside the courthouse to confront him.

My note: I had already left when Daniel left the court house, but I saw the confrontation on TV - he is obviously very unstable and not at all concerned about people uttering threats at him - he didn't even hesitate to turn around, push through the police (yelling swears the whole time) and try to take a swing at the guy who was talking. I didn't hear what was said to set him off, but I truly doubt that it was worth freaking out about, not to mention it doesn't seem very likely that a guy who had been arrested for assault (charges later dropped) and who reacted as physically violently as he did - with cops right behind him no less - was actually scared about the supposed death threats against him. Besides, there hasn't been a peep about him pressing charges against any of the people who supposedly threatened him, so I have my doubts that they even happened.
ETA: A different article had this listed as what was said to prompt Daniel's reaction: "At one point protester Drew Marceton suggested the woman was a "crack whore mother (who) raised a psychopathic killer," prompting Haskett to run at him before being restrained by police." Which I have to admit, while probably true, was pretty over-the-top. But most adults would choose to ignore things if they weren't true - his reaction suggests that it is true!

Another article:

Man charged with killing dog tries to change plea to not guilty
Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, June 27, 2008
DIDSBURY - A high-profile case of animal abuse case took a new twist Friday, with the man charged in a dog’s death trying to change his plea to not guilty.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 20, originally plead guilty in May 2007 to charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of justice.

But he changed his mind in Didsbury on Friday, saying he only signed an agreed statement of facts because he wanted to get the matter over with.

“I believe I made a really big mistake by just agreeing to the statement of facts just to move things along so that I don’t get shouted at or receive nasty letters in the mail,” Haskett told Judge Ian Kirkpatrick.

The judge will consider Haskett’s request and make a decision in October.
There was more drama outside court as well. About a dozen animal rights advocates protested outside of the court building, with RCMP intervening to keep apart Haskett and another man, who was taunting him.

Haskett was charged after a Lab-collie named Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street in October 2006. The dog's injuries were so severe, it had to be put down.

And one more:

CHANGE OF PLEA
Dog-torture case delayed again

BILL GRAVELAND

The Canadian Press

June 28, 2008

DIDSBURY, ALTA. -- Frustration over another delay in the sentencing of a man who pleaded guilty to killing a family pet 20 months ago boiled over into the parking lot of a Provincial Court in central Alberta yesterday.

Daniel Haskett, 20, had previously pleaded guilty to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice in the torturous death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross who was bound and dragged behind a car.

But his lawyer surprised Provincial Court in Didsbury by announcing his client wants to change his mind and plead not guilty. The case was set over to Oct. 21 for a judge to rule on the request - a date more than two years after the dog's death.

As Mr. Haskett, his mother, brother and sister were escorted out of the court by two burly RCMP officers, he turned and lunged at a protester who was yelling obscenities at him and his mother.

"Never say anything about my mother!" Mr. Haskett shouted at Didsbury resident Drew Marceton.

The incident continued with Mr. Marceton yelling more insults, as Mr. Haskett and his family were helped into a waiting white truck.

"Why are you guys protecting him?" Mr. Marceton then yelled at one of the officers.

Mr. Haskett had originally pleaded not guilty in the case, and then on the day of the trial changed his plea to guilty. He was to be sentenced in August, but that was delayed due to incomplete psychological tests and pre-sentencing reports.

His lawyer, Mark Takada, withdrew from the case last fall after Mr. Haskett's version of events to a psychologist "differed significantly" from the agreed statement of facts he signed in May.

Yesterday, Mr. Haskett testified he lied when he pleaded guilty in order to speed up the case so he could get on with his life.

"I wanted to receive my punishment," he said. "I wanted closure.

"There has been a considerable amount of harassment against me and my family, including death threats and demands to leave the community. I was assaulted and had a bullet fired through my window."

Crown prosecutor Gord Haight scoffed at Mr. Haskett's remarks and suggested he was only interested in making himself look better in the eyes of the community.

"It makes you look pretty bad, doesn't it?" Mr. Haight asked. "You thought the community thought you were a monster?"

"Yes," Mr. Haskett replied. "I am aware this would enrage people, but that doesn't give anyone the right to harass or abuse me. I was trapped in this town because no one would hire me, I was living in my mother's house, but now I am no longer living in Didsbury."

Mr. Haskett said he has a job and freedoms and co-workers who don't know about his situation and who don't judge him.

He said there were some parts of the agreed statement of fact that were accurate, but other parts that were not. He denied he had encouraged a 17-year-old co-accused to drag the dog behind a car or to hit it with a shovel.

"I would never encourage anyone to do that. It's grotesque," he said. "I would never cause suffering to an animal."

Mr. Haskett's lawyer said a guilty plea would be "a miscarriage of justice."

"We have an entire community venting its frustration on a 20-year-old boy," Allan Pearse said.

Yesterday's events angered animal-rights activists - each carrying a long-stemmed Daisy in memory of Daisy Duke - who have attended virtually every court appearance connected to the case.

"Do you have a dog, sir?" Heather Anderson asked Mr. Pearse as he left the courthouse. "How would you feel if that was your dog?"

Mr. Pearse replied he did have a dog, but he was confident that the justice system would prevail. "I wasn't there and neither were you," he told Ms. Anderson.

"As passionate as people get, as upset as people get - and it is understandable - it is unfortunate when people take the law into their own hands. Remember, Mr. Haskett has had a bullet put through his window."

Mr. Haskett's 17-year-old co-accused had previously been sentenced to three months of house arrest, two years of probation and 240 hours of community service.

Recently, the House of Commons passed a law that makes the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. However, the maximum under the old law, which was in effect when Mr. Haskett was convicted, was six months in prison and/or a $2,000 fine.

(And now I am off to research this new law - this is the first I have heard of it!)

ETA: I just found another article I thought I should post:

Haskett vacates guilty plea
Dan Singleton, For the Didsbury Review

A 20-year-old man charged in a high-profile animal abuse case in Didsbury was restrained by an RCMP officer during a scuffle with a protester outside the Didsbury provincial court on Friday.

Daniel Charles Haskett was in court for sentencing after pleading guilty to charges of animal cruelty and obstruction of justice relating to injuries caused to a Lab-collie cross named Daisy Duke in Oct. 2006.



As Haskett left the courthouse in the company of his mother, self-described animal rights activist Drew Marceton shouted disparaging remarks about Haskett’s mother at the accused.

Haskett then turned and charged towards Marceton, his hand in a fist, before being restrained by Didsbury RCMP Const. Lee Hammond.

As Haskett then tried to get into a waiting vehicle, Marceton continued to hurl abuse at him and then at police.

"Why are you protecting him?" Marceton said to police.

Const. Hammond then told Marceton to move away or he would be arrested for obstruction.

(Marceton was convicted of obstruction and mischief and fined $200 for blocking a van carrying Haskett away from the courthouse following his first appearance in Oct. 2006).

Haskett and a 17-year-old male youth were charged after Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street on Oct. 7, 2006. The animal had to be put down due to the severity of its injuries.

Haskett pleaded guilty to two charges in the case in May 2007, signing an agreed statement of facts at the same time.

In the statement of facts, Haskett agreed that he and the young offender attempted to kill the dog by asphyxiation after the animal was accidentally run over with the youth’s vehicle.

Haskett was expected to be sentenced on Friday before Judge Ian Kirkpatrick. However, when court opened, Haskett’s lawyer, Alan Pearce, made an application to have the guilty pleas vacated because Haskett disputes some of the facts in the statement.

Haskett then took the stand and testified that he signed the statement of facts in hope of bringing the case to a speedy end.

"I entered a guilty plea because I wanted to get on with my life," said Haskett. "There has been a continuing amount of harassment, including death threats and hate mail. I’ve been assaulted. I was trapped in this town. I couldn’t go outside my home."

He said some unknown person also shot at his house.

"I didn’t want to deal with that anymore," he said. "I believed the guilty plea would stop the harassment."

Haskett testified that he denies a number of specific sections of the statement of facts.

"I do not agree with everything the agreed statement of facts says is true. I know it is not legal to inflict unnecessary injury or pain on an animal. That was not my intent. There are parts of the statement of facts that I would say are not true," he said.

One section of the statement reads: "Daisy was alive, so (young offender) picked up a shovel and struck Daisy once over the head with the scoop end of the shovel."

Haskett says that did not happen.

"I didn’t participate in anything of that nature," he said.

One section reads: "Neither (Haskett or youth) felt to see if she still had a pulse, or if she was breathing."

Haskett said that wasn’t true.

"I did check to see if Daisy did have a pulse and was breathing," he said.

One section reads that Haskett encouraged the youth to drag the dog from the property using a tow rope wrapped around her neck.

"That is entirely inaccurate," he said. "I would never encourage anyone to do that. It’s grotesque."

Haskett also denied a section that said he encouraged the youth to lie to police about the killing.

During cross-examination by prosecutor Gordon Haight, Haskett admitted that he read the entire statement of facts before signing it.

"It never occurred to me to ask him (Haskett’s previous lawyer) to have things taken off the agreed statement of facts," Haskett said. "I thought it was black and white. I never thought to ask my lawyer that. It wasn’t really on my mind when I signed that.

"I believe I made a really big mistake in agreeing to the statement of facts."

In closing arguments on the application to vacate the pleas, prosecutor Haight called on the judge to uphold the guilty pleas and sentence Haskett accordingly.

"The accused ought not to be believed," said Haight. "This wasn't a quick and dirty reading of the facts. There was an agreed statement of facts."

Haight said allowing the pleas to be vacated would be prejudicial to the Crown’s case because of the lengthy time since the dog’s death.

Defence lawyer Pearse said the accused pleaded guilty to the charges to end community harassment, and the pleas should therefore be quashed.

Judge Kirkpatrick adjourned the case until Oct. 21 when he will make a ruling on the application to vacate the pleas. If he finds the pleas should not be vacated, he will then pass sentence.

Outside court Haight told reporters he will be seeking a period of incarceration for Haskett. The charge carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $2,000 fine.

"I will be asking for substantial jail time," said Haight.

He called the latest delay "frustrating".

About a dozen animal rights activists were at the court, holding placards calling for penalties for animal cruelty to be increased.

Didsbury resident Tamara Chaney, who collected more than 100,000 signatures on a petition calling for tougher animal cruelty laws that eventually went before Parliament, was one of the protesters.

"This latest delay is disappointing, but I’m not surprised," said Chaney.

Heather Anderson, a Calgary animal rights activist who formed a group called ‘Delegates Against Inhumane Suffering Y? (DAISY), has attended every court appearance Haskett has made in the case.

"It’s disgusting," Anderson said about the delay until October. "I didn’t think he could come up with any other delays. We’ll be back in October."

(There are more articles but they're all pretty much the same. I noticed that this is making news as far away as Winnipeg & may have even been published in the National Post across Canada - yay for that at least.)

Thanks again for the continued support and I will be back in court on October 21 - where we had better get some closure or... I don't know what.

Melissa

[badger]

I read about this somewhere yesterday and I only look at the national papers, so the word is definitely out there. I wouldn't be surprised if his lawyer is behind this last-minute effort to get out from under, hopefully the judge will see through it.
I don't care if his IQ is 50, he deserves to be punished. And people harrassing and threatening him, well gee that comes with the territory, buddy. Sounds as if he could use a period of incarceration anyway, get some counselling (I can dream, can't I?).
Dogmelissa, you know that expression, 'revenge is best eaten cold' — meaning that the longer you wait, the sweeter it is. May Daisy get hers, and we will enjoy it on her behalf.

[chico2]

Melissa,thank you for all those articles and the picture,so that's what he looks like
As for supporting you,I would be in court with you every time,if I could,this sort of horror has to stop.
Daisy-Dukes suffering is not easily forgotten and IHaskett will get at least the 6 month jailtime and $2.000 fine,which is disgustingly the most he can get.
Thank's Melissa

[want4rain]

WHY IS DAISY AN IT!!!

she is CLEARLY a HER!!! thats been bothering me in a very deep deep way.

Melissa... i dont even know what to say to you. you are stunningly beautiful. just remember through all of this, you are a beauty most people dont even dream of achieving. even when she is tired, the wind still blows.

-ashley

[Love4himies]

Thank you so much for keeping us updated on this, Melissa, you are an angel.

If Daisy Duke were here she would give you a big slobbery kiss to thank you for your support.

[chico2]

Another thing that bothers me if a youth kills someone,it's always" he's a child did not know"to me,in this day and age,even a 17yr old is no more a child.
I see the lawyer is calling Haskett a 20yr old BOY,he is not a BOY he's now a man

[Love4himies]

Originally Posted by chico2

Another thing that bothers me if a youth kills someone,it's always" he's a child did not know"to me,in this day and age,even a 17yr old is no more a child.
I see the lawyer is calling Haskett a 20yr old BOY,he is not a BOY he's now a man

You are right, chico, as a society we are coddling our young adults and as a result they are not expected to take responsibility for their actions. Mind you, even adults seem to blame somebody or something for their actions.

I think this guy knows the system and is playing it for all it's worth and the judge is allowing it to happen.

I knew right from wrong, even at 10 years old.

[dogmelissa]

Wow... it truly feels like a very very long time since I posted the original start of this thread. It has been just over 2 years since the day that Daisy Duke died, and today I drove up to Didsbury to find out whether the judge would hand down justice or let a murderer recant his guilty plea.

Today Daniel showed up in a suit & tie (first time he's ever worn anything other than jeans!), and his mom was also dressed nicer. His younger brother was there (not dressed nice) as well as some friends (all girls except 1). A man I can only assume is his mom's newest boyfriend was also there (I say this only because he had his arm around her in a "boyfriend" kind of way, but looked to be younger than Daniel). All of them were laughing and joking around and having a great time before court started. They seemed totally unconcerned.
When we were outside waiting for the start of court, one of the TV camera men was asking if Daniel was already there, and when we said yes he was, he was sad he'd missed him. I said, don't worry, you'll catch him coming out because we know he won't go straight to jail. I didn't see it but one of the girls with Daniel was apparently giving me some pretty dirty/rude looks, and apparently wasn't at all worried about the possibility that he could get prison time.

Ok, so to the case...

Judge comes in and says he's first going to deal with the application to change the plea (from guilty to not-guilty). He says there was a signed statement of facts, testimony from Daniel, pre-sentence report...
These are all what he said:
- Daniel seemed capable, intelligent and not at all confused about what he had signed/agreed to.
- testified he'd plead guilty to "get it over with", but that doesn't change what he did (his actions).
- he failed to attend meetings with the probation officer and the psychologist.
- he had stated he'd "lied, lied, lied" though he had then said that he was regretful and remorseful and felt shamed for what he had done.
- he appeared to have a "realistic attitude" toward court (I would disagree, especially since this judge was the one who ordered him to pay $1000 for wasting the courts time when he missed 3 sessions due to "job interviews", but whatever)
- the pre-sentence report was one of the most extensive he'd ever seen:
it included discussions with 8 ppl who knew Daniel, including former teachers, former employers, his mother... teacher said he'd been "hampered by his peers in reaching his potential", employer said he was "reliable" and had no problems with drugs or alcohol. Nothing in the report suggested that he was incapable of making or understanding the decision to plead guilty. It said that he *clearly* accepted responsibility for his parts of the incident and included a quote from Daniel where he said that his behaviour had caused Daisy to suffer probably twice as much as she would have if he hadn't done it and "all we did was unintentionally torture her".
- Judge determined that he was fully capable of knowing what he did (his actions that day) as well as knowing what a guilty plea meant and that his attempt to change his plea was only motivated by a desire to appear better in the public's eyes.
Therefore, he DENIED the change of plea.

As in, the guilty plea was accepted, and Daniel now has a criminal record. **Happy Dance**

They broke for a few minutes for the lawyers to figure out what they were going to say for the sentencing part of it and then we were back at it. (This was a long day.)

Crown Prosecutor: I won't get into the details of any of this, because he literally talked for an hour. Basically the long and the short of it is that the maximum term for this offense is 6 months incarceration. He would like to see a term in jail anywhere from 3-5 months, followed by a 2 year order against owning/possessing/caring for animals of any kind. He also would recommend a probation term, but would leave that to the judge's discretion.

At this point Daniel & his family were looking quite concerned. His little brother was crying.

The Crown spent the next 50 minutes or so going through specific cases (some of them were really horrific and I won't post the details here - it was bad enough I had to hear them) to make his point about jail time.
At one point he talked about the new maximums for animal cruelty are 5 years in jail or 18 months in jail (depending on the classification). He said it was the public outcry that led to the new maximums being established and it would be the "height of irony" if anything LESS than "real time" was given in this case.

Then we broke for 10 minutes (I grabbed lunch) and the defense came up.
This lawyer is quite the piece of work. First, he paces when he talks, is almost always "playing" with his chin (and therefore partially covering his mouth) and keeps his head down, like he's talking to the floor. He talks down to the judge (at one point he said to the judge "you've probably forgotten more about law than I'll ever know" - yes the judge is older, but seriously, I'd be PO'ed if I was the judge!), and even made sarcastic comments when reading some of the "death threats" given to Daniel - "you have raised an evil son", "you do not deserve to be free", "many people would love to see you suffer the way Daisy suffered".... yeah, they're not nice things to say, but those aren't death threats. He was all like "god bless these people" (in a sarcastic tone), I wanted to smack him. He also got a few drinks of water... this is hard in text, but picture a 4 year old boy who is "playing" while he's drinking: sip, "ah". Can you picture that? Now picture a GROWN MAN doing that - and a lawyer to boot! Yeah, he did that. omg, I tried so hard not to laugh.
Before he got into what he wanted, he said that the one argument the Crown had, which was "breech of trusts against the victim" was invalid, because in the section of the code the charges are in, everything in there is property, and property cannot be a victim. He said to argue such would be ILLEGAL. (Ok, we know that animals are classified as property, but wtf!)
He also spoke about Daisy's torture and death as if it was nothing... "the dog died painfully, the dog died in a way dogs don't want to die"... ummmm.... seriously, I felt at least 5 times with this guy that he was smoking something.
He spoke about Daniel:
- he's a young man, only 19 at the time of the incident
- good character
- good work history (though recently lost his most recent job)
- he has an ambition to join the Armed Forces because he LOVES the Queen's Country (aka Canada). (How terrifying is this thought??)
- he has the support of his family; mother, brothers and other people (he read off a list of names, there were 6 people in total)
- he made a "really massive mistake"
- "he was detained for 23 hours; that usually buys you 2 for 1 in this province and I'm asking for that" (more insulting the court & the justice system)
He also spent a great deal of time emphasizing that in the Criminal Code this is one of the LOWEST crimes in the book. He said you don't go to jail for a 129 (resisting a peace officer), and this is LOWER, so he should not go to jail.
He talked about how Spyhill (the nearest prison; Daniel would be sent here if given jail time) is a "finishing school for criminals" and that no rehabilitation occurs there. He laughed a few times when he was reading stuff about jail (generally, not specifically this one).
He also went back through all the cases that the Crown had presented and tried to persuade the judge to see things his way. One of the cases was of a man with a known mental illness who's 10 yr old daughter had given him a kitten - he did something unspeakable to the kitten (both lawyers talked about it, but I won't, it's just too horrible), and the little girl actually phoned the police on him. This man was granted a conditional sentence (aka community service, no jail time), and the defense lawyer spent a lot of time on this one, trying to make it seem like it was comparable. That man had diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - he obviously didn't have a clue what he was doing!
He said that the media coverage these types of cases get is equal to a "public shaming" and that should be considered as part of the punishment.

Then Daniel spoke to the judge:
- apologized to community and peers
- apologized for waste/misuse of Crown's/Court's resources
- says he deeply regrets his decisions of that day
and now knows he had no excuse or no reason for them.

Then his mother spoke:
- last 2 years have been pure hell
- people say we're bad people; "we're not"
- we don't support what he did, but we support HIM
- people want justice but won't let the system deal with it, they are taking it into their own hands

Then some guy spoke (friend of family? I dunno)
- Daniel lived with them from Dec '06 to July '07 (with his wife and family)
- they were coaching him, working with him
- "he is not a malicious person, he truly cares!"
- the stress of the events of that day have "built character"

Crown got back up to speak again:
- if he gets a conditional sentence, what does that mean, that he'll be on house arrest and get to sit at home all evening, watching TV? He does not condone the actions of the public, they are illegal and he condemns, them, but he stressed that if the public feels that justice is not served, they will lose faith in the system and be less willing to follow the laws.

Defense gets up once more, and actually turns to the ppl in the crowd (namely myself and others like me who are grouped as "animal rights activists") and says "if the public wants something else done, they should take it up with parliament".

So we're nearing the end of our day at this point. But we all thought we'd actually get the sentence today. That's what the judge told us last time!
But I forgive him, because both lawyers bombarded him with paper galore, like 10+ cases each.... so he said, I need some time to think about this, can we book a special sitting in this court room?
(I wanted to cry - another date!?!?!?! But then I remembered that this is the judge who fined him, who made him eat his guilt, and I'm ok with one more date, because I think he's going to send Daniel to jail.)

While we were waiting I heard Daniel say to his friends that he had tried really hard to get a job so that he could have a job for this court date (probably so that he could whine and say he can't go to jail cause he's working and they need him). But he didn't get hired anywhere. (Oh boo hoo)

So we go back December 17, 2008. Special date - they're even starting early!

I'm sorry that I don't have a complete happy ending for you, but we're so close!! He is guilty and he WILL pay. Just don't know how badly he will pay.

Tomorrow I will gather up all the media stories and post them here. But overall, today was a good day.
Thanks for your continued support - without people like you I never would have made it through this emotionally. Knowing that there were people behind me, who were with me in spirit and mind, made it worth while for me to drive up there every date for the past 2 years. I'm truly grateful for people like you!
And I'm sure that Daisy Duke is too (and all the other animals who have suffered needlessly).

Thanks,
Melissa