Animal Services Destroyed Evidence in the Mason Case

Boks admitted that as of October 26, 2007, Animal Services had destroyed 25 of cats impounded from Mason's property. These were evidence animals, and as such could not be destroyed without a judge's written approval.

The reason the prosecution cannot destroy evidence is thereafter, a defendant has no way of to rebut any allegation made against him, such as those Boks repeatedly made against Mr. Mason on the LAAS' website.

Boks alleges many of the cats seized were ill with unknown illnesses, but apparently there was no diagnostic testing except for six kittens who tested negative for panleukemia at a professional lab--Antech. Therefore, we only have Ed's opinion that the cats were irremediably suffering. We have not even heard of the opinion of the veterinarian, who apparently was on site during the arrest and who apparently signed the orders to kill the cats.

That veterinarian was quoted by Boks as stating that he had never seen cats kept in conditions such as existed at Mr. Mason's residence. "The odors, excrement, and lack of sanitary conditions were extreme to the doctor, even with his high tolerance of unkempt lost and homeless shelter pets that he routinely encounters."

As the commenter below said, "We will never know now," the evidence animals have been destroyed.

Also,apparently we will never know whether or not Muffin was destroyed--the cat shown being strangled in the Daily News photo, or Burt, who had a 6" surgical pin in his leg from repairative orthopedic surgery in 2004, or Johny, an elderly cat shown in the Daily News photos being held by a woman in a blue jumpsuit.

If these animals were killed, there is something very, very wrong with LA Animal Services.


Anonymous said...

The veterinarian's comment:

"he had never seen cats kept in conditions"

seems odd. How often do vets go on-site anyway? I'm a devoted viewer of all the humane law enforcement docu-shows and I've rarely seen a vet AT the seizures. The vets are back at the hospital or the shelter. Was the vet brought along as part of the PR aspect? If he's never been on-site at a seizure of course he's going to thing it's bad. He works in a (somewhat) maintained shelter. He'd be shocked at my house too, I'm a lousy housekeeper...

Anonymous said...

This is unacceptable. What kind of public servant is Ed Bok? What gives him the right to act this way? I think he should be fired for corruption and cruelty. When will the nightmare for LA animals and their owners end?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first poster. I've watched a lot of Animal Precinct. I've never seen a vet at any of the raids. Generally the Humane Officers just look at the animal. The law states if they believe the animals' life is in immediate danger because of the situation or person, then they can seize the animal. Muffin, Burt, the elderly cat were not in immediate danger at Mason's house. Neither were a few other cats that I see in the photo. On the other hand they were indeed in immediate danger when the department took them, and killed them, just for being old and having a limp.

I think the vet was there for PR. The head vet is in the East Valley shelter though this raid was in West Valley. Which vet was there? the head vet or the west valley vet? We only have four vets for six shelters and the annex.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first and third posters.
I watch a lot of TV too!