PETA Trial (Day 9): Everything Is Illuminated (Not Really)

PETA Trial, Day 9
Everything Is Illuminated (Not Really)

» Day 1 » Day 2 » Day 3 » Day 4 » Day 5 » Weekend
» Day 6 » Day 7 » Day 8 » Day 9 » Day 10
» Summary

February 1, 2007 | As a new month dawns and snow (yes, snow!) falls in Eastern North Carolina, the spectacle of an Animal Cruelty trial involving PETA (yes, PETA) is becoming ever-weirder. But at least we're nearing the end of the road. Skipping to the end of today's proceedings, here's where we stand:

The defense has rested. Both defendants, Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook, took the witness stand today.
The judge has amended some of the criminal charges and dismissed a few as well.
Lawyers have finished wrangling over the instructions that will be given to the jury.
Closing arguments will begin at 9:30am on Friday.
The jury will probably get the case before lunch.

At the beginning of the trial, each defendant faced 21 felony Animal Cruelty counts, three felony counts of Obtaining Property By False Pretenses, and seven misdemeanor counts of Littering.

Not any more. Judge Cy Grant adjusted things considerably this afternoon. The jury will only consider eight animal-cruelty counts against each defendant -- and they'll be the "lesser included" misdemeanor offenses, not felonies. Grant threw out the Obtaining Property By False Pretenses charges against Cook, but kept them against Hinkle. And he consolidated the littering charges to one count each, reasoning that any alleged illegal disposal of animal bodies was carried out in a single act.

The animal-cruelty misdemeanors likely only carry the threat of probation and fines -- ironically, a situation that PETA would ordinarily complain about -- but Hinkle is still facing a 6-to-8-month prison term for each count of Obtaining Property By False Pretenses.

We're not sure why, but Adria Hinkle thought it would be swell to give her furry victims a Last Meal:

"I informed Andy that I wanted him to bring the animals one at a time. And I went into my van, and I prepared my van to start euthanizing animals. So I put blankets down, and, and got food out. I would feed -- I would typically give dogs canned cat food as a treat before I euthanized them, because dogs typically really like canned cat food."

Oh -- and Hinkle testified that she learned her craft (killing animals) from a manual published by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Who knew?

Who's Telling the Truth?

This morning we experienced something so odd that it just might turn up in an episode of Law & Order.

The False-Pretense case against Adria Hinkle hinges on the recollections of veterinary technician Tonya Northcott, Susan Dunlow, Reesie Ray, and Ashton Sumner -- all employees of the Ahoskie Animal Hospital -- who testified that Northcott handed Adria Hinkle a pet-carrier containing a cat and two kittens on June 15, 2005. Their testimony was consistent, describing Hinkle's promise to try and find the animals a good home. And we all know how that turned out.

But during Hinkle's testimony today, defense lawyer Blair Brown suddenly asked a young woman in the courtroom's gallery to stand up. Hinkle identified her as Karen Hoggard and said that she -- not Northcott -- was the veterinary employee who gave her the cats. Hoggard shook her head in court, clearly not agreeing with Hinkle. After Hoggard sat down, a PETA legal intern quickly led the woman out of the courtroom.

And then this:

Brown: "That morning, did you see Tonya Northcott at all?"

Hinkle: "I did not."

Brown: "Did you see Susan Dunlow at all?

Hinkle: "I did not."

Somebody is lying.

Later in the day, Asbell asked Hinkle if "everybody at the Ahoskie Animal Hospital didn't remember -- including the woman who stood up in the audience -- they didn't remember, but you did?" As politicians and juries teach us, it's not always the crime that gets you. Sometimes, it's the cover-up.

When the judge called a recess and we exited the courtroom, we saw Karen Hoggard sitting alone on a bench in the hallway. We learned later that she's a college freshman, and that she was a high-school-age part-time employee in 2005.

We introduced ourselves to Karen and asked her: "Is what Adria Hinkle saying on the witness stand true?"

Karen responded: "No. No."

We asked: "Is she making it up?"

Karen nodded nervously but clearly. Throughout our 30-second conversation, she was shaking like a leaf.

We told Judge Grant and District Attorney Asbell about our encounter, after a PETA lawyer informed us that Hoggard was a subpoenaed witness and shouldn't be speaking to us in the first place. Fair enough. But she was never called as a rebuttal witness. And we're left wondering why.

The End of Happy

Last week Bertie County Animal Control Officer Barry Anderson testified that he trusted Adria Hinkle so much that he asked her to find an adoptive home for one of his own pets. It was a terrier named "Happy." This is what Anderson said on the witness stand last week:

"I knew that by talking to Ms. Hinkle that she could possibly find a home for it, someone that was looking for a good dog. To my understanding, she found a home for it in Virginia."

Not so much. Hinkle testified today that "the only time I can remember leaving with a dog alive would have been Happy." And although Anderson thought the dog at least had a chance at a better life, she killed it when she got back to PETA's Norfolk headquarters.

Wait. It gets worse.

She sent Anderson photos of the dog taken on the way back to Norfolk. Happy was pictured wearing a leash and a collar, in a flower garden in front of a brick house.

We're not making this up.

Here's how District Attorney Valerie Asbell questioned Adria about those photos:

Asbell: "How did these pictures get back in the possession of [Animal Control Officer] Barry Anderson?

Hinkle: "I sent them to him."

Asbell: "Why?"

Hinkle: "I thought he would appreciate them. I knew that it was a very hard decision for him to give Happy up."

Asbell: "And when you sent these pictures back to him, did you tell him that 'I killed the dog in Norfolk'?"

Hinkle: "No."

Asbell: "Why not?"

Hinkle: "I didn't think it was necessary."

Asbell: "Why?"

Hinkle: "I don't know."

Asbell: "When he gave you this dog, and entrusted you to take it and adopt it, out, why did you not tell him that you killed it?"

Hinkle: "No reason. I didn't want to hurt Barry's feelings."

Asbell: "If you didn't want to hurt his feelings, why didn't you leave the dog with him?"

Hinkle: "I don't know."

R.I.P., Happy.

Ethical, shmethical.

We note also that PETA's chosen puppy-cremation service is located on Happy Street in Virginia Beach. No connection. It's just creepy.

Judge Grant Weighs In

We were surprised to see Judge Cy Grant ask a few questions of his own as Adria Hinkle testified. But they were good questions. Asked later to declare a mistrial over inserting himself into the proceedings, Grant declined, saying that he thought these were questions the jurors were likely asking themselves.

Here's one such exchange:

Grant: "Excuse me. Here's a question that I have. Dr. Proctor euthanizes animals, is that correct?"

Hinkle: "Yes. Yes."

Grant: "Well, why do you think they called you to pick up the cats to be euthanized, if they could have done it themselves?"

Hinkle: "My, my thought would be that the staff was attached to the cats, and he didn't want to have to make that decision. Because the cats had been there for awhile, and it would upset the staff."

Grant: "That's what you thought?"

Hinkle: "Yes. Yes."

Grant: "Hmm. Second question: How did you know the dumpster was behind the shopping center?"

Hinkle: "I, um, I, I probably investigated to find a dumpster."

Grant: "You probably investigated?"

Hinkle: "I did. I looked to find a dumpster."

About That Dumpster...

Under cross-examination, Hinkle made a startling confession. The night of her arrest wasn't the first time she had visited the dumpster behind the Piggly Wiggly store in Ahoskie, NC. We suspected as much, but hearing it from the horse's mouth was somewhat satisfying.

But unanswered questions remain. Ahoskie police found dead animals on that dumpster on four dates in 2005: May 19, June 2, June 9, and June 15 (Hinkle and Cook's arrest date). Hinkle says she had used that dumpster "a couple" of other times before June 15. The June 2 dumping, for instance, was her doing. But she says she wasn't in North Carolina on the other dates.

Inquiring minds want to know: Who was her driving partner on June 2? (June 15 was Andrew Cook's first -- and last -- trip in the PETA van.) Who dumped the animals on May 19 and June 9? If it wasn't Hinkle, who else at PETA was doing this? Did Hinkle tip them off about a good out-of-the-way dump site? Or did she learn about it from someone else?

Alas, answers were nowhere to be found in court today. But here's the entire conversation, complete with the judge's double-take:

Asbell: "So, tell me what you actually did to investigate finding that dumpster."

Hinkle: "I knew that dumpsters were typically behind grocery stores. And it was an area that was not viewable by other people."

Asbell: "Not viewable?"

Hinkle: "It was behind a grocery store."

Asbell: "And what did you do to investigate?"

Hinkle: "Drove around. I mean, I didn't do much to investigate. I found that dumpster and I used that dumpster."

Asbell: "That day?"

Hinkle: "Yes, that day."

Asbell: "How many other days did you use that dumpster?"

Hinkle: "Uh, only a couple."

Judge Grant: "Pardon me?"

Hinkle: "A couple."

Asbell: "And what dates were they?"

Hinkle: "I don't recall. I do remember being in North Carolina on June 2nd. But other than that I don't know."

Asbell: "So on June 2nd you dumped animals there too?"

Hinkle: "Yes, I did."

Asbell: "What about June 9th?"

Hinkle: "I wasn't in North Carolina on June 9th."

Asbell: "What about May 19th?"

Hinkle: "I don't believe I was in North Carolina on May 19th."

Asbell: "And who, in your CAP [PETA's Community Animal Project"] program did you tell that was your disposal -- or, where you dumped the animals? Who did you tell?"

Hinkle: "I didn't tell anyone."

Asbell: "So is it your testimony here today that every CAP worker who comes down from the PETA organization investigates, and thinks there's only one dumpster, and that's behind the Piggly Wiggly in Ahoskie?"

Hinkle: "I don't know what the other CAP workers did to investigate. I only know what I did."

Asbell: "And you investigated? You picked that dumpster why?"

Hinkle: "Because it was convenient for me."

Asbell: "Convenient for you?"

Hinkle: "Yes. And I regret doing it. I wish that I wouldn't have done it. It was very disrespectful."

Asbell: "What you regret is getting caught."

Hinkle: "No. I regret -- I regret putting animals in the dumpster."

Asbell: "Well, what did you regret back on June 2nd?"

Hinkle: "I don't know."

At this point, a skeptical Judge Grant weighed in again. Hinkle visited other county animal shelters besides the one in Bertie County, and these were even further away from PETA's headquarters. If Hinkle dumped the Bertie County animals because of their mid-summer smell, why should we think she didn't make dumpster runs in more distant counties too?

Grant: "Did you dump the bodies from Halifax County?"

Hinkle: "No, I didn't."

Grant: "You took the bodies all the way from Halifax back to Norfolk?"

Hinkle: "Yes, I did."

Grant: "What about the Northampton County bodies?"

Hinkle: "No, I didn't."

Grant: "You took them all the way back to Norfolk?"

Hinkle: "Yes, I did."

Grant: "It was only the Bertie County dogs that you dumped?"

Hinkle: "Yes."

Cats

Presuming the jury finds the testimony of four Ahoskie Animal Hospital professionals more believable than that of a criminal defendant, it's a given that Adria Hinkle promised to at least try to find homes for the cat and two kittens she picked up there on June 15, 2005. Those animals wound up dead shortly thereafter. So the question of when she decided to kill the cats is an important one. And how she carried it out could indicate whether or not she was hiding something.

Asbell: "You were aware that they were still trying to find homes for those cats?"

Hinkle: "I suppose so, yes."

Asbell: "And you were aware of that before you walked into that animal hospital that morning, were you not?"

Hinkle: "I didn't devote a lot of thought to it before I walked into the animal hospital that morning. I was following a Work Order to go and pick up three cats, and I had a busy day ahead of me."

Hinkle's nonchalance about the whole encounter indicates that to her, killing two kittens and their mother cat was just another thing on her PETA work order. She testified this morning that she killed the cats in the van, while it was parked "in a secluded area." Here's another exchange:

Asbell: "You knew you were going to euthanize -- or kill -- those cats when you got to the vet. You knew that?"

Hinkle: "Yes."

Asbell: "And when you went into the vet and you made statements -- to whoever you said you made statements to-you knew at that time that you were going to kill those cats."

Hinkle: "Yes."

Asbell: "And let me ask you this, Ms. Hinkle. If you knew you were going to kill the cats, and you knew -- and you believed -- that Ahoskie Animal Hospital of course would know that you were going to kill the cats, why didn't you do it in the parking lot? Like you do at the shelter?"

Hinkle: "I believe we had other stops to go to that day, and for me it's -- it's most convenient for me to euthanize at the shelter. So I was going to wait until we got there."

Jury Alienation 101

If you're a defendant, getting jurors on your side can be tough. But here's a rule to follow: Try not to insult their way of life. On the night they were arrested, Hinkle and Cook had a copy of a PETA field manual with them-a binder titled "Communications Protocol For North Carolina."

Hinkle was asked to read aloud from it during her cross-examination:

"They always have their dogs run loose in the country, and that's probably how they got the dog in the first place. And they may never have heard of keeping a big dog in the house. They really, in most cases, just do not know any better. Yes, it sucks. And it's tough and frustrating, and we come upon a lot of neglect and cruelty. But remember that they have no standard of comparison until we show them a better way. They've grown up that way. They're socialized that way. They haven't seen anything different.

"They" -- the Jurors, all from rural North Carolina -- were not amused. More than half of them are dog owners, and most of those have "outside dogs."

Hinkle testified that she didn't necessarily agree with what was in that manual. But on June 15, 2005, when her van was pulled over, the arresting officer noted her unusual interest in where he kept his pets:

Police Sergeant Ty Metzler: "She did say something to me. I don't know why she said it. She asked me if I had any animals. And I said yes, I had a dog. And she said 'Where do you keep him?' And I said I keep the dog in my house. And she said 'Well, that's good.'"

Asbell: "And that's all she said?"

Metzler: [nodding] "Mm-Hmm."

Andrew Cook's Moment

A relative footnote in his own trial, Andy Cook has hardly been the center of attention during the last two weeks. This trial is mostly about Adria Hinkle. Cook was in his third week of employment at PETA when he was arrested. And he told police that he was merely doing what she told him to do.

But under the legal theory of "Acting In Concert," he faces the same Animal Cruelty charges as Hinkle. Cook, we learned today, held every animal while Hinkle killed them. And while he didn't personally tell anyone -- unlike Hinkle -- that the pets would have a chance at adoption, he appears to have known what was going on.

Asbell: "Isn't it true, Mr. Cook, when you left Norfolk on that morning, that neither you nor Ms. Hinkle had any intention of bringing any animals back to Virginia alive?"

Cook: "I didn't know what Ms. Hinkle was planning. My intention for the day was to go down and assist with euthanasias."

And it's fair to say that he knew the cats from Ahoskie were never coming back to Virginia alive. If the jury decides that Hinkle's apparently massive deception made her killings a crime, Cook will probably be on the hook.

Asbell: "You knew, once you went into the Ahoskie Animal Hospital, that those cats were going to be killed, did you not?"

Cook: "I was assuming, yes."

Asbell: "So you knew that?"

Cook: "Yes."

Asbell: "So you knew that?"

Cook: "Yes."

[ ... ]

Asbell: "And when you left the Ahoskie Animal Hospital, the defendant Ms. Hinkle went down the road, and at some point pulled over and killed the cats?"

Cook: "That's correct."

Trial Forecast

While nobody can predict what a jury will do, the courthouse buzz is that a verdict is reasonably expected either late on Friday afternoon or early on Monday.

Regardless of what happens or when it happens, we'll be here in Hertford County, North Carolina to tell you all about it. Check back here often for the latest news and information on the PETA-Kills-Animals trial.

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Weekend
Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10