Cecil County SPCA Investigation Concludes – Questions Persist

As you may recall, numerous allegations of the atrocious treatment of animals have been made against the Cecil County SPCA. Apparently, the politics of this is much more important than actually performing a thorough investigation of ALL the facts of the case .

What follows is part one of my analysis of the so called “investigation of all the facts”.

On June 1, 2009 the State’s Attorney for Caroline County, Mr. Jonathan Newell, sent a letter to the Cecil County State’s Attorney (Chris Eastridge) stating that he had completed reviewing  ” the volumes of photographs and documents ” he had been furnished with regarding the allegations of abuse and neglect of animals as it related to the Cecil County Society for Prevention of Animals (CC SPCA).

While there are many recommendations for changes to the current manner of running the CC SPCA (which I will cover in a future posting) there are some interesting additions to the report which I am struggling to understand and have asked to have explained by those responsible for them.

Numerous calls to Mr. Newell’s office have gone unanswered to date.  I was at the meeting of the CC SPCA committee last Tuesday night when Mr. Eastridge came to speak. Mr Eastridge told the committee he had just received the report from Mr. Newell that day and he would be providing the Commissioners a copy of it the next day.

Wednesday morning at 8:30 a.m. I called Mr. Eastridge’s office and asked if he could please call me ASAP about the CC SPCA letter from Mr. Newell. I also explained I had called Mr. Newell three times over the last few days but had yet to hear back from him. I left a message for Mr. Eastridge, that Mr. Newell had erroneously stated in his letter that I was representing a former employee “at taxpayer expense”.  Not only is this allegation incorrect it is impossible since I am not a public defender.

Particularly troubling is the fact that I was never interviewed as part of the investigation despite the fact that the complaints were initiated by my office after we had been contacted by a visitor to the shelter who was appalled at what she had seen.

After reading this unfounded and defamatory(not to mention IRRELEVANT) statement in the report on the allegations into the alleged animal abuse and mismanagement of the CC SPCA I called the officer who had conducted the investigations to ask him why he would have included such a thing in his report.

I was surprised to learn from the investigating officer that he had not written anything about me in his report. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the false statement about my representation of these complainants at “taxpayer expense” had to have been added by the State’s Attorney Mr. Newell.

Still having not received  any response from Mr. Newell, I called the State Legislative Ethics Counsel and requested an opinion as to whether such a statement could even be possible.  Mr. Somerville quickly responded with a letter indicating that ” I would not consider any of your actions in that regard to have been carried out “at taxpayer expenses”.   “Circumstances were such that the criminal charge may have constituted retaliation against a “whistle blower”.  You offered to represent the individual, pro bono, in the matter.”

I faxed a copy of the letter from the legislative ethics counsel to the Cecil County States Attorney, Mr. Eastridge on June 4, asking that the statement be stricken before the report was disseminated. I explained that not only was the information about me incorrect but there was also incorrect information about Mr and Mrs Ewing and Ms. Erin Miller. I demanded an apology and explanation from Mr. Newell but to date I still have not heard from either States’ Attorney.

I was told by a third party that Mr. Newell has realized he was in error and that he is going to reissue a new report without the defamatory statement claiming that, at “taxpayer expense,”  I am representing someone alleged to have stolen from the CC SPCA.  Unfortunately, I am also informed Mr. Newell intends to add the new accusation that my pro bono representation of this former employee of the CC SPCA is a “conflict of interest”

According to the State Legislative Ethics counsel, Mr. William Somerville.: ” I do not see the existence of a conflict of interest. First of all, you are not being financially advantaged by any of your actions in this matter. Indeed, the provision of free legal service is a detriment to your law practice.  Secondly, I believe that both actions-your advocacy for the investigation of possible abuses by the CC SPCA, and your pro bono legal representation-constitute complementary parts {of} a single interest, rather than separate and conflicting interests.  Your representation of the witness, who may be the victim of retaliation for his testimony, serves to encourage other citizens to come forward with information about possible impropriety affecting the county, in this particular matter as well as in future matters. For these reasons it is my opinion that there is no conflict of interest…”

Unfounded accusations in this report were not limited to myself.  Mrs. Erin Miller had signed a sworn affidavit telling how she, personally had participated in euthanizing animals despite the fact, she had not been properly trained or listed with the State as employed to do so. She also included in her sworn affidavit the details of  instances where she was required to euthanize two dogs which were held on catch poles and then shot through the chest by an animal control officer with his handgun. Ms Miller agreed to take a polygraph test if requested to do so. Yet, the State Police investigators never asked her to take a polygraph. All of the CC SPCA animal control officers refuse to be polygraphed and she volunteers to be polygraphed, yet is not.  What is wrong with this picture?

The reason given for not believing the affidavit of Ms Miller, according to Mr. Newell’s letter of June 1, is that “ the CC SPCA suggests that Ms Miller is a disgruntled former employee with an ax to grind, fired for poor work ethic and suspicion of involvement in a bungled burglary along with an abusive drug seeking boyfriend. Ms. Miller states the first time she ever heard of these “suggestions” and “suspicions” was when I read them to her from the June 1, 2009 letter.  No one, during the investigation, ever raised these accusations with her. She states quite clearly that these allegations are untrue and unfair.

Ms. Miller’s testimony would appear to be some of the most compelling and relevant since she personally participated in the activities she relates.  Clearly,  the reported shooting of these dogs would be prosecutable if a jury or judge believed her. After all, the State’s Attorney Newell, himself, wrote that “if cats were shot and intentionally left to suffer in the manner described by the Ewings, it would certainly constitute a violation of the criminal abuse statute.

Ms. Miller swears in her affidavit, that two dogs were held steady on catch poles around their necks and then summarily shot through the chest area but did not die, so she (personally) then administered a sedative and then a euthanasia  drug to kill the dogs.  Yet, she is not given a polygraph, even though she volunteers to take one! The animal control officer refuses to take a polygraph.   This event is reported to have occurred in the spring of 2008 and is thus within any statute of limitations, but no charges will be filed.  No polygraph is to be given to  Ms. Miller, who is willing to take one and remember that all the animal control officers refused to take polygraphs, according to Mr. Newell’s report.

How can we trust ANYTHING in this report if it can  get it so wrong with the allegations manufactured against numerous people and failed to pursue such patently obvious abuse as shooting dogs with a handgun while they are being restrained on a catch pole?

I will address the other errors involving the Ewings and others, shortly, in my next posting. In the interim, I am going to try to get an apology and an explanation of why innuendo and character assassinations are occurring within what should have been a compilation of facts regarding the allegations brought by the former volunteers, visitors and employees of the CC SPCA.

Stay tuned, as they say in politics, you can’t make this stuff up!