# So were the posters who backed Jamie Gray "Trolls" ?



## Janetterose (8 May 2009)

So there were a few people (just a few) who supported Jamie Gray despite all the evidence. Were they "trolls"?


----------



## the watcher (8 May 2009)

I never really worked out if they were misguided friends and family, or perhaps put up by the defence legal team to try and prejudice the case


----------



## patty19 (8 May 2009)

NO I'M HERE!!!! STILL SUPPORTING THE INNOCENT JAMIE GRAY AND HIS FAMILY. THIS AINT THE END BY FAR!!!!


----------



## Nailed (8 May 2009)

lmao

Lou x


----------



## Ellies_mum2 (8 May 2009)

O dear nothing like 'blind belief' is there


----------



## Janetterose (8 May 2009)

HOW can you say that with the video evidence? Tell us why you think they are innocent - at least back up what you say with substance rather than just ranting.


----------



## BankEndRescue (8 May 2009)

You're not MyJack in disguise are you


----------



## patty19 (8 May 2009)

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?


----------



## Janetterose (8 May 2009)

I take it you mean Patty - well he/she is a "stranger". Weird that they have come out of the woodwork now! They seem to be the only supporter on-line at the mo - still think they may be a troll. probably looks like one too!!


----------



## patty19 (8 May 2009)

No I'm not in disguise - but yes, I AM indeed MYJACK.


----------



## Janetterose (8 May 2009)

yuck - you sound like the child-catcher in Chitty Bang Bang! Creepy!!


----------



## cariad (8 May 2009)

Take Admin's advice - Please Don't Feed The Trolls! - however strongly you feel about the issue. Mr Gray and his family have a legal right of appeal should they wish to use it and they don't need any assistance from the members of this forum.


----------



## ghosthooves (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
yuck - you sound like the child-catcher in Chitty Bang Bang! Creepy!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

PMSL!


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

So if Mr Gray and his family win an appeal - who would then be called the trolls?

The RSPCA needed the public support from day 1.

When I was here before the members wanted to know things I was not able to tell them as a judgement had'nt been made. And now the judgement has been made it seems those members have forgotten all about those questions.


----------



## dozzie (9 May 2009)

I havent forgotten! And I hoped you would come back. What can you tell us MJ? 

I couldnt go to the court to watch the proceedings as I have to work but, having not been there, I still feel very much in the dark.


----------



## Gonetofrance (9 May 2009)

As ever, MJ spouting she knows something, but not ACTUALLY telling us anything. 

Perhaps you could tell us whom you believe to be responsible for the condition of the horses found on the Grays' premisis?


----------



## Tabbi (9 May 2009)

Seeing all your posts are about the Grays, I think that speaks for itself! TROLL

Do you really think the Grays were right in their treatment of those poor horses? and I think you would answer yes to that one as you just want to cause an argument on here.

So when you was here before and other members wanted to know things that you were not able to answer as the judgement had not been made.....do you not remember what these questions were?  why not answer them now?

The RSPCA will always have the publics support when it comes to such cruelty against animals.


----------



## BankEndRescue (9 May 2009)

MyJack/Patty,you always claimed to have evidence to prove the Gray's innocence that you would show us when the trial was over, so how about offering it up now


----------



## jacks_mum (9 May 2009)

Now a verdict has been passed I too would like to know what makes MyJack/Patty so very sure of the Grey's innocence. Please MJ/P enlighten us. True to your word, you have come back now please stop employing the smoke and mirrors and give us what you have as you promised you would.

If the Grey's weren't responsible - who  was?
Why did they fall down in that responsibility?
WHo was responsible for removing the dead?
Why did they fall down in that responsibility?
If they Grey's aren't responsible, why have they 'taken the rap'?
If the Grey's aren't responsible why have they been found guilty?


----------



## SillySausage (9 May 2009)

I'd love to know what you have to say MyJack/Patty, I'm not allowed to say anything more than I saw the horses when they were first removed. NOTHING on the earth can persuade me they were anything BUT neglected and that man deserves everything he gets and more.


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I havent forgotten! And I hoped you would come back. What can you tell us MJ? 

I couldnt go to the court to watch the proceedings as I have to work but, having not been there, I still feel very much in the dark. 

[/ QUOTE ]

What would you like to know?


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
As ever, MJ spouting she knows something, but not ACTUALLY telling us anything. 

Perhaps you could tell us whom you believe to be responsible for the condition of the horses found on the Grays' premisis? 

[/ QUOTE ]

What condition are you asking about?


----------



## BankEndRescue (9 May 2009)

the EVIDENCE you claimed to have to prove their innocence...not that difficult if you have it surely


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Seeing all your posts are about the Grays, I think that speaks for itself! TROLL

Do you really think the Grays were right in their treatment of those poor horses? and I think you would answer yes to that one as you just want to cause an argument on here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was there any evidence presented before the court that showed the Grays are guilty of what they have been accused of? If so then I must have missed it - so please enlighten me.

[ QUOTE ]
So when you was here before and other members wanted to know things that you were not able to answer as the judgement had not been made.....do you not remember what these questions were?  why not answer them now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire away.

[ QUOTE ]
The RSPCA will always have the publics support when it comes to such cruelty against animals. 

[/ QUOTE ]

SUCH cruelty? Please enlighten me of any FACTUAL evidence that was presented to the court that PROVES the Gray family are guilty of animal cruelty?


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
MyJack/Patty,you always claimed to have evidence to prove the Gray's innocence that you would show us when the trial was over, so how about offering it up now 

[/ QUOTE ]

What would you like to know? Many false accusations have been made about the Gray family.


----------



## BankEndRescue (9 May 2009)

Cut to the chase and tell us the whole story.  If not sod off and I for one will not be getting drawn into your games again


----------



## ginginandtonic (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

What would you like to know? Many false accusations have been made about the Gray family. 

[/ QUOTE ]

There are several questions there already, that you seem to be avoiding answering.

I don't understand your comment about there being no evidence.. the evidence were the dead and mistreated animals in their care, for which they have been found guilty of neglecting... if there were no evidence none of us would know anything about any of this.  Answer the questions if you're so adamant the family are innocent.  I suggest to you that you can't, or you would have by now.


----------



## jhoward (9 May 2009)

oh dear lord, MJ you never could answer a question before and it would appear you still cant.


----------



## Cliqmo (9 May 2009)

The issue here seems to be whether you believe 'neglect' is 'cruel'. It seems that Patty is refuting the Gray's are guilty of animal cruelty (possibly because he didn't physically beat them etc?) However most people on here (myself included)strongly believe that keeping horses confined in an area without enough food and water is cruel, irrelevant of whether he was doing it deliberately or it was neglect. 
It is interesting that the Crown Prosecution Service aren't prosecuting this case (hence the RSPCA are) as this indicates the defence info the CPS reviewed means they don't think the case is in the public interest, or that there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction. 
Does anyone know if Mr Gray is pleading not guilty to neglect aswell as animal cruelty? The legal distinctions between neglect and cruelty are huge, even if the people on here don't think so.


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Now a verdict has been passed I too would like to know what makes MyJack/Patty so very sure of the Grey's innocence. Please MJ/P enlighten us. True to your word, you have come back now please stop employing the smoke and mirrors and give us what you have as you promised you would.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am always true to my word. Words and statements made by any individual can be suck to their name for the rest of their life. 


[ QUOTE ]
If the Grey's weren't responsible - who  was?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a broad brush question.

Responsible for what?

[ QUOTE ]
Why did they fall down in that responsibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

They? 

How did Jamie Gray fall down in his responsibility?


[ QUOTE ]
WHo was responsible for removing the dead? Why did they fall down in that responsibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jamie Gray senior was responsible for removing the dead.

Between christmas and the 4th of January Jamie gray lost a number of animals, and a donkey which had been inspected by 3 vets, including that of Mr Bob baskerville on the 5th of January, and deemed as perfectly healthy, later died on the 6th of January. . RSPCA officer Miss Claire ryder was in Jamie Grays yard on the 21st of December 2007, and gave evidence in court, that the yard was perfect and she saw no dead animals. There was reports that there were dead animals and remains shrawn and scattered all over the place. Katie Robinson from Bob Baskervills practice was in at Spindles Farm exactly 2 weeks prior to the 4th of January, doing health checks on the animals, to which she later gave health certifificate for each animal. This evidence was was presented to the court.

[ QUOTE ]
If they Grey's aren't responsible, why have they 'taken the rap'?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Grays are not responsible of animal cruelty and there was not a shred of evidence presented to the court to say otherwise. They have not taken the rap for anything. The RSPCA only slapped the prosecution notice on the Gray family after they learnt Jamie Gray applied to the court to have his animals returned. Following this, the RSPCA offered TWICE to drop the prosecutions if Jamie Gray would sign the animals over to the RSPCA, to which he declined.

[ QUOTE ]
If the Grey's aren't responsible why have they been found guilty?


[/ QUOTE ]

If they Grays are guilty, why were they awarded their animals back on the 4th of April 2008?

The exact same evidence was presented to both Judges.

Why did the RSPCA not face charges for refusing to abide by Judge Sandeep Kainth ruling, to return the animals to Mr Gray 'forthwith'?


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to know what you have to say MyJack/Patty, I'm not allowed to say anything more than I saw the horses when they were first removed. NOTHING on the earth can persuade me they were anything BUT neglected and that man deserves everything he gets and more. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do enlighten me at what you saw when they were first removed?


----------



## EstherSupporter (9 May 2009)

Why did the Grays drag a horse by the neck behind a vehicle, which later died if they are not cruel people?


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
the EVIDENCE you claimed to have to prove their innocence...not that difficult if you have it surely 

[/ QUOTE ]

Where you in court?

If so please tell me which day and who's evidence you heard?


----------



## ginginandtonic (9 May 2009)

are you a politician?


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Cut to the chase and tell us the whole story.  If not sod off and I for one will not be getting drawn into your games again 

[/ QUOTE ]

I am telling the whole story as and when questions arise.


----------



## Paddywhack (9 May 2009)

Don't get dragged in ES !!! It is not worth it,MJ/Patty just can't accept that the scum bags were found guilty,grasping in thin air to wind people up AGAIN ...MJ/Patty was not in court anymore than i was, its all cr@p,it never knew anything and i can't believe that you all are getting dragged into its games again,ignore,don't feed and hopefully it will go away ....


----------



## Tabbi (9 May 2009)

lol I was thinking the same gingin_and_tonic!


----------



## ginginandtonic (9 May 2009)

Post deleted... you're correct (posts below me)... no point in feeding the trolls.  The grays have been found guilty, end of, who gives a toss what their supporters think.  Not me.


----------



## nuffield (9 May 2009)

Stop feeding the troll. They are getting off on the replies and knowing they have upset people.


----------



## Paddywhack (9 May 2009)

Yes you are so right and i have been trying to say it a few times now...the fact is that the scum bags were found guilty,no use to get into what, how or why they did what they did, its in the past and we can try to figure out their mentality until we are blue in our faces..we will never be able to since they are all low life, so lets put our energy were its needed.
Justice for the horses, ponies and donkeys were served yesterday with the most fantastic verdict,so lets put the lid on it and move on !


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 There are several questions there already, that you seem to be avoiding answering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not avoiding answering any questions - I'm trying to get through each and every post to be fair.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your comment about there being no evidence.. the evidence were the dead and mistreated animals in their care, for which they have been found guilty of neglecting...

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead yes.  Mistreated - not a shred of evidence was presented to the court showing Jamie Gray guilty of any such thing. Documentation, testimonies of RSPCA inspector Claire Ryder and others of the prosecution witnesses, and of the defense, told the court anything but Mistreatment/starvation/neglect, of those animals. Obiviousely those testimonies were not relied upon during the summing up.


[ QUOTE ]
if there were no evidence none of us would know anything about any of this.  Answer the questions if you're so adamant the family are innocent.  I suggest to you that you can't, or you would have by now. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets take an example of a poor horse which was removed from Jamie Grays farm.

Where is the evidence that Jamie Gray was responsible for causing the condition of that horse?

How long had that horse been in Jamie Grays care?

Where is the evidence that Jamie Gray was not trying to improve the condition of that horse?

The court heard every detail of every animal (dead or alive).
Oral testimonies and written documants were presented to the court. Along with health cerificates from Bob baskervilles practice.

Such evidence was given....

Age, 
Sex,
Colour,
It's prior location,
Date it went to Spindles Farm,
Medical history while in the care of Jamie Gray,
Any madication any of the animals were being given at the time they were removed. etc...


And of the deceased:

All of the above, plus:
Dates they died,
where they died,
When were they going to be removed.
When dead pet was going to be buried.


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
oh dear lord, MJ you never could answer a question before and it would appear you still cant. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please direct me to any questions I have not answered?

I am sorting my way through each post. Maybe the questions are not being answered as quick as you would like but I'm doing my best to reply to posts as quick as I can.


----------



## EstherSupporter (9 May 2009)

You have not answered this one

Why did the Grays drag a horse by the neck behind a vehicle, which later died ?

Is this not cruelty, mistreating an animal?


----------



## tania01 (9 May 2009)

You should know by now ES whoever it is will only answer the questions they want to answer,they keep saying all through this that they know so much but cant say,and still were all waiting to see what they know.

They were his horses, his farm, his responsibility and he has now been found guilty.


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
The issue here seems to be whether you believe 'neglect' is 'cruel'. It seems that Patty is refuting the Gray's are guilty of animal cruelty (possibly because he didn't physically beat them etc?) 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oral testimonies and documented evidence presented to the court, along with inconsistancies and contradictions among the prosecution witness statements and oral testimonies, showed Jamie Gray neither (willingly or unwillingly) neglected his animals, nor was cruel to them. Sadly, such strong FACTUAL evidence may as well have been unseen and unheard, as it's plainly obvious that such strong irrefutable factual evidence was overlooked.

[ QUOTE ]
However most people on here (myself included)strongly believe that keeping horses confined in an area without enough food and water is cruel, irrelevant of whether he was doing it deliberately or it was neglect.

[/ QUOTE ]

No animals were kept confined without enough food and water in any way, shape, or form.

[ QUOTE ]
It is interesting that the Crown Prosecution Service aren't prosecuting this case (hence the RSPCA are) as this indicates the defence info the CPS reviewed means they don't think the case is in the public interest, or that there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the CPS would have laughted the weak prosection evidence out on a pretrial hearing.

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know if Mr Gray is pleading not guilty to neglect aswell as animal cruelty? The legal distinctions between neglect and cruelty are huge, even if the people on here don't think so. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Gray pled not guilty to all he was accused of - and rightly so.

Yesturday the Judge told the court that he would not be relying on any veterinary evidence from the defence expert vets, neither would he be relying on the Gray's testimonies in court because they gave no-comment police interviews in January 2008. Whilst giving evidence each defendent explained to the court their reason for giving a no-comment interview at that time - that reason being, they were instructed to do so by a solicitor.


----------



## Paddywhack (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
You should know by now ES whoever it is will only answer the questions they want to answer,they keep saying all through this that they know so much but cant say,and still were all waiting to see what they know.

They were his horses, his farm, his responsibility and he has now been found guilty. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and who really gives a cr@p what Patty/MJ thinks ??? The defense LOST LOST LOST LOST and rightly so enough evidence proves that....some people just got to move on even though they are not walking away with the feather in their cap  because WE ARE


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Why did the Grays drag a horse by the neck behind a vehicle, which later died if they are not cruel people? 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you heard this allegation where exactly?

You most certainly did not hear it in court. The prosecution put no such allegation to Mr Gray nor any member of his family.

Thats the media hype for you.


----------



## legend (9 May 2009)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5315912.ece

Patty- why don't you start by disputing all the allegations contained within the above article?  Feel free to threaten the times with libel allegations, I'm sure they'll be terrified of you!


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
You should know by now ES whoever it is will only answer the questions they want to answer,they keep saying all through this that they know so much but cant say,and still were all waiting to see what they know.

They were his horses, his farm, his responsibility and he has now been found guilty. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Tania, if you bought a horse which was in poor condition and the RSPCA took that horse from you while you were trying to build him up.......would you believe the poor condition of that horse was caused by you?

What about if the RSPCA took perfectly healthy, vet checked, horses from you and accused you of starving them - would you just accept that accusation lying down?

What if your recently wormed horse which was eating and drinking well, suddenly died of a burden called cyathostomiasis, which wormers have little or no effect on, and can kill it's host within 12/24 hours without giving any signs that the animal has anything wrong with it at all? Would you tell yourself that you neglected and starved that animal?

Or what about if your horse suddenly died and the RSPCA made press releases telling the world that you starved your horse to death without a shred of evidence to support that accusation.... You see, the RSPCA gave live TV interviews outside of spindles Farm telling the world that Mr Gray had starved his animals to death - and they did so without a single lab test to support the allegations they were making..


----------



## the watcher (9 May 2009)

patty, go away.
You are delusional and nobody is listening.

Jamie Gray is no stranger to the Court process, this isn't the only case he has been involved in.


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5315912.ece

Patty- why don't you start by disputing all the allegations contained within the above article?  Feel free to threaten the times with libel allegations, I'm sure they'll be terrified of you! 

[/ QUOTE ]

It's media - what do you expect!? 

The Grays presented the court with photographs of the animals taken on the 9th of January 08.....

A member of the Gray family and RSPCA inspector Kirsty Hampton took the exact same photos standing side by side......funny how the RSPCA have only released photos of the dead animals and photos of the couple of horses that were actually poor.

Mr Gray, during cross examination, asked Mr Seabrook to produce the photographs of the so-called, 100+ emaciated animals. It couldnt be done.....However, copies of the photographs produced by the Grays were circulated around the court room - All parties of the defense and the prosecution were given a copy......So what stopped the RSPCA from releasing those to the press? It was the plain fact that those photographs totally contradict the picture the RSPCA have painted about the Gray family.


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty, go away.
You are delusional and nobody is listening.

Jamie Gray is no stranger to the Court process, this isn't the only case he has been involved in. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm far from delusional. 

Jamie Gray was tried in his absence and without a defense lawyer. He was cleared of all charges upon his appeal. 

If the public knew the truth about the RSPCA you'd be scared to death to own a goldfish.


----------



## RussianGirl (9 May 2009)

Double Post.


----------



## RussianGirl (9 May 2009)

I may not live in the UK, but I have followed the case and the court case via the interent and newspapers, and I have to say, I am absolutely disgusted.
Anyone that can deny the evidence from the photographs that were released, such as those from the farm, and those of animals who were rescued, needs to have their health assesed. Would you like a direct email address to my future sister in law, who works for the Horse Trust, and has worked with some of the rescued horses? Feel free, some of the things I have been told by her have made me physically sick.
Horses who were to weak to stand, could barely hold their own heads up, and would defecate in terror when people approached them? How do you explain these things away? Did the RSPCA starve these horses themselves to get the Grays sent to prison?
With carefull treatment - worming, dentistry, farriers - and nourishing food, as well as CARING, gentle handling, some of these animals have flourished, and are now confident and carefree animals that they should have been allowed to be.


----------



## legend (9 May 2009)

Did the dead horses look healthy in those photographs?

And what a well reasoned argument against the valid points raised in court and reported by the times...I AM CONVINCED....oh, no, wait...that's not true.  
You haven't actually addressed any of those points, just rambled on about some photographs.


----------



## Amymay (9 May 2009)

Patty, I'm sorry that you think that Mr Gray has been unfairly represented in the courts.  But comming on here and shouting about it is probably not going to help his case.  Not one person on here (other than those connected _to_ Mr Gray) think he's anything other than guilty of the things he was found guilty of.

Your efforts are going to be better served by helping his defence lawyers, rather than wasting your time on here.  And as he has the right to lodge an appeal, you will have plenty of opportunity to do so.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be in any doubt that many of these animals have suffered terribly.  However, as you give the impression of a personal connection - you presumably know better.

I'm really not sure that there is anything to be gained from debating this any further.


----------



## shirleyno2 (9 May 2009)

How many dead horses? How many malnourished horses? Goodness, isn't jamie gray an unlucky owner? Perhaps not.


----------



## Paddywhack (9 May 2009)

Well said !!!! Lid is now back on i think..enough is enough..We got to starve this troll to death now,it support that anyway so it should be no problem


----------



## nokia (9 May 2009)

Patty..you should be sectioned under the mental health act...what is going on in ur head to even try to defend this man.


----------



## Ladyfresha1 (9 May 2009)

So did anyone watch the XC at Badders?


----------



## JanetGeorge (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that the Crown Prosecution Service aren't prosecuting this case (hence the RSPCA are) as this indicates the defence info the CPS reviewed means they don't think the case is in the public interest, or that there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction. 


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it doesn't.  The RSPCA - along with the ILPH and other equine charities - were first on the scene.  They gathered the evidence - and the RSPCA led the prosecution.  This is pretty normal - the equine welfare organisations have experience and expertise in animal cruelty cases that the CPS doesn't have.

If the police had been first on the scene and had gathered the evidence, then almost certainly the CPS would have led the prosecution.

And - for the record - the legal definition of 'cruelty' is 'causing unnecessary suffering'.


----------



## horseygirl28 (9 May 2009)

Personally I do not agree with the verdict yesterday.

I have concluded that I do not believe that a dealer should be expected to provide the same degree of level of care for a horse that a private owner would provide who just owns the one horse. 

What I am trying to say is that dealers will have many horses in their yard at one time and of course they will care for the horses (give the horse their 5 freedoms) to the best of their ability and time they have each day. But it is unrealistic to expect a dealer to provide the one to one care a private horse owner with one horse can provide. For example a dealer with large numbers of horses (100) could not possibly have all their horses in their yard on immaculatley clean beds all the time etc.

Another point I would like to note is that the RSPCA never seem to have anything to say to farmers about their livestock. I have increasingly noticed cattle and sheep that look very thin, are chronically lame, have serious injuires. They are used for breeding calf after calf to maintain milking ability, have the calf taken away at days old. However nothing is ever said to farmers probably because no one cares about cattle or sheep as they are just meat/milk producers.
It seems to me that horses are almost 'sacrid' in this country.


----------



## dozzie (9 May 2009)

Sorry My Jack, been at Badminton today. 

Questions for you as you were at the court. 

How many horses were confiscated Jan 4th? 

How many altogether (over the few days) and on who's jurisdiction?

How many horses were truthfully found dead?

Who did the post mortems and what were the results?

Of those removed how many were shown to be emaciated? 

Of those described as emaciated, how long had he owned them? Did they produce evidence to show how long he had owned the  "emaciated" animals?

How many were in a satisfactory condition?

How many were lame? 

How many were PTS and on what grounds? Again, on whose jurisdiction?

Was JG allowed his own vet to be present when the RSPCA raided? Was a second opinion allowed before the horses were PTS?

What time did the RSPCA raid Spindles farm? If my memory serves me right it was 6 am? 

And am I right in thinking they had no hay at 6am or was it inadequate hay? 

And half filled troughs of water or no water? Where they had no water, were there containers that could have had water in the night before?

Did Jamie Gray's defence produce evidence that showed he had arranged disposal of the carcasses?


Sorry! Loads of questions! I have more but this will do for now! I have tried to ask questions that are factual. 

If you can answer please do! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 I cant be doing with all this cloak and dagger stuff! 
	
	
		
		
	


	









Dozzie


----------



## Amymay (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 But it is unrealistic to expect a dealer to provide the one to one care a private horse owner with one horse can provide. For example a dealer with large numbers of horses (100) could not possibly have all their horses in their yard on immaculatley clean beds all the time etc. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

Interesting theory - have you ever heard of the concept of businesses employing staff?  Thereby enabling the owner of the dealing business to ensure that they're horses needs were met adequately.......


----------



## horseygirl28 (9 May 2009)

Of course I acknowledge the fact of employing people. However most dealers do not have the horses in individual stables they are normally in barns. Their is no way a barn which has a large number of horses in can be kept as clean as a stable with one horse. When you get a load of youngstock in a space together within a couple of hours the bedding will be a mess. It would be unrealistic to clear out the bedding in a large barn every couple of hours.


----------



## Amymay (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I acknowledge the fact of employing people. However most dealers do not have the horses in individual stables they are normally in barns. Their is no way a barn which has a large number of horses in can be kept as clean as a stable with one horse. When you get a load of youngstock in a space together within a couple of hours the bedding will be a mess. It would be unrealistic to clear out the bedding in a large barn every couple of hours. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, thanks for point that out - I simply had no idea.

I can only imagine that your experience of dealers is somewhat different to mine.  As is the management of youngstock.


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get dragged in ES !!! It is not worth it,MJ/Patty just can't accept that the scum bags were found guilty,grasping in thin air to wind people up AGAIN ...MJ/Patty was not in court anymore than i was, its all cr@p,it never knew anything and i can't believe that you all are getting dragged into its games again,ignore,don't feed and hopefully it will go away .... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually PW, I was in court throughout. I heard every shred of evidence. And saw the prosecution witnesses torn to ribbons by the defense team.

The only thing that I cant grasp is the fact that even with the enormity of irrafutable documented expert veterinary evidence produced by the defense, and even some of the prosecution eye witnesses testimonies gave support to the defense, and the contradictions and inconsistancies in the prosecution case....that still the british authorities could pass a verdict it did yesturday.

Peter Green, the expert vet for the prosecution has never examined or even physically seen the animals taken from spindles farm -  What a joke!! 

However, John Parker went to all the different holding places and examined each and every animal personally and body scored them.


----------



## horseygirl28 (9 May 2009)

You do not need to be sarcastic with me. So you would happily clear out barns every couple of hours, i dont think so somehow. And clearly you and I have seen different dealers operating differently, everyone has their own ways of doing things depending on a time/money/space dependance.


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I may not live in the UK, but I have followed the case and the court case via the interent and newspapers, and I have to say, I am absolutely disgusted.
Anyone that can deny the evidence from the photographs that were released, such as those from the farm, and those of animals who were rescued, needs to have their health assesed. Would you like a direct email address to my future sister in law, who works for the Horse Trust, and has worked with some of the rescued horses? Feel free, some of the things I have been told by her have made me physically sick.
Horses who were to weak to stand, could barely hold their own heads up, and would defecate in terror when people approached them? How do you explain these things away? Did the RSPCA starve these horses themselves to get the Grays sent to prison?
With carefull treatment - worming, dentistry, farriers - and nourishing food, as well as CARING, gentle handling, some of these animals have flourished, and are now confident and carefree animals that they should have been allowed to be. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but I wouldnt trust a single word from anyone working at the horse trust if my life depended on it - Horse trust employee were torn to ribbons in court and shown to be lying.


Sorry, but I was in court and witnessed both sides of the case.


----------



## Delladoornob (9 May 2009)

Goodness, I have seen lots of horses barned and they are never kept in the conditions seen at Spindles farm. 

If you are suggesting that horses normally turn a base into pure excrement in a matter of hours, then I expect there are far too many horses in a small space with inadequate bedding.


----------



## dozzie (9 May 2009)

I have also seen horses kept in  herds in  barns in the winter. I am sure I read somewhere that horses like being in herds. It is us humans who like to keep them on their own in a stable or paddock.


----------



## Amymay (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
And clearly you and I have seen different dealers operating differently, everyone has their own ways of doing things depending on a time/money/space dependance.   

[/ QUOTE ] 

Anyone keeping any kind of stock has a responsibility to look after them to a basic standard.  That standard of care must at the very least ensure that they have adequate food, water, freedom of movement, adequate shelter, and a clean environment in which to live.

If you don't think that someone operating _any_ kind of business with more than one animal involved needs to meet that duty of care - then I'm afraid you are no better than the people who were found guilty of neglect and cruelty yesterday.

I can only assume that you have only ever been exposed to the sorts of people who are not prepared to meet these needs.  And have absolutely no knowledge of the types of business who do run their operations properly.  These include horse dealers, competition yards, studs, racing stables, riding stables.  As well as those keeping and farming livestock.  Some of these may have many, animals on their premises - all kept impeccably.

Your post makes very, very sad reading........


----------



## brighteyes (9 May 2009)

How many of the seized animals have died of their pre-exisitng conditions since they were taken into custody/care?  Of these, how many died suddenly and had their badly decomposed carcases left in situ for all to see, and how many animals have been promptly and humanely destroyed to end their suffering?

I'm guessing there have been a few which failed to respond to treatment and am quite prepared to believe some of these might well have died or gone terminally downhill in a very short space of time.  I am absolutely certain the carcases would have been promptly removed and any suffering horses just as promptly had their suffering alliviated or ended if necessary.

There is no need for inhumanity towards animals and as long as the welfare code is adhered to, there should never be scenarios as were witnessed at Spindles Farm. If you can't physically manage to do this, you don't have animals.  No excuses.  Sorry.


----------



## brighteyes (9 May 2009)

You beat me to it....


----------



## Amymay (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
You beat me to it.... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry  
	
	
		
		
	


	




  Was just a bit flabbergasted to be honest.


----------



## jhoward (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may not live in the UK, but I have followed the case and the court case via the interent and newspapers, and I have to say, I am absolutely disgusted.
Anyone that can deny the evidence from the photographs that were released, such as those from the farm, and those of animals who were rescued, needs to have their health assesed. Would you like a direct email address to my future sister in law, who works for the Horse Trust, and has worked with some of the rescued horses? Feel free, some of the things I have been told by her have made me physically sick.
Horses who were to weak to stand, could barely hold their own heads up, and would defecate in terror when people approached them? How do you explain these things away? Did the RSPCA starve these horses themselves to get the Grays sent to prison?
With carefull treatment - worming, dentistry, farriers - and nourishing food, as well as CARING, gentle handling, some of these animals have flourished, and are now confident and carefree animals that they should have been allowed to be. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but I wouldnt trust a single word from anyone working at the horse trust if my life depended on it - Horse trust employee were torn to ribbons in court and shown to be lying.


Sorry, but I was in court and witnessed both sides of the case. 

[/ QUOTE ]

now see that really pisses me off. 

myself and many others saw the horses and donkeys at the horse trust and there was no excuse for there conditon. 

MJ i see you refured to the grays dead horses as pets again. 
what a load of rubbish your either a trader or your not.. 

oh no the poor pony died.. i know lets drag it out the way by a car and cliam it to be a pet.. FFS get real woman.


----------



## snaptie (9 May 2009)

Yes but you'd think they would give them a bit of clean straw to collapse and die upon surely?


----------



## Ellies_mum2 (9 May 2009)

...that still the british authorities could pass a verdict it did yesturday.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't this a trial? Therefore it wasn't the 'authorities' that found them guilty but a jury of 12 British citizens

The same 12 citizens that have sat through the whole trial and heard the same evidence that you did patty but had a totally different idea of what cruelty is


----------



## JM07 (9 May 2009)

hiya myjack...

is my invitation for a visit still open??

can you email me??


----------



## Happy Horse (9 May 2009)

I don't care who Myjack or Patty is, it is clear from the video that the horses were kept in dreadful conditions.  There is no excuse for the state of the animals, their surroundings or the fact that rotting carcasses were found.  I hope they have the book thrown at them and that they are never allowed to be responsible for another animal ever again.  The trial has been conducted in the presence of a jury who have heard all of the evidence presented and their verdict stands.


----------



## horseygal90 (9 May 2009)

This topic reads so much better with Patty on ignore as many have suggested, it's like getting rid of tinitus!


----------



## BankEndRescue (9 May 2009)

MyJack and yes it is her is only using this forum to let vent to her own anger and feelings of impotence. By replying you are fuelling her, IGNORE her and she'll go away


----------



## Quadro (9 May 2009)

what a load of nonsense about dealers !!! i occasionally have a few horses for sale (albeit on a very small scale!!) and i care for every one as my own because they are !! they are cared for to the best of my ability as who is going to buy my horses unless they are in prime condition??? i work as well as looking after my horses but still have time to keep there beds immaculate if i could not they i would not have the horses!! horses are not "sacred" (insidently horseygirl 98 you spelt that incorrectly 
	
	
		
		
	


	




) they are just treated with respect. We are a devolved western country with the knowledge and education to keep our animals in the best possible condition as we can which i believe we should, anyone who does not provide this for there animals should face prosicution and IMO JG did not and i applore any one who can support him due to the wealth of evidence against him.
just my thoughts


----------



## Amymay (9 May 2009)

Horseygirl28 - reading back on some of your posts I can't help but wonder if you are actually a dealer yourself?  And perhaps as with Mr Gray - struggle with numbers and care?  It would certainly be an explanation to your attitude....


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Did the dead horses look healthy in those photographs?

And what a well reasoned argument against the valid points raised in court and reported by the times...I AM CONVINCED....oh, no, wait...that's not true.  
You haven't actually addressed any of those points, just rambled on about some photographs. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You are joking??

What dead  _anything_  looks  _healthy?_ 

What points are you banging on about?


----------



## Quadro (9 May 2009)

patty- when one is asked a question it is common courtesy to give a direct answer rather than make "smart a***" comments to skirts around them 
	
	
		
		
	


	




just some tips to help you in your way through life


----------



## claire2 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seeing all your posts are about the Grays, I think that speaks for itself! TROLL

Do you really think the Grays were right in their treatment of those poor horses? and I think you would answer yes to that one as you just want to cause an argument on here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was there any evidence presented before the court that showed the Grays are guilty of what they have been accused of? If so then I must have missed it - so please enlighten me.

[ QUOTE ]
So when you was here before and other members wanted to know things that you were not able to answer as the judgement had not been made.....do you not remember what these questions were?  why not answer them now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire away.

[ QUOTE ]
The RSPCA will always have the publics support when it comes to such cruelty against animals. 

[/ QUOTE ]

SUCH cruelty? Please enlighten me of any FACTUAL evidence that was presented to the court that PROVES the Gray family are guilty of animal cruelty? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I totaly agree with patty u lot dont have a clue what ur on about 
?


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty, I'm sorry that you think that Mr Gray has been unfairly represented in the courts.  But comming on here and shouting about it is probably not going to help his case.  Not one person on here (other than those connected _to_ Mr Gray) think he's anything other than guilty of the things he was found guilty of.

Your efforts are going to be better served by helping his defence lawyers, rather than wasting your time on here.  And as he has the right to lodge an appeal, you will have plenty of opportunity to do so.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be in any doubt that many of these animals have suffered terribly.  However, as you give the impression of a personal connection - you presumably know better.

I'm really not sure that there is anything to be gained from debating this any further. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I was shouted down for not answering questions the last time I was here. The reason for not answering those questions was because the case was still live. I promised many people that I would come back and answer those questions - many of you said I'd run with my tail between my legs if Mr Gray was found guilty. I have kept my promise and have returned after having spent months sitting at the back of Bicester magistrates court listening to every shred of evidence and seeing witness testimonies torn apart at the seams. But hey, having stuck to my promise and returning, it seems most would prefer that I had broken it.

Which of those animals do you believe to have suffered? And in which way?


----------



## ru-fi-do (9 May 2009)

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/282145.html
.............................................................................................. Think the video footage does all the talking, without the RSPCA having to open their mouths, no excuses for any animal dead or alive to be left to rot. END OF!

If Mr Gray is innocent perhaps he could do an interview to explain some of his actions........ thats of course if the video footage isn't clear enough.


----------



## JM07 (9 May 2009)

Are you ignoring me now, myjack?


----------



## claire2 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes you are so right and i have been trying to say it a few times now...the fact is that the scum bags were found guilty,no use to get into what, how or why they did what they did, its in the past and we can try to figure out their mentality until we are blue in our faces..we will never be able to since they are all low life, so lets put our energy were its needed.
Justice for the horses, ponies and donkeys were served yesterday with the most fantastic verdict,so lets put the lid on it and move on ! 

[/ QUOTE ]

The only low life is u mate ur the one sitting on h/h 24/7 u all rearly need to get a life


----------



## Quadro (9 May 2009)

if you have been sitting in the court everyday i can therefore conclude you do not have a job???? there fore not contributing to society 
	
	
		
		
	


	



?????


----------



## tania01 (9 May 2009)

JM07 do you really expect an answer you of all people should know you wont get an answer sweet x


----------



## R.A.H (9 May 2009)

Is myjack/patty a friend or relation to Jamie Gray?


----------



## Natch (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry My Jack, been at Badminton today. 

Questions for you as you were at the court. 

How many horses were confiscated Jan 4th? 

How many altogether (over the few days) and on who's jurisdiction?

How many horses were truthfully found dead?

Who did the post mortems and what were the results?

Of those removed how many were shown to be emaciated? 

Of those described as emaciated, how long had he owned them? Did they produce evidence to show how long he had owned the  "emaciated" animals?

How many were in a satisfactory condition?

How many were lame? 

How many were PTS and on what grounds? Again, on whose jurisdiction?

Was JG allowed his own vet to be present when the RSPCA raided? Was a second opinion allowed before the horses were PTS?

What time did the RSPCA raid Spindles farm? If my memory serves me right it was 6 am? 

And am I right in thinking they had no hay at 6am or was it inadequate hay? 

And half filled troughs of water or no water? Where they had no water, were there containers that could have had water in the night before?

Did Jamie Gray's defence produce evidence that showed he had arranged disposal of the carcasses?


Sorry! Loads of questions! I have more but this will do for now! I have tried to ask questions that are factual. 

If you can answer please do! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 I cant be doing with all this cloak and dagger stuff! 
	
	
		
		
	


	









Dozzie 

[/ QUOTE ]

I will charitably assume that Myjack has missed this post and will now get around to answering each point in it as they promised they would.

I would also like to ask Myjack who they are, and what relation are they/ how do they know James Grey.

Thank you.


----------



## BankEndRescue (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes you are so right and i have been trying to say it a few times now...the fact is that the scum bags were found guilty,no use to get into what, how or why they did what they did, its in the past and we can try to figure out their mentality until we are blue in our faces..we will never be able to since they are all low life, so lets put our energy were its needed.
Justice for the horses, ponies and donkeys were served yesterday with the most fantastic verdict,so lets put the lid on it and move on ! 

[/ QUOTE ]

The only low life is u mate ur the one sitting on h/h 24/7 u all rearly need to get a life  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Well what do you know, another troll rears it's ugly head.

JM you know that you won't get a reasoned response


----------



## patty19 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty- when one is asked a question it is common courtesy to give a direct answer rather than make "smart a***" comments to skirts around them 
	
	
		
		
	


	




just some tips to help you in your way through life 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do not skirt around when asking a question - if you want to ask a question then just go right ahead and ask. 

Please understand one thing......I need no tips to help me through life when those tips come from people who hang on to every word the media tells them. To take tips from any such person/s would not help me through life, in any way, shape or form.

I dont for a moment think you are dumb and dont wish to offend you.....but I do believe you and others need to take a breather from all the media hype and to stop hanging onto every word the RSPCA tell you as though it is the gospel truth. Please do some logical thinking which will probably lead you to ask questions of your own.


----------



## JM07 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
JM07 do you really expect an answer you of all people should know you wont get an answer sweet x 

[/ QUOTE ]


i am EXPECTING an answer, Tania.

myjack and i have history.....


----------



## JM07 (9 May 2009)

i would like to think so BER...

i've had several "reasoned" conversations with Myjack...


----------



## BankEndRescue (9 May 2009)

So did I lat year JM but she is not showing inclination to do so now unfortunately.............


----------



## tania01 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
JM07 do you really expect an answer you of all people should know you wont get an answer sweet x 

[/ QUOTE ]


i am EXPECTING an answer, Tania.

myjack and i have history..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why have you upset her then?


----------



## JM07 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
JM07 do you really expect an answer you of all people should know you wont get an answer sweet x 

[/ QUOTE ]


i am EXPECTING an answer, Tania.

myjack and i have history..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why have you upset her then? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Dear....have I???


----------



## Quadro (9 May 2009)

patty my dear, i most certainly do not believe everything the media tells me , i am more than capable of making up my mind i have seen photographic eveidence which in my mind is real and that is all i need , unless you are trying to tell me that these horses where dumped in this condition on the unfortunate mr gray??? and he in his good heartedness did all in his godly power to do his best for them to change there fortune???
i beg to differ
and if you are so good at answering questions please do me the favour of telling me who you are ???? 
i am more than willing to return the favour 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 ill even invite you round to debate this further


----------



## tania01 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
JM07 do you really expect an answer you of all people should know you wont get an answer sweet x 

[/ QUOTE ]


i am EXPECTING an answer, Tania.

myjack and i have history..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why have you upset her then? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Dear....have I??? 

[/ QUOTE ]

PMSL i dont know have u?  as i said  you wont get an answer.


----------



## Natch (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I dont for a moment think you are dumb and dont wish to offend you.....but I do believe you and others need to take a breather from all the media hype and to stop hanging onto every word the RSPCA tell you as though it is the gospel truth. Please do some logical thinking which will probably lead you to ask questions of your own. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I took a breather and did some logical thinking. And now would like to know what your justification is for the photographic and video evidence of rotting corpses? Do you claim they were not james grey's responsibility.

I am also patiently awaiting a reply to the quoted post above. In your own time.


----------



## Quadro (9 May 2009)

naturally - when patty tells us who he/she really is you can come round for coffee as well so we can listen to them explaining all to us 
or tea or hot choc 
	
	
		
		
	


	




!!


----------



## tania01 (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont for a moment think you are dumb and dont wish to offend you.....but I do believe you and others need to take a breather from all the media hype and to stop hanging onto every word the RSPCA tell you as though it is the gospel truth. Please do some logical thinking which will probably lead you to ask questions of your own. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I took a breather and did some logical thinking. And now would like to know what your justification is for the photographic and video evidence of rotting corpses? Do you claim they were not james grey's responsibility.

I am also patiently awaiting a reply to the quoted post above. In your own time.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of people have asked the same question of who is responsible for the horses but still noone has been  answered


----------



## R.A.H (9 May 2009)

Does myjack/patty not feel anything for the way these horses suffered? Surely anyone with a heart could see that it was cruelty &amp; neglect.


----------



## Janetterose (9 May 2009)

I am happy to put an end to this thread by saying that yes I think they are trolls


----------



## muddy boots (9 May 2009)

Trolls of course.


----------



## Janetterose (9 May 2009)

and they have very fat contented tummies!!!!


----------



## Natch (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
naturally - when patty tells us who he/she really is you can come round for coffee as well so we can listen to them explaining all to us 
or tea or hot choc 
	
	
		
		
	


	




!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.. how about a glass of wine?

TBH I don't think I could put up with MJ's constant dodging of straight forward questions face to face.


----------



## snaptie (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I am happy to put an end to this thread by saying that yes I think they are trolls 

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And I must say the 'ignore' function is rather good. I like to imagine all the desperate rantings that may be going on. Such a shame I'll never see them. Ho hum.


----------



## jacks_mum (9 May 2009)

The one thing I am curious about but obviously didn't word correctly in my initial list of questions is that MJ/Patty seems to be clear in their own mind that the Greys were not the people responsible for looking after these animals - so perhaps MJ/Patty can tell us who was responsible for looking after these animals.

Is that a clear enough question? Or will MJ/Patty find a politicians way of answering it?


----------



## dozzie (9 May 2009)

IMO MJ/Patty is not a troll. She sat through the court case and heard the evidence. I, for one, would like to hear what was said. 

Another question MJ! Was there a jury? Lets just clarify this!


----------



## the watcher (9 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
IMO MJ/Patty is not a troll. She sat through the court case and heard the evidence. I, for one, would like to hear what was said. 

Another question MJ! Was there a jury? Lets just clarify this! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

No jury in this case, although it was heard by a judge, but in a magistrates court.


----------



## horseygirl28 (9 May 2009)

AmyMay it has nothing to do with you what I do and you should certainly should not be insinuating anything. You know nothing about me.


----------



## dozzie (9 May 2009)

If you bought a horse at an auction yesterday and it was emaciated today would you be responsible? 

If you gave your horse hay last night and it had eaten it by 6am in the morning would you have been cruel?

If your horse had poohed in its bucket of water overnight have you been cruel? 

If on Christmas day your horse died and you were unable to get someone to collect the carcass till the day after boxing day would you have been cruel? 

I called a gamekeeper to shoot a deer that had been hit by a car and broken its legs. He didnt take it away and bury it. We left it to rot in the ditch by the road. Was that cruel? Or was it realistic?

I want to know both sides. I want to know the whole story.  Then I can make up my own mind.


----------



## JanetGeorge (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
If you bought a horse at an auction yesterday and it was emaciated today would you be responsible? 

If you gave your horse hay last night and it had eaten it by 6am in the morning would you have been cruel?

If your horse had poohed in its bucket of water overnight have you been cruel? 

If on Christmas day your horse died and you were unable to get someone to collect the carcass till the day after boxing day would you have been cruel? 

I called a gamekeeper to shoot a deer that had been hit by a car and broken its legs. He didnt take it away and bury it. We left it to rot in the ditch by the road. Was that cruel? Or was it realistic?



[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to your first 4 questions is: "no, of course not."

To the last question - not cruel, rather the opposite - but perhaps also environmentally unfriendly unless you rang the council the next day to tell them it was there so they could remove it before it was a rotting mess of maggots that would potentially contaminate a water course.

But of course none of these scenarios fit the Gray case.  Carcases in advanced decay, skulls and skeletons don't happen in a day or two.  And all those horses didn't arrive overnight - or get into that condition overnight.

Anyone who has horses - particularly if they have a lot of horses - will at SOME stage have a horse that - on first sight - looks like it might be a welfare case.  I have one filly here (out of 60 odd) who was very thin for several months, now thankfully improving.  But should the RSPCA show up on my door I could refer them to my vet, who has seen the filly five times, examined her thoroughly, done her teeth (which weren't 'bad') and run a raft of diagnostic tests on her - all of which were inconclusive but suggest possibly a virus JUST at the time she was having a growth spurt.

I could also point to the generous quantities of good quality haylage in front of her all the time, and the condition of the two other fillies with her.  The RSPCA would go away KNOWING the filly was not neglected and that they had NO case for a prosecution (even though some of them would LOVE to prosecute me because of my hunting connections!)

But although we may not know every salient fact in the Gray case, large numbers of emaciated horses, living in sh*t and treading over dead bodies is MORE than enough evidence.  And the convictions - by a judge (not a jury of possible bunny-huggers) provide further proof (if more is needed) of large scale neglect and cruelty!


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
How many dead horses? How many malnourished horses? Goodness, isn't jamie gray an unlucky owner? Perhaps not. 

[/ QUOTE ]

How many malnourished horses have been shown in the press?

How long had Mr Gray owned them?


He would most certainly be off his trolly if he purchased fit and healthy horses just to starve them to death. 

Think logical and ask yourself how he could possibly gain financially and run a bussiness if he starved and neglected  the very animals that earned his living.

Dead horses dont sell - Live ones do. It would not be in his interest as a horse trader to starve and/or neglect them.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 Well said !!!! Lid is now back on i think..enough is enough..We got to starve this troll to death now,it support that anyway so it should be no problem 

[/ QUOTE ]

PW, back last year you said that you know of many good horse traders and that Jamie Gray gives them a bad name. So answer a question for me seeing that you seem to think you know alot about the horse trade....


Would it be in a horse traders best interest buy healthy horses and then starve them to death, and near to death?


Any straight thinking person would not need to know anything about the horse trade to know that purchasing healthy animals and starving them to death would not be in the best interest  of the trader. It's common sense for goodness sake.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty..you should be sectioned under the mental health act...what is going on in ur head to even try to defend this man. 

[/ QUOTE ]


Show me a single shred of evidence that proves Mr Gray is guilty of starving his animals to death?


----------



## Paddywhack (10 May 2009)

Oh crikey can't believe that this thread is still going on and a few more trolls have appeared.....MJ/Patty is on ignore but can only guess.why do you guys keep asking questions it doesn't know anyway ? have any questions been answered yet in this thread now ?  
Don't feed IT and it will go away MJ/Patty got no problems with living creatures being starved to death anyway so there will be no hard feelings...! MJ/Patty and a few other trolls are as low life as them so why go down on their level..
Kids are finally back to sleep so nite nite zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry My Jack, been at Badminton today. 

Questions for you as you were at the court. 

How many horses were confiscated Jan 4th? 

[/ QUOTE ]

14

[ QUOTE ]
How many altogether (over the few days) and on who's jurisdiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

If my memory serves me right it was 125. 

Vet Nicolas De Brauwere and the RSPCA that scratch eachothers backs. 

[ QUOTE ]
How many horses were truthfully found dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was either 21 or 23 but to be totally honest I cant be sure as I got a little confused with the KH, RS, and C, numbers which were used to identify individual animals.

[ QUOTE ]
Who did the post mortems and what were the results?

[/ QUOTE ]

RSPCA sidekick and it was done on the back of a knacker lorry but was not done thoroughly. Back last year, just a day or 2 after the animals were removed Mr gray informed the RSPCA that he wanted to have post mortems carried out on the dead animals but he was told that they had been destroyed - then HEY PRESTO, the RSPCA come up with some post mortem results that apparently said the animals died of starvation. However, this claim was refuted in court by two experts, and concering the post mortem document, Mr John Parker bought it to the attention of the court that it had been edited by a differen hand.


[ QUOTE ]
Of those removed how many were shown to be emaciated? 

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the RSPCA's first load of hog wash - all of them. However, they changed their tune a number of times and came up with all different numbers at different times. When Mr Gray asked Mr Seabrook to show him photos of all the so-called 100+ emaciated horses, ponys and donkeys, Mr Seabrook ignored the question and moved on because he couldnt produce them because they didnt exist.

[ QUOTE ]
Of those described as emaciated, how long had he owned them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apart from some of the pets he didnt own any of them for very long. A large number of them was purchased in november  and December 2007. Some of the donkeys and shetlands were born on the farm and a handful of the larger animals had been with him longer.

[ QUOTE ]
Did they produce evidence to show how long he had owned the  "emaciated" animals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apart from some of the pets which he had owned for many years, he produced evidence for each and every animal. including that of the deceased animals too (accept for his buried pets). Dates he purchased them - where He purchased them from and the people he purchased them from. 

[ QUOTE ]
How many were in a satisfactory condition?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the RSPCA - none. But again, in court when questions were being fired at them, they had no choice but to say some of the horses were in good condition and fairly good condition. Then when asked for their reasons for removing that particular animal from spindles farm, they said they believed it would be at risk if they left it there. The witnesses for the prosecution constantly contradicted each other and their own hand written notes made at the time of the raid, and witness statements made just after the raid.

On the 4 of January 08 14 animals were removed from the farm, and I believe another 1 or 2 were removed on one of the following days leading up to the 9th (I cant be 100% sure of that though). All the animals which were removed at that point were said to have been 'at risk' but all the other animals were said to be fine. Between the 4th and the 9th Kirsty Hampton and others went back to the farm to check any instructions that they had given on the previous day were being done, ie, clean out the deep litter bedding in the barns. There was nothing wrong with the bedding which is practised by farmers all over the country and deemed as good farming practice. But Mr Gray had arranged for it to be done as she had asked, and it was being done on the morning of the 9th by a man Mr Gray had used for many years. However, Kirsty Hampton had a stop put to it when she arrived at the farm.

Being that a vet had already said the remaining animals were perfectly ok, the RSPCA couldn't exactly tell the court that they went back to Spindles farm on the 9th to remove those remaining animals. However, under cross examination many of the prosecution witnesses told the court that their reason for returning to the farm was to remove the remaining animals. On that morning the RSPCA was met by a member of the Gray family and another lady at the enterance of the yard of Spindles farm. Kirsty Hampton made it no secret to that family member that they were there to remove the rest of the animals. But this was denied by herself in the court. However, her peers did her no favors when giving their evidence. A secret meeting was held and they discussed the operation they were about to carry out. Kirsty Hampton denied that they had spoken about it. However,  when some of her peers were asked the reason for the meeting, they openly told the court that they disscussed the raid and removing the remaining animals.

Prior to the 9th Kirsty Hampton had arranged a meeting with Mrs Gray at spindles farm for that very day, but phoned and cancled the meeting saying she couldnt make it. Funny that, considering she appeared at the gates of the yard not long after that phone call.

Now, if the RSPCA went to Spindles Farm for any other reason than to remove the remaining animals, why on earth did they arrange for horse boxes and helpers from over the country to be there? 

The court was told that within 10 minutes of their arrival the animals were being sprayed with numbers ready for removal. And a vet was not even present at that point - he arrived at the yard just after. Some of the animals were not even checked by the vet before they were loaded. Those animals were given clean bills of health just days before by vets and nothing had changed since then. When the defense asked why the vet supported the removing of healthy animals he didnt know what to say - it was one of the vets that said the remaining animals were just fine. Nothing had changed since  then and the horses were not re-examined  anymore to even justify him supporting the removal of heathly animals. The RSPCA entered the farm that day and removed all remaining animals without a shred of veterinary advice to justify their actions. 


[ QUOTE ]
How many were lame? 

[/ QUOTE ]


1. And Mr Gray had only just purchased it. He called his farrier and put it on bute until the farrier could get out to him.

[ QUOTE ]
How many were PTS and on what grounds? Again, on whose jurisdiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was 4 but it could have possibly only been 3.

Grounds: Apparently they were too weak for transit. However, they didnt care about taking a heavily pregnent Jenny in transit... That donkey gave bith the very next day.


Vet.



[ QUOTE ]
Was JG allowed his own vet to be present when the RSPCA raided?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Bob Baskerville was his vet and Mr Gray called him up to the yard when the RSPCA turned up. At that point Bob Baskerville supported Mr Gray and was angey about the whole this. But like many other cases, they somehow swung him their way with days.


[ QUOTE ]
Was a second opinion allowed before the horses were PTS?

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard nothing in court about a second opinion being offered to Mr Gray.

[ QUOTE ]
What time did the RSPCA raid Spindles farm? If my memory serves me right it was 6 am? 

[/ QUOTE ]

2.30pm on the 4th and 10.30am on the 9th. There was no 6am raid. However, it came out in court that there was food and clean water at the time the RSPCA raided.

[ QUOTE ]
And am I right in thinking they had no hay at 6am or was it inadequate hay? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, there was no 6am raid.

[ QUOTE ]
And half filled troughs of water or no water?
Where they had no water, were there containers that could have had water in the night before?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the defense evidence, and evidence given by some of the prosecution witnesses, the animals had clean drinking water at the time of the raid.

[ QUOTE ]
Did Jamie Gray's defence produce evidence that showed he had arranged disposal of the carcasses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only orally.


[ QUOTE ]
Sorry! Loads of questions!

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem what so ever....

[ QUOTE ]
I have more but this will do for now!

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem - Fire away!!

[ QUOTE ]
I have tried to ask questions that are factual. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You ask very good and valid questions.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can answer please do! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 I cant be doing with all this cloak and dagger stuff! 
	
	
		
		
	


	









Dozzie 

[/ QUOTE ]

Im happy to answer any questions. I told the forum I would return after the case and answer their questions that I couldnt answer back last year.


----------



## dozzie (10 May 2009)

Thanks Patty. 
	
	
		
		
	


	







I wonder why Bob Baskerville changed his mind. I guess we wont ever know.


----------



## EstherSupporter (10 May 2009)

Looks like the whole Gray family has logged on now......I can only think that anyone who would stick up for the Grays are either them themselves or people who keep animals in the same condiions and see nothing wrong with it!!


----------



## Onyxia (10 May 2009)

(QR)
I really do think MJ is talking shite.
IF she/he had evidence that could clear the Grays it would have been sensable to provide it at the trial,not hint at it on a forum 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Whatever the intrest in the Grays MJ,spit out whatever you think you know or shut up about it.


----------



## Paddywhack (10 May 2009)

They are all full of it and all info can be found online so you don't need to have been at the trial to find it ...And NOWHERE does it state that Bob Baskerville was J.G's vet, opposite as a matter of fact,personally I would have my vet testifying for ME not the other side..
I have left messages for Katie and Peter Fennelly on their mobiles,so i am hoping that I will hear the truth from the horses mouth.
Bob is retired after his accident with the youngster last year, so i don't want to bother him.
If it was any truth in it Katie would have told me when she treated my horse last year.Or i will ring the girls in the reception in the morning !
I have been a client with them since 1992 so they will tell me


----------



## the watcher (10 May 2009)

paddywack - they might tell you but it would still be entirely wrong to reproduce that information here if it is not from a properly sanctioned source - after all there may yet be an appeal.

I don't go for all the rubbish spouted by patty. Some might have some truth buried deep within it but I have other questions.

If, has been suggested, these animals were already in a very poor state before JG purchased them, why on earth did he buy them? Is he claiming to be a poor businessman and complete numpty at judging horseflesh rather than cruel and neglectful?

Why have further emaciated animals been removed from him in the months since the original raid (which are now recovering BTW) - does he keep buying skinny, nearly dead ponies?

Why did he have so many animals in such poor condition?A responsible person would have cut down their stock to a level where they could manage it properly, not just keep buying more and more and more until they are overcrowded and living in squalor.


----------



## Quadro (10 May 2009)

if patty and family put as much effort into looking after there horses as they do posting on here this could all be avoided


----------



## Paddywhack (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 if patty and family put as much effort into looking after there horses as they do posting on here this could all be avoided 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Good point


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


now see that really pisses me off. 

myself and many others saw the horses and donkeys at the horse trust and there was no excuse for there conditon. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are the photos of all the horses and donkeys that were in such bad condition? The prosecution couldnt come up with any such photos and neither can you. A member of the Gray family walked around with RSPCA Kirsty Hampton and stood side by side and took the exact same photos of all the animals that Kirsty Hampton took...however, the RSPCA only produced photos to the court of the fallen stock - but The Grays provided every single party of the prosecution team and the defence team with a supersized copy of ALL the photoes that were taken that day.

The defence also provided the court with supersized photos of a 4 year old Jamie Gray Junior and one of the girls with one of the animals that was siezed by the RSPCA in Jan 08. They had owned that particular animal for 16 years. Another supersized photo was provided to the court of the younger members of the Gray family and grandchildren interacting with another of the pets that they had owned for years and which was also removed by the RSPCA.

[ QUOTE ]
MJ i see you refured to the grays dead horses as pets again. What a load of rubbish your either a trader or your not.. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all were pets and I have never claimed they were. But what are you saying - That traders cant have pets? 

Please define YOUR idea of a trader?


[ QUOTE ]
oh no the poor pony died.. i know lets drag it out the way by a car and cliam it to be a pet.. FFS get real woman. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide a single shred of evidence that supports what you have just said?

Not even the prosecution put any such claim to any of the defence. And no so-called witness of such treatment was called either.

Many claim they dont believe everything the media tells them, yet they believe such rubish without a shred of evidence.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Goodness, I have seen lots of horses barned and they are never kept in the conditions seen at Spindles farm.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were you I wouldnt be saying such thing on an open forum -  The RSPCA could have a wail of a time with you. You dont have to be guilty of any crime. 


[ QUOTE ]
If you are suggesting that horses normally turn a base into pure excrement in a matter of hours, then I expect there are far too many horses in a small space with inadequate bedding. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have suggested no such thing.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't this a trial? Therefore it wasn't the 'authorities' that found them guilty but a jury of 12 British citizens

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction: It wasnt a jury but a single judge at Bicester Magistrates court.

[ QUOTE ]
The same 12 citizens that have sat through the whole trial and heard the same evidence that you did patty but had a totally different idea of what cruelty is 

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it was a single Judge at Bicester.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
hiya myjack...

is my invitation for a visit still open??

can you email me??








[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya, I will find out and let you know.

I wont bother emailing you though. Anything I have to say will be said out in the open on this forum. But thanks for the invitation anyway.

Hope you are keeping well.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Are you ignoring me now, myjack? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Hello again JM07 - I'm certainly not ignoring you but simply trying to get through the mountain of posts.

Take care.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
if you have been sitting in the court everyday i can therefore conclude you do not have a job???? there fore not contributing to society 
	
	
		
		
	


	



????? 

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct in your conclusion that I dont have a job. However, I am a wife and a mother, and my husband is very successful in his line of business.


----------



## M_G (10 May 2009)

I dont trust the RSPCA one little bit... But some of the carcases that are on the video are more than a week old.

Why did he not drag all the dead out into one area to await collection by the knacker?

Why were there 2 or 3 carcases left in with the living horses?

Why was the bedding in the video in such a disgusting state (I have seen deep litter with cattle sheep and horses (barn kept) and its pretty much clean)

I cant get my head around it you are right that its not good business practice to starve horses I dont understand it!!!


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Is myjack/patty a friend or relation to Jamie Gray? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the past 16months I have had my eyes opened and have been fortunate enough to speak to some members of the Gray family.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


I will charitably assume that Myjack has missed this post and will now get around to answering each point in it as they promised they would.

I would also like to ask Myjack who they are, and what relation are they/ how do they know James Grey.

Thank you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry it took so long to answer that post but I honestly didnt see it and only came to it after working my way through the posts. However, I have answered it now.

To answer your question - see my previous post.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Quadro (10 May 2009)

what in neglecting and starving innocent horses and ponies??? yes you are correct he is most successful at this


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty my dear, i most certainly do not believe everything the media tells me , i am more than capable of making up my mind i have seen photographic eveidence which in my mind is real and that is all i need , unless you are trying to tell me that these horses where dumped in this condition on the unfortunate mr gray??? 

[/ QUOTE ]

They most certainly was NOT dumped on Mr Gray.

However, the court heard the evidence of each animal and when they died. Sure there is photos of dead animals but the story the media have published behind those photos is as far from the truth as it could possibly get.


[ QUOTE ]
and he in his good heartedness did all in his godly power to do his best for them to change there fortune???
i beg to differ

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see you are being sarcastic to me, so maybe you can tell me what Mr Gray, a TRADER, could possibly gain if he had purchased fit weighty animals, took them back to his yard, and starved them to death? 

Please do enlighten me because it never entered my mind that a trader gained finanically by purchasing healthy animals then leaving them to die of starvation.


[ QUOTE ]
and if you are so good at answering questions please do me the favour of telling me who you are ???? 

[/ QUOTE ]

See 1 of my previous posts (3 or 4 before this one)


[ QUOTE ]
i am more than willing to return the favour 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 ill even invite you round to debate this further 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.


----------



## Quadro (10 May 2009)

i would never dream of being sarcastic- simply ironic, sarcasm with out any nasty intent 
	
	
		
		
	


	




insidently do any of your replies consist of any thing other that the media lying and the rspca lying as these excuses are now rather tedious 
best wishes
x


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I took a breather and did some logical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind telling me what you came up with?

[ QUOTE ]
And now would like to know what your justification is for the photographic and video evidence of rotting corpses? Do you claim they were not james grey's responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two animals went down that morning. A Gray pony and the pony near the water trough.. The pony near the water trough was PTS.

Some of the other animals were pets that had been buried. Others were to be collected by the knacker man. Another shetland which was a pet and was going to be buried. Mr Grays machine broke down and he had gone to get a part for it when the RSPCA arrived. He reveived a phone call telling him that the RSPCA was at the farm so he turned around and went back.

Mr Gray used the same knacker man as the RSPCA in that area.

2 weeks prior to the RSPCA arriving at the farm, an RSPCA inspector named Claire Ryder stopped by the farm on her way back to her parents home for the christmas holiday. She and Mrs Gray had a general conversation in which she commented on Mrs Grays coat. In her evidence she said all was well at the farm and she saw no dead animals. She also contradicted the RSPCA and media reports about the food, water and bedding situations on the 9th.

On the 21st of December vet Katie Robinson from Bob Baskervilles practice, was in the yard examining animals at Mr Grays request. She used pen 3 to examine each animal. then she issued health certificates for all those animals. She neither saw dead animals.

Mr Gray lost alot of his stock in 2 weeks.


[ QUOTE ]
I am also patiently awaiting a reply to the quoted post above. In your own time.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be speaking of a post I have not long just replied to. If I am wrong please bring the post to my attention.

Thank you.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Alot of people have asked the same question of who is responsible for the horses but still noone has been  answered 

[/ QUOTE ]

Jamie Gray Senior was responible for his animals.

But people have been asking questions such as - who was responsible for starving them to death and who was responsable for them being emaciated etc..... questions that could only evolve from media rubbish.

If people want to ask questions then they should ask detailed questions instead of sweeping questions.

Dozzie asked some very good and valid questions.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


TBH I don't think I could put up with MJ's constant dodging of straight forward questions face to face. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, if you feel I have been dodging questions would you mind directing me to them so I answer them?

I have not dodged any questions - at least not intentionally anyway.


----------



## Delladoornob (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Gray lost alot of his stock in 2 weeks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wasn't that just careless..........


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Does myjack/patty not feel anything for the way these horses suffered? Surely anyone with a heart could see that it was cruelty &amp; neglect. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear - if only you knew my love for animals.

If only you could see the anger and upset that runs through my veins for those who ill treat animals, children, and the elderly.

I truely could do time for such people.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing I am curious about but obviously didn't word correctly in my initial list of questions is that MJ/Patty seems to be clear in their own mind that the Greys were not the people responsible for looking after these animals - so perhaps MJ/Patty can tell us who was responsible for looking after these animals.

Is that a clear enough question? Or will MJ/Patty find a politicians way of answering it? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never said, nor have I ever insinuated that Mr Gray wasnt responsible for looking after the animals. Of course he was.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
IMO MJ/Patty is not a troll. She sat through the court case and heard the evidence. I, for one, would like to hear what was said. 

Another question MJ! Was there a jury? Lets just clarify this! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

No there wasnt a jury.

Mr Gray wanted it to go to crown but they said it wasnt possible at that point.


----------



## dozzie (10 May 2009)

Is there any way of getting access to what was said in court?

Why couldnt it go to the CPS?


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way of getting access to what was said in court? 

[/ QUOTE ]

The Judges summing up was supposed to have been posted here&gt;&gt;&gt;  http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/index.htm 

But I cant seem to find it.

Now that said - I sat through the case and heard evidence from both sides and I personally dont feel this is a true picture of the case. Not by far. Sorry!!


----------



## WoopsiiD (10 May 2009)

Why were there so many dead horses on the site?


----------



## dozzie (10 May 2009)

LOL! Had a look and I have no idea where to start! I will have a good mooch through tomorrow!

Are the SHG involved do you know? I looked on their site today but couldnt find an update.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Patty. 
	
	
		
		
	


	







I wonder why Bob Baskerville changed his mind. I guess we wont ever know. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll tell you why Bob Baskerville changed his mind - The RSPCA got their claws into him. Just like they tried to do with the Knacker man and Mr Grays Farria. They came unstuck though - Big time. God only knows what they said to Bob Baskerville.


Read a bit of what the RSPCA are like  SHG


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like the whole Gray family has logged on now......I can only think that anyone who would stick up for the Grays are either them themselves or people who keep animals in the same condiions and see nothing wrong with it!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you are indeed wrong. I'm not a member of the Gray family.

And for the record - If I had horses I wouldnt think twice about keeping them in the same conditions that Mr Gray kept his animals in if I could afford to.

I have seen the farm and would be very happy to keep any animal there. No problem what so ever. - In the care of Mr Gray too.


----------



## patty19 (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
I really do think MJ is talking shite.
IF she/he had evidence that could clear the Grays it would have been sensable to provide it at the trial,not hint at it on a forum 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Whatever the intrest in the Grays MJ,spit out whatever you think you know or shut up about it. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The defence provided a moutain of evidence to the court which blew the prosections case apart but this was simply over looked. I'm awaiting some documents and when get them I will post them.


----------



## brummel (10 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way of getting access to what was said in court? 

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-former...40586366.htm

Quote:

In respect of James Gray and James Gray Junior District Judge Andrew Vickers said in reaching the guilty verdict today: "Their failure to feed appropriately, water, care and treat when [horses were] ill is evidenced by such instances as dragging a horse, kicking it whilst on the ground and leaving it tied up on a trailer on a bag of food when it was emaciated. The carcasses were addressed by James Gray in evidence in a matter of fact manner as if he was dealing with a nuisance rather than a once living creature. They ought reasonably to have known that leaving the weak ones to go to the wall would cause suffering and it was easily preventable." 


In respect of Julie Gray, Jodie Gray, and Cordelia Gray he said: "They had custody and control because they were on their land, either being brought or taken off. This was a commercial activity, it made money for the family to live on Spindles Farm, it bought the motor vehicles, the holidays etc and the involvement of all defendants in some degree more than others is a matter for sentence as guilt has been established."


----------



## jhoward (10 May 2009)

so patty based on everything you have said, what exactley and WHY has JG been found guilty? 

oh and the rest of the family.


----------



## hadfos (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is myjack/patty a friend or relation to Jamie Gray? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the past 16months I have had my eyes opened and have been fortunate enough to speak to some members of the Gray family. 

[/ QUOTE ]
AND is this how you look after ya own??? 
	
	
		
		
	


	








Because i believe you feel this is acceptable 
	
	
		
		
	


	




...his son is a complete JACKASS....i saw his attitude when they left the courts 
	
	
		
		
	


	




the whole family deserve to rot in hell for what they have done!


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

The answer to your first 4 questions is: "no, of course not."

To the last question - not cruel, rather the opposite - but perhaps also environmentally unfriendly unless you rang the council the next day to tell them it was there so they could remove it before it was a rotting mess of maggots that would potentially contaminate a water course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Gray called the knacker man.

[ QUOTE ]
But of course none of these scenarios fit the Gray case.  Carcases in advanced decay, skulls and skeletons don't happen in a day or two.  And all those horses didn't arrive overnight - or get into that condition overnight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comments such as this look like valid arguments at face value. But what I really cant seem to get my head around is that fact that I dont believe any of you people are stupid enough to believe that a man who trades in horses would purchase weighty, fit and healthy stock, just to take that stock back to his yard and leave it to loose condition and starve to death.

Please can you tell me what you believe he could have gained financially by doing this? Horses were his livelyhood - just how was he supposed to run a successful business if the media reports were true? 


[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has horses - particularly if they have a lot of horses - will at SOME stage have a horse that - on first sight - looks like it might be a welfare case.  I have one filly here (out of 60 odd) who was very thin for several months, now thankfully improving.  But should the RSPCA show up on my door I could refer them to my vet, who has seen the filly five times, examined her thoroughly, done her teeth (which weren't 'bad') and run a raft of diagnostic tests on her - all of which were inconclusive but suggest possibly a virus JUST at the time she was having a growth spurt.

[/ QUOTE ]


EVERY single animal at Spindles farm were examined by the vet. They had to be because of the business Mr Gray was in. Mr Gray exported horses and ponies to and from Holland (mostly colourds - NOT for meat - he had no interest in the meat trade) To enable Mr Gray to do this he had to have a health certificate for every animal.

Bob Baskerville and Katie Robinson were rugulars at spindles farm. Not only did they examine horses and issue health certificates, but they would go to the farm at Mr Grays request if he needed a vet to any of the animals. 

There were two occassions that stuck out to me. Once when a mare was having problems giving birth and another time when a foal was born with skin covering it's nostrils.

Mr Baskerville performed a C section on the mare but sadly the foal didnt survive. 

And he performed surgery on the foal which was born with skin over it's nostrils, but the foal died in Mr Baskvilles hospital during aftercare.

If the RSPCA had of paid you a visit - you could have shown them the earth. Mr Gray produced his vet Mr Baskerville but the RSPCA didnt want to know.... There was a huge hay stack which was clear for all to see, sacks of hard feed, bales of straw. Yet they may as well have not been there because the RSPCA took no notice of them what so ever. Nor did they make mention of them in court - infact, the leading RSPCA inspector in the case said she didnt see any of it.....they bloody well couldnt miss it. it's the first thing you see at the emterance of the farm. However, she came unstuck because the RSPCA produced photographs with the hay stack in the background - photographs horses with sacks of hard feed in the background. Trust me - when they want a prosecution they will get one no matter what you show them, or what they have to do and say to get one.  And with the number of horses you have, you could be an easy target. 

[ QUOTE ]
I could also point to the generous quantities of good quality haylage in front of her all the time, and the condition of the two other fillies with her. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Grays animals all had food and water in front of them when the RSPCA arrived. On Friday the 9th they arrived at the farm at 10:30am - Mr Gray feeds his animals at 8am in the morning and at 5pm in the evening.  So they would have had plenty of food and clean water when the RSPCA arrived at 10:30am that morning. Yet this didnt stop them telling the public and the court that there was no food and water on site or availible to the animals. And Mr Gray didnt need to point out the good condition of other animals - there were dozens of them right in front of their eyes. But of course - the public didnt get the privilage to see the photos of those animas. But I am awaiting them and will post them. I was in possession of them last year but my pc crashed and I am still awaiting for the data to be transfered.

[ QUOTE ]
The RSPCA
would go away KNOWING the filly was not neglected and that they had NO case for a prosecution (even though some of them would LOVE to prosecute me because of my hunting connections!)

[/ QUOTE ]

They may KNOW the filly was not neglected but please dont be so sure that they would go away. 


[ QUOTE ]

But although we may not know every salient fact in the Gray case, large numbers of emaciated horses, living in sh*t and treading over dead bodies is MORE than enough evidence.  And the convictions - by a judge (not a jury of possible bunny-huggers) provide further proof (if more is needed) of large scale neglect and cruelty! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you please provide some evidence that a large number of Mr Grays animals were emaciated?

Evidence  that they were living in sh*t?

And evidence that they were treading over dead bodies?

Thank you.


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
They are all full of it and all info can be found online so you don't need to have been at the trial to find it ...And NOWHERE does it state that Bob Baskerville was J.G's vet, opposite as a matter of fact,personally I would have my vet testifying for ME not the other side..

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm awaiting some documents. Hopefully I will have them within the next couple of days. I will post them. 

What do you think Mr Gray said - here, use my vet and tell as much bullcrap as you can about me? Grow a brain PW.


[ QUOTE ]
I have left messages for Katie and Peter Fennelly on their mobiles,so i am hoping that I will hear the truth from the horses mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're at it direct Ms Robinson to this forum. Hopefully she'll come and let me twist her in knots about her lies, like the defence team did.

[ QUOTE ]
Bob is retired after his accident with the youngster last year, so i don't want to bother him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob looked perfectly ok in the court. If you do decide to 'bother' him, direct him to this forum too. 

[ QUOTE ]

If it was any truth in it Katie would have told me when she treated my horse last year.Or i will ring the girls in the reception in the morning !
I have been a client with them since 1992 so they will tell me 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

While you're at it tell Katie Robinson that I am going to post health documants with HER signature on the bottom of them.


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
paddywack - they might tell you but it would still be entirely wrong to reproduce that information here if it is not from a properly sanctioned source - after all there may yet be an appeal.

I don't go for all the rubbish spouted by patty. Some might have some truth buried deep within it but I have other questions.

If, has been suggested, these animals were already in a very poor state before JG purchased them, why on earth did he buy them? Is he claiming to be a poor businessman and complete numpty at judging horseflesh rather than cruel and neglectful?

[/ QUOTE ]

There were 2 'poor' horses among them...if you are saying there were more then maybe you can produce some proof?

[ QUOTE ]
Why have further emaciated animals been removed from him in the months since the original raid (which are now recovering BTW) - does he keep buying skinny, nearly dead ponies?

[/ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA went to the farm and removed two horses against the advice of the vet. They removed them because they both had a scratch on a leg. If they were emaciated then why has Mr Gray not been prosecuted for them 2?

The RSPCA was wrong - and the vet was extremely angry with them....that vet wrote a full report and said they were harassing Mr Gray.

[ QUOTE ]
Why did he have so many animals in such poor condition?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show anything to support that there were in fact so many animals in such poor condition?


[ QUOTE ]
A responsible person would have cut down their stock to a level where they could manage it properly, not just keep buying more and more and more until they are overcrowded and living in squalor. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is your proof to support such a statement?

The court heard that Mr Gray has been a successful horseman for many years. Do you believe he was successful by buying stock and overcrowding them to a point where they were living in squalor and unmanageable?


----------



## Natch (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Is myjack/patty a friend or relation to Jamie Gray? 


Over the past 16months I have had my eyes opened and have been fortunate enough to speak to some members of the Gray family. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for answering all my questions MJ.

However, I dont feel you have truly and thoroughly explained who you are.

You later go on to say you are not a relation of the grey family, am I correct?

In which case I have the following questions:

How do you know James grey?

What relationship do/have you had with the man? I.e. romantic/worked together, other halves knew each other, served him in the pub...?

When did you first meet him?

Ditto for the rest of his family.

Thank you.


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 if patty and family put as much effort into looking after there horses as they do posting on here this could all be avoided 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I sold my horse last year so I dont have one to look after.

And my family are not 'horsey' people.


----------



## Natch (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I took a breather and did some logical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind telling me what you came up with?

 <font color="green">  the question below </font> 

[ QUOTE ]
And now would like to know what your justification is for the photographic and video evidence of rotting corpses? Do you claim they were not james grey's responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two animals went down that morning. A Gray pony and the pony near the water trough.. The pony near the water trough was PTS.

Some of the other animals were pets that had been buried. 
 <font color="green"> I did not see anything that could have been an unearthed buried corpse. I did see plenty of rotting corpses.  </font> 
Others were to be collected by the knacker man. 
 <font color="green"> Sorry, I really do not believe that James Grey arranged for removal of the dead stock within a reasonable time frame. </font> Another shetland which was a pet and was going to be buried. Mr Grays machine broke down and he had gone to get a part for it when the RSPCA arrived. He reveived a phone call telling him that the RSPCA was at the farm so he turned around and went back.  <font color="green">  I don't see how this is relevant?</font> 

Mr Gray used the same knacker man as the RSPCA in that area. <font color="green"> I don't see the relevance of this either. </font> 

2 weeks prior to the RSPCA arriving at the farm, an RSPCA inspector named Claire Ryder stopped by the farm on her way back to her parents home for the christmas holiday. She and Mrs Gray had a general conversation in which she commented on Mrs Grays coat. In her evidence she said all was well at the farm and she saw no dead animals. She also contradicted the RSPCA and media reports about the food, water and bedding situations on the 9th.

On the 21st of December vet Katie Robinson from Bob Baskervilles practice, was in the yard examining animals at Mr Grays request. She used pen 3 to examine each animal. then she issued health certificates for all those animals. She neither saw dead animals.

Mr Gray lost alot of his stock in 2 weeks.
 <font color="green"> Another thing I find highly unlikely. </font> 

[ QUOTE ]
I am also patiently awaiting a reply to the quoted post above. In your own time.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be speaking of a post I have not long just replied to. If I am wrong please bring the post to my attention.
 <font color="green"> You have since replied. Thank you. </font> 
Thank you. 

[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## shellonabeach (11 May 2009)

I have some questions I would like to ask Patty about individual animals whose condition I have seen in numerous video's with my own eyes:

The dark bay / black with the no 58 sprayed on

The bay cob with diarrohea no KH15

The fallen grey no 5

The fallen bay by the water trough

For these animals if you can remember from the trial please could you explain how long JG had owned each of these animals for and where he had bought them from - private home / UK auction / abroad / another dealer etc.  

I personally cannot understand as a trader why he would buy animals in such a state, surely the vet bills / feeding costs to put them right would negate any profit to be made?


----------



## Natch (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
and he in his good heartedness did all in his godly power to do his best for them to change there fortune???
i beg to differ

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see you are being sarcastic to me, so maybe you can tell me what Mr Gray, a TRADER, could possibly gain if he had purchased fit weighty animals, took them back to his yard, and starved them to death? 

Please do enlighten me because it never entered my mind that a trader gained finanically by purchasing healthy animals then leaving them to die of starvation.


Thank you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

99.999% of people cannot understand why anybody would be so neglectful of their animals as Mr Grey has appeared to, and has now been found guilty of. So I don't have a clue but would hazard a guess at: 
1) The operation grew too big
2) Funds were short

But really, who but the man himself knows why there were so many horses that were starving and dead on his property.


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I dont trust the RSPCA one little bit... But some of the carcases that are on the video are more than a week old.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct....some were two weeks old and some were dug up.

[ QUOTE ]
Why did he not drag all the dead out into one area to await collection by the knacker?

[/ QUOTE ]

He did - He put them in a place where live animals couldnt get to.

[ QUOTE ]
Why were there 2 or 3 carcases left in with the living horses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two ponies went down on the morning of the 9th. A gray pony and another pony near a water trough. Mr Gray feeds his animals at 8am and 5pm in the day. Mr Gray was going to move the Gray pony but RSPCA arrived at 10:30 so he didnt have time to move it before they began snapping away with thier camera. The other pony was PTS. There were no dead animals among the living. The pony near the trough wasnt in long. Mr Gray was going to move it into another pen but RSPCA arrived.


[ QUOTE ]
Why was the bedding in the video in such a disgusting state (I have seen deep litter with cattle sheep and horses (barn kept) and its pretty much clean)

[/ QUOTE ]

What bedding was that?

The RSPCA arrived and stopped Mr Grays hired man from cleaning out the pens with his machine. They got the police to remove him.

[ QUOTE ]
I cant get my head around it you are right that its not good business practice to starve horses I dont understand it!!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the evidence to support that Mr Gray starved any of his animals?


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
what in neglecting and starving innocent horses and ponies??? yes you are correct he is most successful at this 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

You say you dont believe everything the media says yet you believe this.

If it's not the media you are believing please show some proof to support the statement you have just made?


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
i would never dream of being sarcastic- simply ironic, sarcasm with out any nasty intent 
	
	
		
		
	


	




insidently do any of your replies consist of any thing other that the media lying and the rspca lying as these excuses are now rather tedious 
best wishes
x 

[/ QUOTE ]

I am waiting for some documents and photographs, and the day I get them this board will see them that very day. They should arrive in the next couple of days.

I witnessed a hell of alot while sitting at the back of that court room.....thats besides all the information I gathered from day one. 

I went to the farm and was dumbfounded that the picture that was painted by the RSPCA was as far away from reality as it could possibly get.  What also shocked me was the fact that there was a huge hay stack that can be seen from outside the yard yet according to the RSPCA there was no food on site. That was just out and out ridiculous because they had to walk past it before they reached anyother part of the yard.


I have mentioned many names in these past couple of days. If what I have said about these people is not true then I could be in serious trouble.

The RSPCA can do as they please so I'm sure that if I publically told lies about them, they would just love to  prosecute my ass.


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


 [ QUOTE ]
Mr Gray lost alot of his stock in 2 weeks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wasn't that just careless.......... 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

In what way? That the animals were host to a worm burden that wasnt effected by a wormer and can kill its host without giving any signs of the animal being ill?


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
 if patty and family put as much effort into looking after there horses as they do posting on here this could all be avoided 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Good point  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

PW, are you a coward?

The reason I ask this is because you have me on ignor - probably because you know that any hogwash you you come out with will collaps under scrutiny.....Yet you keep popping down from the safty of your fence to give snide little jabs.

Grow a backbone PW, come out give it your best.


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
How many of the seized animals have died of their pre-exisitng conditions since they were taken into custody/care? 

[/ QUOTE ]


Several.....Cant remember the exact number but I do remember one case was a donkey that caught strangles at the sanctuary not so very long ago.


[ QUOTE ]
Of these, how many died suddenly and had their badly decomposed carcases left in situ for all to see, and how many animals have been promptly and humanely destroyed to end their suffering?

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof do you have to support the idea the dead were left in situ?



[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing there have been a few which failed to respond to treatment and am quite prepared to believe some of these might well have died or gone terminally downhill in a very short space of time.  I am absolutely certain the carcases would have been promptly removed and any suffering horses just as promptly had their suffering alliviated or ended if necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you so sure that the animals were suffering?

And if any animal was suffering what makes you so sure that it wasnt alleviated?



[ QUOTE ]
There is no need for inhumanity towards animals

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.


[ QUOTE ]
and as long as the welfare code is adhered to, there should never be scenarios as were witnessed at Spindles Farm. If you can't physically manage to do this, you don't have animals.  No excuses.  Sorry. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And what scenario was witnessed at Spindles farm?

And what proof do you have to support the scenario that you believe was witnessed at spindles farm?


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
LOL! Had a look and I have no idea where to start! I will have a good mooch through tomorrow!

Are the SHG involved do you know? I looked on their site today but couldnt find an update. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as far as I know.


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way of getting access to what was said in court? 

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-former...40586366.htm

Quote:

In respect of James Gray and James Gray Junior District Judge Andrew Vickers said in reaching the guilty verdict today: "Their failure to feed appropriately, water, care and treat when [horses were] ill is evidenced by such instances as dragging a horse, kicking it whilst on the ground and leaving it tied up on a trailer on a bag of food when it was emaciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is not a shred of evidence that Mr Gray or his son failed to feed appropriately, water, and care for any of the animals. Mr Gray fed the animals twice a day, and all vets agreed this was normal practice. Obiviously the judge thought  different.


[ QUOTE ]
The carcasses were addressed by James Gray in evidence in a matter of fact manner as if he was dealing with a nuisance rather than a once living creature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a matter of opinion. Personally I dont think Mr gray came across in that maner.

[ QUOTE ]
They ought reasonably to have known that leaving the weak ones to go to the wall would cause suffering and it was easily preventable." 

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, not a single shred of evidence to support that Mr Gray left weak animals to go to the wall. That may have been summised but there was no proof what so ever to state that as a fact. And there wasnt a shred of evidence to support that any of the dead animals were weak or suffering, let alone any evidence to support that Mr Gray could have prevented it.


[ QUOTE ]
In respect of Julie Gray, Jodie Gray, and Cordelia Gray he said: "They had custody and control because they were on their land, either being brought or taken off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, no evidence what so ever. Not even the prosecution claimed that they had custody and control of anything, nor that the land was owned by Jodie and Cordelia. Nor was there a shred of evidence to support that any of the women brough or took any animals off and on the land. Why would the land belong to Jodie and Cordelia? Jodie is married and has been for 8 years and has a home of her own where she lives with her husband and children. And Cordelia didnt live at the farm at that time either. Such a conclusion was reached without even looking at the deeds to which none of their names are on anyway. Mrs Gray and Jodie Gray are both petrified of horses, and this was verifies by RSPCA inspector Claire Ryder when giving her evidence.

The RSPCA summised Jodie and Cordelia lived at the farm because they were there to support their parents. This was all given in evidence and wasnt refuted - yet for some unknown reason the judge thinks they own the land.


[ QUOTE ]
This was a commercial activity, it made money for the family to live on Spindles Farm, it bought the motor vehicles, the holidays etc and the involvement of all defendants in some degree more than others is a matter for sentence as guilt has been established." 

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither the defence or prosecution argued that the business made money for Jodie and Cordelia to live at spindles farm, bought them motor vehicles, and holidays. This just came out of nowhere. They never even argued that the bussiness made money for Julie who does llive at the farm.


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

I got 2 photos of some of the ponies removed from the farm,but not sure how to post them in here. I took them with my phone when we were up there poopicking the fields at The Horse Trust. It was 3 weeks or so after they have been removed..
MJ/Patty has always asked for photographic evidence,well here it is,but please help me to post them .


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

uploaded photos onto photo bucket but cant post them in here


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)




----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

anyone thats seen them at the trust knows that this is the barn where they were kept


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

Can't believe that over night Patty has done 2 pages of quotes,of what ??? info that has been repeated over and over the last 16 months ??? 
Bet nothing new has been revealed ???
Someone needs to get a life and accept that its over and done with,move on justice has been done.
It has turned into a circus and Patty/MJ is the clown


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)




----------



## Sugarplum Furry (11 May 2009)

Don;t forget that Mr gray is back up in court on the 27th May on horse transportation charges, and also for failing to dispose of dead horse carcasses.

Does anyone know why he's changed the name of his farm? Spindles Farm is now called Old Home Farmhouse. Going for a cosier image perhaps?


----------



## the watcher (11 May 2009)

Having read your replies patty, which are generally more questions than answers, I have one observation

Your only purpose in being on this forum is not to represent any kind of truth, it is as a member of a legal defence team in the hope of supporting an appeal against conviction - since you canot rely on evidence because the Court have heard that and judged based on it, you are now hoping to provoke somebody into saying something that can be twisted, or publishing a photograph to cast more doubt on.

You cannot defend JG by making vague comments about turncoat vets, or RSPCA politics - you should be very ashamed, as should JG and all his family.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (11 May 2009)

to stick my unwanted nose in, proofs in the pudding and photos don't lie-i've followed this story, along with thousands of others and the whole affair is sickening!


----------



## M_G (11 May 2009)

Sorry Patty can you show us photographic evidence that the carcasses were dug up as to me the coloured particularly looks like it was left to rot where it fell.. 

If the RSPCA did dig up buried animals I would like to see them taken to task over it.

the animals I have seen deep littered in barns were on straw


----------



## dozzie (11 May 2009)

QR

Patty, do you know how many horses were dug up?

Nothing was mentioned in the press release about horses being dug up! 

I have also found the answer to my question about why the RSPCA did not use the CPS to prosecute. It is because they dont! It seems to have nothing to do with whether or not it is suitable for the CPS.  They choose to bring private prosecutions. The SPCA and the RSPB use the CPS. So the argument that the CPS doesnt understand all the ins and outs of animal cruelty is not the case in the eyes of other animal charities. Indeed it is not the case in the RSPCAs sister organisation the SPCA.

Janet George. There have been several cases where only one animal has been injured or unhealthy, in amongst many healthy ones, which have led to prosecutions by the RSPCA. Vets statements are regularly ignored. The animals are often seized and euthanised immediately. 

Anyone who keeps animals should make themselves aware of their rights in respect of the RSPCA.


----------



## EstherSupporter (11 May 2009)

Your post sums you up Patty......

You do not know right from wrong.

If you are happy to keep animals in the same conditions as the Grays, who have been convicted of cruelty, (the whole family), then it shows you are equally as horrible and callous as them.


----------



## Quadro (11 May 2009)

patty good morning to you i trust you are well???
to your reply about you no longer have a horse well i some how think think thats for the best dont you???
in reply to your comment about me not believeing the media well i have to say i find the photos pretty real and see in no way they are photoshopped or such like??? and im correct in thinking they are actually spindles farm??? i feel that this is enough evidence for me fogive me if you feel i am ignorant, the photos the PW has posted are eveidence and unless you are sugesting that i , PW and other members of this forum have visual imparements then we will leave it at that.
as to you comment about the rspca will prosicute your "ass" with any luck they will stick a cap in it 
	
	
		
		
	


	




best wishes 
x


----------



## Sooty (11 May 2009)

Quadro your posting style seems very familiar - are you a re-joiner? Just curious.


----------



## nikkinoo (11 May 2009)

Mother_hen you have summed up myjack/patty in a nutshell,

Think this should be the end of troll feeding session!!!


----------



## Gingernags (11 May 2009)

I am no fan of the RSPCA, what I have seen of them in practice has been pretty rubbish and I don't agree they should be as political as they are and waste the money they do on things like hunting.

I think its wrong that people donating money don't realise that next to nothing gets to the actual rescue centres which is where they intend it to go, it goes centrally to fund other things than actually rescuing animals and supporting them in the centres where the rescue animals go.

So I don't think the RSPCA are infallible and perfect and I never support them through donations - I'd rather give direct to the organisations who have to feed the animals.

That being said though, I can't reconcile a few things about this case.  If as MJ/Patty alleges - that this is all pretty much a fabrication of the RSPCA and we haven't seen the truth and the pics aren't right and no-one has listened to the poor innocent Gray family and its all wrong...

WHY?  

What do the RSPCA gain from this prosecution?  What do the charities that took in the horses gain? Because I cannot see where the RSPCA will benefit at all in this - the legal fees will be huge (even more so if it goes to appeal), the fees for keeping the horses will be huge, and even if costs get awarded against the Grays the RSPCA and other charities will still end up with a huge bill unless the Grays are closet millionaires and can afford the fines and fees.  I can't see donations covering it either.  So the RSPCA and others will end up well out of pocket with maybe some minor amount being recovered from the Grays.

And if it was such a flimsy case as MJ/Patty says - no way would they risk it - they couldn't afford to lose this case under such circumstances.  Can you imagine if they "invented" all this what the fallout would be???

And of course there are prople here who have seen the state of these horses - visited the places they are staying - why should we call them a liar against the word of MJ/P?

This is why I can't see the RSPCA doing this for anything but the right reasons and the only thing that makes sense is that James Gray consistently bought in cheap and bottom end animals to try to turn round and make a profit, but failed to spend any money treating them when they needed it, or spending money to remove carcasses - and as a result more died than would normally if they were at a reputable dealers yard where they received food and care and vets attention.

Oh and my other big point - so what if there is food and hay in the barn?  Doesn't mean they were getting it!  Unless they could open the gates, wander out of the field and help themselves.

This wouldn't be the first case where there was a field full of hay available but horses died of starvation as the owner didn't give them it...


----------



## shellonabeach (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I have some questions I would like to ask Patty about individual animals whose condition I have seen in numerous video's with my own eyes:

The dark bay / black with the no 58 sprayed on

The bay cob with diarrohea no KH15

The fallen grey no 5

The fallen bay by the water trough

For these animals if you can remember from the trial please could you explain how long JG had owned each of these animals for and where he had bought them from - private home / UK auction / abroad / another dealer etc.  

I personally cannot understand as a trader why he would buy animals in such a state, surely the vet bills / feeding costs to put them right would negate any profit to be made? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Patty,

You seem to have missed my question I posted last night...

I also note you said that there were only "2 "poor" horses" amongst the ones seized.

I have noted 4 above, at the time of the raid a skinny chestnut was pictured, paddywhack has posted pics of which the one horse on the left is clearly emaciated and who can forget Disney the emaciated grey and white cob.  

Furthermore if on his property JG has 125 live horses and 23 dead that means almost 20% of his stock died on his farm


----------



## Quadro (11 May 2009)

no no bit gutted someone else copied my style!!! more than happy to PM you who i am


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

I am now leaving this thread after a long and very informative conversation with a certain vet who informed me WHY they don't want anything to do with the Gray's,and the truth about the SO CALLED alleged visits to Spindels Farm.
Some people live in a make believe LaLa land,and will not accept the truth even if it sit on their fat long nose 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Someone just believes her own lies and is a disgrace to the horse world out there......Anyone that supports scum bags like that are a disgrace and I hope that a horse never has the misfortune to be owned by them.  
The photos that i posted are very real indeed !!!!!And anyone who has been to the Horse Trust can vote for that,since they will remember the barn !!  The donkeys was in a pen to the right as you walked in !


----------



## jhoward (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

The photos that i posted are very real indeed !!!!!And anyone who has been to the Horse Trust can vote for that,since they will remember the barn !!  The donkeys was in a pen to the right as you walked in ! 

[/ QUOTE ]


i can 100% back you up on that.,


----------



## Janetterose (11 May 2009)

To the person who just TELEPHONED me regarding my post - my signal went but I can guess why you called. Why would you think it was you I was talking about?


----------



## lily1 (11 May 2009)

Anyone who can leave dead horses laying about is wrong why wasnt the knackerman called to take them away? how can anyone defend such a vile family!


----------



## WoopsiiD (11 May 2009)

Ok, so Mr Gray is innocent. He loves his animals.

So why did he not phone the rspca regarding the state of the animals BEFORE he purchased them? If he got them in that state surely a person with morals would inform the authorities regarding the seller???


----------



## SnowPhony (11 May 2009)

How anyone can defend this is just beyond me...


----------



## shoeey (11 May 2009)

Anyone who is unsure about the Gray's disregard for their animals should read the judge's verdict. It lays out exactly what each of the horses died from and some of it is not pretty.
Whether or not they had these injuries/ailments before they went to Gray he should have called in the vet
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/judgments/rspca-gray-others.htm


----------



## legend (11 May 2009)

Excellent link Shoeey, thanks very much! I'm part way through reading it now.

I have edited this post as it contained a question regarding John Parker, one of the defence vets.  I have now read further down the court report, in which it was stated that Mr Parker was found to be unwell and that was the reason that his evidence could not be relied upon.  
I have thus deleted my earlier question regarding Mr Parker, as if he is/was unwell it was in poor taste.


----------



## WoopsiiD (11 May 2009)

Can I just clarify that I was not defending JG in any way!!
Our 'Oracle MJ/Patty' whatever has told us that JG got them in that state. I was just wondering why he bought them rather than report the seller like 99.999999% of us with morals would have done!


----------



## JanetGeorge (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Janet George. There have been several cases where only one animal has been injured or unhealthy, in amongst many healthy ones, which have led to prosecutions by the RSPCA. Vets statements are regularly ignored. The animals are often seized and euthanised immediately. 

Anyone who keeps animals should make themselves aware of their rights in respect of the RSPCA. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry - but I know a GREAT deal about the RSPCA's method of operation (and anyone who knows me knows I am NOT a fan!)  However, there are limits to even the RSPCA's 'sins'!  IF the RSPCA 'regularly ignored' vets statements - and seized and euthanaised healthy animals immediately they would be sued into the middle of next week.  There are plenty of good equine lawyers out there who LEAP at the chance to take-on the RSPCA!

Of course in this case it was not JUST the RSPCA involved - the ILPH, Blue Cross and other responsible and knowledgeable equine welfare charities were ALL there and saw the state of the animals and took many into their care.  Which is one of the reasons that James Gray's defenders are talking through their a****!


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
17th December 2008 
Katie Robinson  veterinary surgeon from Baskerville, Hogan and Partners. 
The Grays are clients of practice.  Visited Spindles Farm before to certify equines fit 
for export. She had been called by The RSPCA to assist in the inspection. She was 
distressed  by observations of compromised animals, conditions of pens and farm 
environment etc.  Contacts a senior partner R. Baskerville for advice  as situation 
beyond her experience. The smell of rotting horse flesh was overpowering the 
animals had obviously been dead for days..The bedding was sodden and filthy 
dirtyKH1 was emaciated and very weakpropped against a water troughKH3 
had paraphimosis-its penis was massively swollen ..blistered and sore with blood 
dripping from it and staining its hind legs 
Produces plans, notes , Pro Forma Veterinary Examination forms  Exhibits Pros Vet 
0001-0035   
Not cross-examined by defence 
Patty was not expecting this info i think


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

Mick Wills  knackerman  called to assist in removal of carcasses. Confirmed that 
he and colleagues would have been available over Xmas period on 24/7 basis
crawl back under your stone you ..did not expect this did you ?


----------



## Happy Horse (11 May 2009)

Well that is pretty interesting reading - how anyone can try and defend such a person is beyond me.  Funnily enough I used to work with Ben Wakeling!


----------



## siennamum (11 May 2009)

How absolutely horrific. Would hope the Gray's get justice &amp; lose everything, unfortunately they'll crawl out of paying somehow, but at least those horses have been rescued and everyone knows what the family are really like.


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

reading through all of that;def right verdict........just had to post 1 last time on this tread


----------



## nicky_jakey (11 May 2009)

paddywhack - you &amp; I are clearly from the same neck of the woods!

For those of us unfortunate to live near to JG, it was BEYOND DOUBT that he is guilty. The whole family are a complete nuscence, with his 16 year old son being the worst. 

My friend went to Biscester last week to the courts &amp; heard every word. 

I can also confirm that Bob is fit &amp; well - still practising as he was at the yard this morning! Just to quash any rumours that he's retiring / not currently practising. 

Will be interesting to see how this progresses, particularly regarding the transportation of horses through Dover.....


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

AND is this how you look after ya own??? 
	
	
		
		
	


	








Because i believe you feel this is acceptable 
	
	
		
		
	


	




...his son is a complete JACKASS....i saw his attitude when they left the courts 
	
	
		
		
	


	




the whole family deserve to rot in hell for what they have done! 

[/ QUOTE ]

The hogwash in the media is not acceptable.


----------



## Sooty (11 May 2009)

Oh go on then!


----------



## RantBucket (11 May 2009)

Wasnt it funny how those two blundering vet expert witnesses acting for the defence have succeeded in making matters much worse for JG, as it turned out they have inadvertently helped the RSPCA with their clients prosecution. I think they must be a little past their prime!


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Thank you for answering all my questions MJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I dont feel you have truly and thoroughly explained who you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

From day one I have been studying this case. I collected information and scrutinized it untill I got to the truth. I have studies the Gray family and the RSPCA. I have been fortunate enough to meet some members of the Gray family. I have studied each member thoroughly. I have traveled up and down the country gathering information - sometimes I have been successful and sometimes not so successful. None of the information I have gathered implies that any of the Gray family are as sick as the media have painted them. I was hoping to recieve some documents within the next couple of days but I was informed at 4:20 today that it isnt going to be possible. When I do receive them I will post them.

[ QUOTE ]
You later go on to say you are not a relation of the grey family, am I correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct.

[ QUOTE ]
In which case I have the following questions:

How do you know James grey?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think just about the whole of the country know the Grays by now.


[ QUOTE ]
What relationship do/have you had with the man? I.e. romantic/worked together, other halves knew each other, served him in the pub...?

[/ QUOTE ]

None of the above.

[ QUOTE ]
When did you first meet him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant be sure of the exact date but I do know I didnt manage to get to speak to him. I sat in the back of the court and heard his evidence and it was no different to the information I already had on him and his farm.


[ QUOTE ]
Ditto for the rest of his family.

[/ QUOTE ]

At different times. But I got the idea that the women had nothing what so ever to do with the horses. Then I received information which confired this. To be totally honest, it seems that the women dont have a clue about horses. Mrs Gray and Jodie Gray are petrified of horses and that was confirmed in court.



[ QUOTE ]
Thank you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome.


----------



## M_G (11 May 2009)

Robert Edgar Baskerville  Veterinary surgeon  senior partner Baskerville Hogan
Called by Katie Robinson at Mr. Grays request to assist . Arrived at Spindles Farm 6.30pm on 4th January 08. Describes the scene on arrival. Mr. Gray, Police Officers and RSPCA officials.  Yard, barn .. at Spindles Farm ..3-4 inches deep in equine faeces and slurrypens 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 &amp; 10 several inches deep in wet bedding, urine, faeces ..no dry areas for animals to lie down.a number of carcasses. .approx 8-10 in varying states of decay. Understood 90 horses in yard .. more in fields.three horses severely emaciated within hours of deathother .horses were dirty, underfed..impossible to carry out convention identificationKH1 KH3 euthanised because death imminent and would not respond to treatment KH2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,16,17,18,18a,19,and 20 considered at risk of death within hours unless removed to obtain urgent attention
Attended Spindles Farm on 5th Jan identified further animals requiring removal.
You would really keep your own horses like this?


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
paddywhack - you &amp; I are clearly from the same neck of the woods!

For those of us unfortunate to live near to JG, it was BEYOND DOUBT that he is guilty. The whole family are a complete nuscence, with his 16 year old son being the worst. 

My friend went to Biscester last week to the courts &amp; heard every word. 

I can also confirm that Bob is fit &amp; well - still practising as he was at the yard this morning! Just to quash any rumours that he's retiring / not currently practising. 

Will be interesting to see how this progresses, particularly regarding the transportation of horses through Dover..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob has,i was told today,retired as a partner but still work at the practice.It was talk last summer that he would retire fully,but he is too much of a workaholic 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I live 20-25 minutes away from J.G and i was in Amersham the other day and drove past his farm,hair stands up in the back of my neck.
What comes around goes around is my belief,was told the other day that the Smithies in Iver area want nothing to do with him, rumur has is that his Dad has disowned him and his family.
Nope he has shot himself in foot i think,he keeps dumping his underweight and sick ponies in fields a little bit every where,(Wexham Park,Stoke Poges,Iver and Langley)which has annoyed his own kind of people,since they get the blame for his carelessness and actions !


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I did not see anything that could have been an unearthed buried corpse. I did see plenty of rotting corpses. 

[/ QUOTE ]

There most certainly were unearthed buried animals. 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I really do not believe that James Grey arranged for removal of the dead stock within a reasonable time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was given in evidence in court and the knacker man wasnt back to work from the christmas holiday.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how this is relevant?

[/ QUOTE ] 

One of the fallen animals was a pet - Mr Gray buried his pets but at that time his machine was broke - he was going to get a piece to fix it when the RSPCA arrived. Sorry but I am trying to give every single detail.

[ QUOTE ]
 see the relevance of this either. 

[/ QUOTE ]

If Mr Gray had anything to hide he wouldnt use the same knaker man as the RSPCA.  The knacker man gave evidence in court.

[ QUOTE ]
 prior to the RSPCA arriving at the farm, an RSPCA inspector named Claire Ryder stopped by the farm on her way back to her parents home for the christmas holiday. She and Mrs Gray had a general conversation in which she commented on Mrs Grays coat. In her evidence she said all was well at the farm and she saw no dead animals. She also contradicted the RSPCA and media reports about the food, water and bedding situations on the 9th.

On the 21st of December vet Katie Robinson from Bob Baskervilles practice, was in the yard examining animals at Mr Grays request. She used pen 3 to examine each animal. then she issued health certificates for all those animals. She neither saw dead animals.

Mr Gray lost alot of his stock in 2 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]


 [ QUOTE ]
Another thing I find highly unlikely. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please can you pinpoint which part you find highly unlikely? Thank you. 

[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## Paddywhack (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Robert Edgar Baskerville  Veterinary surgeon  senior partner Baskerville Hogan
Called by Katie Robinson at Mr. Grays request to assist . Arrived at Spindles Farm 6.30pm on 4th January 08. Describes the scene on arrival. Mr. Gray, Police Officers and RSPCA officials.  Yard, barn .. at Spindles Farm ..3-4 inches deep in equine faeces and slurrypens 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 &amp; 10 several inches deep in wet bedding, urine, faeces ..no dry areas for animals to lie down.a number of carcasses. .approx 8-10 in varying states of decay. Understood 90 horses in yard .. more in fields.three horses severely emaciated within hours of deathother .horses were dirty, underfed..impossible to carry out convention identificationKH1 KH3 euthanised because death imminent and would not respond to treatment KH2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,16,17,18,18a,19,and 20 considered at risk of death within hours unless removed to obtain urgent attention
Attended Spindles Farm on 5th Jan identified further animals requiring removal.
You would really keep your own horses like this? 

[/ QUOTE ]
Very interesting but sad and sickening at the same time  I would say .No wonder J.G's camp are peed off,trying to twist things around, now when the truth is coming out .No more questions or Troll Feeding needed


----------



## nicky_jakey (11 May 2009)

Hi paddywhack - just to say that i've pm'd you


----------



## Taboo1968 (11 May 2009)

QR - Grabs popcorn and drink and settles down for the night!!!  Cant believe we are on page 12!!!!


----------



## Janetterose (11 May 2009)

God what did I start - mind you at least 8 of those pages are made up of Patty's "evidence"


----------



## Taboo1968 (11 May 2009)

Shame we've not got a Judge Judy in this country - We could take over the tele series for a whole year debating this one!!!


----------



## Quadro (11 May 2009)

1st= sooty ive pm'd you
2nd= patty i did wish you good morning and ill wish you good evening as well 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 in reading you post about how you know the gray family i came to the conclusion you became interesting in the case and met them that way??? if so you are telling me you travelled about the country for the good of your health researching this???? well i must say if i ever do anything wrong i want you on my side as your dedication to guilty people is commendable.
and to be fair god loves a trier 
	
	
		
		
	


	




i do still feel you have skirted around your true idenity please tell me pm if you prefer
best wishes 
x 
p.s better than usual eastenders tonight dont you think 
	
	
		
		
	


	




?


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I have some questions I would like to ask Patty about individual animals whose condition I have seen in numerous video's with my own eyes:

The dark bay / black with the no 58 sprayed on



The bay cob with diarrohea no KH15

The fallen grey no 5

The fallen bay by the water trough

For these animals if you can remember from the trial please could you explain how long JG had owned each of these animals for and where he had bought them from - private home / UK auction / abroad / another dealer etc.  

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not have my notes with me at the moment but I'll get straight back to you.

However, I will tell you what I can remember off the top of my head.

Dark bay went down in another field - Mr Gray was informed and went out to it. He got it to it's feet but still decided take it back to the farm. He gave it an injection, food and water, and placed some kind of hammock/sling under it's belly for caution . I cant remember the proper name for it.


KH15 was brought in from the field. Cant remember much more about that one but again, I will let you know.


Fallen Gray was a mule, even though I have been refering to it as a pony. Sorry for any confusion. Mr Gray was concerned about it so he called Katie Robinson to the farm to examine it... Katie Robinson gave it the all clear. Sadly it went down on the morning of the 9th. Same with KH1, the pony next to the water trough, that pony went down that morning too. KH1 was PTS.

I will get back to you with all the other information you have asked.

There was also a donkey KH22. That donkey was examined by vets and was given the all clear - by the next morning it was dead.  

Cyathostomiasis has this effect and has been known to kill it's host within 12/24 without giving any signs that the animal is sick in any way.

[ QUOTE ]
I personally cannot understand as a trader why he would buy animals in such a state, surely the vet bills / feeding costs to put them right would negate any profit to be made? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you understand why as a trader he would buy in healthy animals just to leave them to starve to death as the RSPCA have claimed?

Accoring to the RSPCA they were all emaciated and starving. Seems they just slapped that lable on everyone of the animals - dead or alive. They never came up with a diagnosis for KH15 - just that she was emaciated and starved. Thus, apparently their reason for shooting her dead. She was carrying a foal - they left that foal to suffercate in her belly.

Mr Gray was concerned at the way they were loading his animals into the trailers - something to do with putting shod animsls in with unshod animals. They wouldnt take notice of him so he called DEFRA and put them on the phone They was told that Mr Gray was right to be concerned. They had to unload and reload.

Mr Gray was also very concerned about a pregnent Jenny going in transit as she was about to give birth anytime - that donkey gave birth the following day.


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
99.999% of people cannot understand why anybody would be so neglectful of their animals as Mr Grey has appeared to, and has now been found guilty of. So I don't have a clue but would hazard a guess at: 
1) The operation grew too big
2) Funds were short

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The court heard that Mr Gray has always kept a large numbers of animals. 

2) Could not have been that short because he purchased some of those animals not long before they were removed.

[ QUOTE ]
But really, who but the man himself knows why there were so many horses that were starving and dead on his property. 

[/ QUOTE ]

There was not a shred of evidence produced in court that any of those animals were starving or starved.


----------



## Quadro (11 May 2009)

uuummm the photos paddywhack posted earlier they look pretty fcuking starved to me!!!, sorry love but it might be time to go 2 specsavers???


----------



## patty19 (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
uploaded photos onto photo bucket but cant post them in here 

[/ QUOTE ]

And what about all the other animals - where are the photos of them?

The photos you have posted are of young stock. Now how about you tell the board how long Mr Gray had owned them?

As for them having no food....your photos tell us quiet the opposite. And please take note of the straw. 

Please dont even bother trying to say that the RSPCA put it all there........they didnt - nor did they even try to claim as such in court when photos were put to each witness and asked about the food and bedding.


----------



## devonlass (11 May 2009)

OMG I can't believe you are still around myjack,and still wittering!!

I think you've kind of missed the point here really,the courts found him guilty,simple as.

Of course you are obviously far better eqipped to make judgment than the entire justice system,and I suppose everyone else is wrong and you are right *insert rolls eyes smilie here*

Having unfortunately spent far more time in courts than I would have wished (not for myself I hasten to add!!),and believe me I have no great love for the police,CPS etc,but I have to say they don't often get it wrong.Occasionally it happens,and of course those are the cases we hear about in the press,but the majority of the time they don't waste their time with cases they don't think will stand up,and the chances of them actually fabricating evidence,and having a huge multi organisational conspiracy going on as you are implying are probably just about non existant TBH,or just downright ludicrous to put it another way!!

Anyway myjack didn't you say when all this first happened and you were ranting,that if the courts found him guilty you would accept that,and eat your words etc,or words to that effect,I'm pretty sure you did??


----------



## dozzie (11 May 2009)

The CPS didnt prosecute. The case was a private prosecution brought by the RSPCA.


----------



## JanetGeorge (11 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Cyathostomiasis has this effect and has been known to kill it's host within 12/24 without giving any signs that the animal is sick in any way.



[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear - our little troll knows as little about cyathostomiasis as she does about horse neglect!  Cyathostomiasis is a condition - not a parasite - although it is caused by the parasite Cyathostomes - more commonly known as small strongyles.  It is a chronic WASTING condition which can certainly be fatal - but not overnight.

And although it can't be picked up with worm counts as the condition is caused by the immature (non egg-laying) parasites, it leads to weight loss, diarrhoea, ventral oedema etc.  Intermittent fever, occasional colic, and a normal to ravenous appetite are often seen although as the disease progresses, the animal may become anorectic.  

Obviously, a decent worming programme with something like Equest, prevents it!!  One would think a dealer with large numbers of horses through his hands WOULD worm all animals on arrival - if he cared two hoots about their welfare, wouldn't one?


----------



## devonlass (12 May 2009)

Sorry,don't always make myself very clear,was more referring to prosecutions generally,and that they don't often happen unless there is at least a better than average chance of winning.

CPS are just who I know more of personally,but point was RSPCA,despite their faults (which like the CPS and others are many I'm sure) don't usually take cases that far if they have no evidence and/or are lying.

Slightly O/T but as an aside,at least it is an example of the animal welfare act being made use of appropriately,hopefully will set a trend and send a message.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Having read your replies patty, which are generally more questions than answers, I have one observation

Your only purpose in being on this forum is not to represent any kind of truth, it is as a member of a legal defence team in the hope of supporting an appeal against conviction - since you canot rely on evidence because the Court have heard that and judged based on it, you are now hoping to provoke somebody into saying something that can be twisted, or publishing a photograph to cast more doubt on.

You cannot defend JG by making vague comments about turncoat vets, or RSPCA politics - you should be very ashamed, as should JG and all his family. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please mother-hen. The defence team were as follows.

Nigel Weller
Mike fullerton
Richard Cheryal

Expert Vets were.-

John Parker
Maderline Forsyth


Defendants were.

Mr Jamie Gray Senior
Mrs Julie Gray
Jamie Gray Junior
Jodie Gray
Cordeila Gray.

And I am none of the above.

And as much as I try to think - I cannot think of a single reason why anything said on this forum would support an appeal.  


Now, as for the personal comment about I should be ashamed. I have NOTHING what so ever to be ashamed about.

And going by what I have seen and heard - neither have the Gray family anything to be ashamed about.

Here are 3 of many who should be ashamed.

Mr Bob Baskerville and Katie Robinson should be ashamed for betraying a client whom they know full well to be a very good and careing horseman - and one who has given them £1000's for their sevices over the past 9 years.

Another one who should be ashamed is Mr Nick White, of the World Horse Welfare. He and Mr Gray know eachother, and he has traded with Mr Gray in the past. He keeps donkeys. On the day of the seizure he kept apologising to Mr Gray. He goes to auctions but I'm not sure he'll be attending too many now after the lies he told in court.


----------



## SnowPhony (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Can I just clarify that I was not defending JG in any way!!
Our 'Oracle MJ/Patty' whatever has told us that JG got them in that state. I was just wondering why he bought them rather than report the seller like 99.999999% of us with morals would have done! 

[/ QUOTE ]

My post wasn't aimed at you ATG....was just a general comment that I can't believe anyone could or would defend the Grays.


----------



## brummel (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
..It was given in evidence in court and the knacker man wasnt back to work from the christmas holiday......


[/ QUOTE ]


17th DECEMBER 2008:

Mick Wills  knackerman  called to assist in removal of carcasses. Confirmed that he and colleagues would have been available over Xmas period on 24/7 basis

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others-witnesses.pdf


----------



## Over2You (12 May 2009)

Patty - you really are like a broken record - replying to questions with the same old answers or not bothering to answer them at all. You gleefully tell us you will post your "evidence", but you keep on coming up with excuses not to, presumably because you are not in possession of any at all. 

How you can defend such a deplorable family is well and truly beyond me. Those poor animals suffered horribly, yet you seem to think they were in wonderful, caring hands.  

Additionally, if you are a know-it-all as you like to think you are, then how is it you are such an abysmal speller? My thirteen-year-old nephew has a better grasp of the English language than you! Please invest in a dictionary before posting anything else here. 

I sincerely apologize to everyone else for feeding the troll.


----------



## WishfulThinker (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uploaded photos onto photo bucket but cant post them in here 

[/ QUOTE ]

And what about all the other animals - where are the photos of them?

The photos you have posted are of young stock. Now how about you tell the board how long Mr Gray had owned them?

As for them having no food....your photos tell us quiet the opposite. And please take note of the straw. 

Please dont even bother trying to say that the RSPCA put it all there........they didnt - nor did they even try to claim as such in court when photos were put to each witness and asked about the food and bedding. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought those photos were taken at the Horse trust or whatever it was that they were being kept at? As the posted stated that if you have ever been there then you will know that those are the types of pens they are kept in. 



The only thing I don't get is why would anyone - trader or otherwise - want to have that many horses.  Ill or not. That is just an awful lot of horses, and an awful lot of work.  I have worked at a stud farm where we maybe had stock of 50 or so at a time, and even spread out over 2 different farms and pasture that was a lot of horses to deal with - thus the youngstock was basically let out in large herds till the age of 3. 

I have no opinion on the ruling as I don't think I can make that based on what I read on here and in the media.  And anyone that knows me (a few on here do) know I am very picky with horse care. 

I also was just thinking/wondering.  Someone commented about the horses as stock - compared to cattle or sheep stock.  How large does a herd have to be before it is classed the same as cattle/sheep (farming) stock.  Is there even a size?


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Nope he has shot himself in foot i think,he keeps dumping his underweight and sick ponies in fields a little bit every where,(Wexham Park,Stoke Poges,Iver and Langley)which has annoyed his own kind of people,since they get the blame for his carelessness and actions ! 

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure can tell em PW. 

Here's some logical questions for you to chew on.


Why would Jamie Gray buy underweight and sick ponies just to dump them in someone elses field?


Or.


Why would he buy healthy ponies just to leave in his yard to become underweight and sick, and then go dump them?

What could he possibly gain financially by doing any of the above?

A trader is someone who turns his money over with his stock.

There is no money to be made in dead horses. A dead horse is a financial loss to the trader.

Healthy horses are worth more than sick horses - So it would also be in the traders best interest to keep them healthy..


If Jamie Gray ran his business in the way you and the RSPCA are telling people then Jamie Gray would have gone broke years ago.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
to stick my unwanted nose in, proofs in the pudding and photos don't lie-i've followed this story, along with thousands of others and the whole affair is sickening! 

[/ QUOTE ]

So by looking at the pictures you can conclude that the dead animals died of starvation, that  they suffered, and Mr Gray knew about the suffering and could have prevented it but didnt?

Because you see,  these are some of the accusations brought against him - and you believe the story the RSPCA and media have put behind those photos. So by looking at the pictures you can see they that the accusations are correct?


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Patty can you show us photographic evidence that the carcasses were dug up as to me the coloured particularly looks like it was left to rot where it fell.. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant show photographic evidence of them being dug up as no photos were taken of the dig. The RSPCA didnt even admit to digging them up. They said they found the bones just scattered over the farm. But if that were the case then Claire Ryder and Katie Robinson would have seen them when they were at the farm 2 weeks before hand.


[ QUOTE ]
If the RSPCA did dig up buried animals I would like to see them taken to task over it.

the animals I have seen deep littered in barns were on straw 

[/ QUOTE ]

They are a powerful organization - they can get away with anything.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
QR

Patty, do you know how many horses were dug up?

Nothing was mentioned in the press release about horses being dug up! 

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant be sure but I think it was 9 or 11. The RSPCA didnt admit to digging them up. They said they found the bones scattered over the farm. But like I have just explained to another poster, if that was the case then Claire Ryder and Katie Robinson would have seen them when they were at the farm 2 weeks prior.

[ QUOTE ]
I have also found the answer to my question about why the RSPCA did not use the CPS to prosecute. It is because they dont! It seems to have nothing to do with whether or not it is suitable for the CPS.  They choose to bring private prosecutions. The SPCA and the RSPB use the CPS. So the argument that the CPS doesnt understand all the ins and outs of animal cruelty is not the case in the eyes of other animal charities. Indeed it is not the case in the RSPCAs sister organisation the SPCA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA does all the prosecutions themselves. 

[ QUOTE ]
Janet George. There have been several cases where only one animal has been injured or unhealthy, in amongst many healthy ones, which have led to prosecutions by the RSPCA. Vets statements are regularly ignored. The animals are often seized and euthanised immediately. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The animals which were seized from Mr Gray on the 9th of January were examined by the vet on the 4th, along with the 14 they seized on that day because they were deemed as 'at risk', However, the vet was happy with the remaining animals and didnt believe they needed to be removed. However, Kirsy Hampton obviously thought she knew best and set up the operation to remove them. She was met at the gate of the yard by a member of the Gray family and another woman. Kirsty hampton told that member of the family that she was there to remove the rest of the animals. She denied saying any such thing. Before a vet even entered the yard the remaining animals were being sprayed with numbers to be removed. Since getting the all clear from a vet on the 4th, the animals had not undergone anymore veteinary examinations to say that anything had changed, yet they were removed. The police dont know much, if anything, about the animal welfare act so they believe what the RSPCA tell them. They were told that under the act the police had the authority to take them (mere members of the public), and others who are also just members of the public, onto Mr Grays land without a warrant and seize his animals. They lied.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who keeps animals should make themselves aware of their rights in respect of the RSPCA. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely! No animal owner is safe.


----------



## Tabbi (12 May 2009)

Can you tell us anything about Grays previous conviction for causing unnecessary suffering to a horse?

With regards to the present judgement, did Gray buy the horses in bad condition?  
surely if the horses health started to deteriorate after he brought the horses and they were being treated by a vet....if the horses showed no or little signs of improving surely they would have got a second opinion from a different vet?
How long has he been a dealer?


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Your post sums you up Patty......

You do not know right from wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly do know right from wrong. And I think it is beyond wrong to lie about people the way the RSPCA have lied about the Gray family.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy to keep animals in the same conditions as the Grays, who have been convicted of cruelty, (the whole family), then it shows you are equally as horrible and callous as them. 

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was happy to keep animals in the conditions that the RSPCA and media have said Mr Gray kept his animals, then I would agree with you. However, the conditions inwhich Mr Gray kept his animals is nothing like what has been claimed.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Can you tell us anything about Grays previous conviction for causing unnecessary suffering to a horse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a horse was removed from a field by the RSPCA. Mr Gray was prosecuted and found guilty. Mr Gray had no knowledge of the prosecution until he received notice that he had been found guilty. Mr Gray appealed and won.

[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the present judgement, did Gray buy the horses in bad condition?  
surely if the horses health started to deteriorate after he brought the horses and they were being treated by a vet....if the horses showed no or little signs of improving surely they would have got a second opinion from a differnt vet?
How long has he been a dealer? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Apart from the pets Mr Gray brought them over a short  space of time prior the the raid. Off the top of my head I remember a lot was brought on the 18th of december 07.

Mr Gray told the court that when peole buy in Lots from auctions there are always ponies among them that are not in as good condition as the rest of them, but such animals do come on well, though sometimes they can also go back and lose condition no matter how hard you try to build them up. However, the one's Mr Gray was working with were coming on well considering he had not had them very long.

When Katie Robinson examined them on the 21 of December 07, she was happy with how they were coming on. One particular horse was saved from the knacker man by Mr Gray.
Mr Gray put that horse on bute while he waited for the farrier  to come out to it.

Horse dealing has been in his family for 4 generations. - Mr Gray has been a dealer his entire working life.


----------



## RantBucket (12 May 2009)

It is a shame Patty didnt speak up during the court case and give character references for the defence instead of spending her time posting on this thread. The evidence was overwhelming, I for one would rather trust the district judge and not Pattys judgement.


----------



## RantBucket (12 May 2009)

If JG is a good caring horseman and has nothing to be ashamed off as Judge Patty has informed us, why was he then admitted of Bad Character in this case, with a propensity to commit offences of this kind and why was he found guilty (upheld on appeal) by Hemel Hempstead court of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal in October 2006 then. Perhaps that case was also a travesty of justice in Judge Pattys eyes also.


----------



## ru-fi-do (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
..It was given in evidence in court and the knacker man wasnt back to work from the christmas holiday......


[/ QUOTE ]


17th DECEMBER 2008:

Mick Wills  knackerman  called to assist in removal of carcasses. Confirmed that he and colleagues would have been available over Xmas period on 24/7 basis

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others-witnesses.pdf 

[/ QUOTE ]

A very interesting read smallholder, thank you for posting that. It should save Patty's record, it just seems to keep getting stuck. The document says it all.
Jamie Gray Jn sounds like a nice chap.... According to the document When asked his name he replied 'suck my crack'.


----------



## the watcher (12 May 2009)

patty. you have said on this thread that you do not know JG and his family but simply took an interest in the investigation, if I understand you correctly.

If this is true you could not have been at the farm before the RSPCA visited, or there when the RSPCA and Police attended, nor there subsequently when further animals were removed (you commented earlier that one was removed because it had a 'scratch on its leg' - that is so not true, I saw those ponies and they were walking skeletons but you will be happy to know they have put on weight with good care).

So, if everything you are saying here is simply a report of what you have heard the defence say in court you are horribly, horribly naive.

i don't know what your issue is with the RSPCA - but you are very mistaken if you believe that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here. Those of us who have known of JG's activities for years know this - you should just come to terms with it, there is nothing you can say to defend this family.

JG has more Court cases in the pipeline, I understand, on other matters (all horse related), hopefully this is enough to put him and his family out of business and away from all animals for a very, very long time


----------



## ru-fi-do (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Another one who should be ashamed is Mr Nick White, of the World Horse Welfare. He and Mr Gray know eachother, and he has traded with Mr Gray in the past. He keeps donkeys. On the day of the seizure he kept apologising to Mr Gray. He goes to auctions but I'm not sure he'll be attending too many now after the lies he told in court. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he not attend anymore auctions???????????


----------



## M_G (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uploaded photos onto photo bucket but cant post them in here 

[/ QUOTE ]

And what about all the other animals - where are the photos of them?

The photos you have posted are of young stock. Now how about you tell the board how long Mr Gray had owned them?

As for them having no food....your photos tell us quiet the opposite. And please take note of the straw. 

Please dont even bother trying to say that the RSPCA put it all there........they didnt - nor did they even try to claim as such in court when photos were put to each witness and asked about the food and bedding. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you will find those pictures were taken at the rescue centre


----------



## M_G (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Patty can you show us photographic evidence that the carcasses were dug up as to me the coloured particularly looks like it was left to rot where it fell.. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant show photographic evidence of them being dug up as no photos were taken of the dig. The RSPCA didnt even admit to digging them up. They said they found the bones just scattered over the farm. But if that were the case then Claire Ryder and Katie Robinson would have seen them when they were at the farm 2 weeks before hand.


[ QUOTE ]
If the RSPCA did dig up buried animals I would like to see them taken to task over it.

the animals I have seen deep littered in barns were on straw 

[/ QUOTE ]

They are a powerful organization - they can get away with anything. 

[/ QUOTE ]

So JG was at his farm while the bones were being dug up and never thought to take pictures or are you saying the RSPCA sneaked on the property in the dark of night and dug bones up?... sorry that sounds like utter twaddle


----------



## the watcher (12 May 2009)

M_G, further to your comments..
I have done joint inspections with the RSPCA, we went to one farm where on first appearances everything looked OK, the ponies in the fields seemed healthy enough, if a bit light and it was only when we rooted around the barns we discovered that two of them had false backs, and behind these were groups of yearlings penned in to tiny spaces together. They were fighting, injured, hungry, thirsty and two were in immediate need of veterinary care to prevent permanent serious disability.

Sometimes places can be far worse than they seem - but you have to go and look. It may be that on visits only being shown selected animals or barns, the true horror of what was going on was not clear


----------



## M_G (12 May 2009)

Mother Hen it breaks my heart hearing of all the suffering out there caused by heartless people who dont give a sh1t about the animals in their care. 

Yes if a vet was called to look at a certain animal they are not going to wander round the property, they look at that animal then leave


----------



## brummel (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
There is no money to be made in dead horses. A dead horse is a financial loss to the trader.

Healthy horses are worth more than sick horses - So it would also be in the traders best interest to keep them healthy.. 

[/ QUOTE ]

18. Mr. Parker produced a report on 1st February  paragraph 49 he states:

_Mr. Gray would have to make a decision having got his purchases home, whether to spend a lot of money in veterinary attention attempting to recover lost causes, or to seeing his best way out financially by maybe letting the weaker animals succumb"_ 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others.pdf


----------



## brummel (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, a horse was removed from a field by the RSPCA. Mr Gray was prosecuted and found guilty. Mr Gray had no knowledge of the prosecution until he received notice that he had been found guilty. Mr Gray appealed and won. 

[/ QUOTE ]

43. Mr. Gray was convicted in 2006 ( *upheld on appeal* ) of causing unnecessary suffering to a Piebald colt by unreasonably failing to obtain veterinary treatment for the horses diarrhoea  fine £3,500 and deprived of ownership of the animal,

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others.pdf


----------



## brummel (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
How many were lame? 

[/ QUOTE ]


1. And Mr Gray had only just purchased it. He called his farrier and put it on bute until the farrier could get out to him.


[/ QUOTE ]

*3rd April 2009* 

_William Beech  Farrier called in rebuttal of Mr. Grays ssertion that he had carried out farrier work at Spindles Farm. Does not know Mr.James Gray, has not been to the farm. Attends Southall and Langley Fair. Remembers Jamie Gray Jnr bringing a horse to him to shoe. Thought it was Jamies horse  . Cannot recall making arrangements to go to Spindles. Farm_

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others-witnesses.pdf


----------



## brummel (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a horse was removed from a field by the RSPCA. Mr Gray was prosecuted and found guilty. Mr Gray had no knowledge of the prosecution until he received notice that he had been found guilty. Mr Gray appealed and won. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't be posting any more extracts from the links, this last one is just to clarify beyond a doubt that James Gray DID NOT WIN THE APPEAL....

*75. Bad Character* 
_By virtue of Section 101(1)(d) I have ruled that the previous conviction of James Gray be admitted in evidence because of its relevance to a propensity to commit offences of this kind. Now that all the evidence has been heard. it clearly is a relevant factor to be weighed, as it is relatively recent to the date of these allegations. It involves a failure to prevent unnecessary suffering by not getting veterinary treatment for an animal.. It will be part of my final deliberations_

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others.pdf


----------



## lily1 (12 May 2009)

Just out of interest what did Mr Gray actually do with all these horses? surely he didnt sell them to the public? or did he buy them to sell for the meat trade? &amp; where did he buy them from? 
Every animal deserves a level of care. how anyone can defend him &amp; his family It makes me speechless.


----------



## SillySausage (12 May 2009)

_"KH3 had paraphimosis-its penis was massively swollen ..blistered and sore with blood dripping from it and staining its hind legs_ 

Why was this not dealt with?

_"There at 5.30pm and saw the behaviour of people trying to move the horse, saw Mr.Gray, with young female and young boy. Mr. Gray and young male tied rope to head and tail to drag horse to trailer. Saw young male kick horse."_ 

Charming!

_"a number of carcasses. .approx 8-10 in varying states of decay"_ 

Why would they dig up 8-10 carcasses I still don't understand?

"Hallmarks of suffering:
A The large percentage of animals which were thin or extremely emaciated
B The absence of feed in the pens and fields on the first visit on 4th January
C The dejected depressed appearance of the animals
D The abnormally long straggly hair coat
E The fact of gross overcrowding in the pens, the tie-up areas and in the
Paddocks
F The competitive aggression amongst the surviving animals
G The absence of any place where a horse could rest and lie in comfort
H The matted filthy condition of the horses
I In cases where injury or illness was evident, there had been no attempt to
isolate or treat the sick animals
J The absence of evidence of any epidemic disease which could have led to
the signs shown by these animals
K Samples of blood taken from a number of the horses show changes which
are indicators of starvation and neglect"


If that's not abuse then I don't know what is...


----------



## EstherSupporter (12 May 2009)

Welcome Back Smallholder......nice to see you on here again....


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
anyone thats seen them at the trust knows that this is the barn where they were kept 

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed those photos were taken at SF because they look identical (by what I can see of them) to the barns at SF.

So I am sorry for my quick assumption.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty good morning to you i trust you are well???

[/ QUOTE ]

Good afternoon. I am well thank you. I hope you are well too.


[ QUOTE ]
to your reply about you no longer have a horse well i some how think think thats for the best dont you???

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say so. 

[ QUOTE ]
in reply to your comment about me not believeing the media well i have to say i find the photos pretty real and see in no way they are photoshopped or such like???

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no reason what so ever to believe they are photoshopped or such like. 

[ QUOTE ]
and im correct in thinking they are actually spindles farm???

[/ QUOTE ]

you are indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
i feel that this is enough evidence for me fogive me if you feel i am ignorant, the photos the PW has posted are eveidence and unless you are sugesting that i , PW and other members of this forum have visual imparements then we will leave it at that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do those photos of the dead animals actually tell you apart from the the fact that they are dead?

[ QUOTE ]
as to you comment about the rspca will prosicute your "ass" with any luck they will stick a cap in it 
	
	
		
		
	


	




best wishes 
x 

[/ QUOTE ]

No chance!!


----------



## RantBucket (12 May 2009)

Oh no disappointed Judge Patty is back on line, does she not know it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt!


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
17th December 2008 
Katie Robinson  veterinary surgeon from Baskerville, Hogan and Partners. 
The Grays are clients of practice.  Visited Spindles Farm before to certify equines fit 
for export. She had been called by The RSPCA to assist in the inspection. She was 
distressed  by observations of compromised animals, conditions of pens and farm 
environment etc.  Contacts a senior partner R. Baskerville for advice  as situation 
beyond her experience. The smell of rotting horse flesh was overpowering the 
animals had obviously been dead for days..The bedding was sodden and filthy 
dirtyKH1 was emaciated and very weakpropped against a water troughKH3 
had paraphimosis-its penis was massively swollen ..blistered and sore with blood 
dripping from it and staining its hind legs 
Produces plans, notes , Pro Forma Veterinary Examination forms  Exhibits Pros Vet 
0001-0035   
Not cross-examined by defence 
Patty was not expecting this info i think 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you think wrong PW....

I posted a link for the site.

But wasnt it you who said something about Baskerville was not Grays vet and wouldnt work for someone such as him?

Yes it was.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Mick Wills  knackerman  called to assist in removal of carcasses. Confirmed that 
he and colleagues would have been available over Xmas period on 24/7 basis
crawl back under your stone you ..did not expect this did you ? 

[/ QUOTE ]

After having sat through the case I feel the contaxt of the report paints a completely different picture of what really went on in court.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
reading through all of that;def right verdict........just had to post 1 last time on this tread 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Do you also think it was fair for the judge to dismiss all defendants testimonies just because they gave no comment interviews at the police station, which they were instructed to do by a lawyer?

Maderline Forsyths evidence was basically dismissed because she didnt agree with the prosecutions vet Mr Green. Was that fair?

Was it fair to dismiss Mr Parkers evidence because he felt unwell during the trial (for a day)?  Mr Parker gave evidence of what he found when he visited the different locations to where the animals were being kept. He wasnt unwell then.

Was it right that Kirsty Hampton was allowed to re-write her statement and be recalled to the stand because while hearing another prosecution witness give evidence, her 'memory was jogged'?


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Why would he not attend anymore auctions??????????? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I should think after all the lies he told, that he would be ashamed to show his face at another auction.


----------



## BuckingHorse (12 May 2009)

QR As someone else suggested, watch the video:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/282145.html

Which camp did the partially decomposed horses fall into?  Dead less that 2 weeks or dug up by the RSPCA??


----------



## Natch (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
99.999% of people cannot understand why anybody would be so neglectful of their animals as Mr Grey has appeared to, and has now been found guilty of. So I don't have a clue but would hazard a guess at: 
1) The operation grew too big
2) Funds were short

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The court heard that Mr Gray has always kept a large numbers of animals. 

2) Could not have been that short because he purchased some of those animals not long before they were removed.

[ QUOTE ]
But really, who but the man himself knows why there were so many horses that were starving and dead on his property. 

[/ QUOTE ]

There was not a shred of evidence produced in court that any of those animals were starving or starved. 

[/ QUOTE ]


TBH this just sums it up for me. He had no excuses for the condition of these animals.


----------



## Natch (12 May 2009)

Good evening patty. I would like you to make an open and honest statement about who you are, what your relationship is with this case, and why you took it upon yourself to become so interested in it.

You have replied to this style of question twice now with what are in my opinion evasive answers, very much the style of a politicians. In order to stop me from believing that you are either fake, or in some way linked with the defence team, please can you OPENLY and WHOLLY explain the above to me in plain english as I seem to have missed something.

Thank you.


----------



## nicky_jakey (12 May 2009)

Patty, 

you are right, the grey's evidence was dismissed very quickly. However, even though he was advised to give 'no comment', this was still his choice. I agree with you on this one thing BUT the guy (&amp; his son) are as guilty as it gets. Perhaps the video &amp; photographic evidence was enough for the Judge??

Since you are so hell bent on defending Mr Grey - have you seen (yourself) the horses that were rescued? They were certainly NOT a picture of health. They did not receive adequate feed &amp; vet care. As John Parker suggests, perhaps the weakest were left...? As it's cheaper for nature to take its course?

There were many dead animals &amp; carcases. My understanding is that these were burned to get rid of bodies, again perhaps to save the expense??

As you say, they are not worth anything to him in this state. But I'm sure as you're so close to him / his family that you will know that there is more to come &amp; further charges to be delt with... I can only imagine this will be 'old news' to you as you claim to be so in the know...??


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty, 

you are right, the grey's evidence was dismissed very quickly. However, even though he was advised to give 'no comment', this was still his choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it was his choice but if he wasnt going to bother listening to the advice a lawyer was going to give him, what was the point of even having a lawyer present?

Also, what about his wife and children? This was a whole new expirence to them.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you on this one thing BUT the guy (&amp; his son) are as guilty as it gets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilty of what? 


[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the video &amp; photographic evidence was enough for the Judge??

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt enough for the judge in the april 08 case where the judge awarded Mr Gray his animals back,

[ QUOTE ]
Since you are so hell bent on defending Mr Grey - have you seen (yourself) the horses that were rescued?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen as much as Peter Green has seen. 

[ QUOTE ]
They were certainly NOT a picture of health.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. However, the photos which the public didnt get to see, show animals looking closer to obese rather than emaciated.

[ QUOTE ]
They did not receive adequate feed &amp; vet care.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you know this how?

[ QUOTE ]
As John Parker suggests, perhaps the weakest were left...? As it's cheaper for nature to take its course?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not the case and the Mr Parker has been taken out of context. 

However, according to the RSPCA none of the animals were safe.

[ QUOTE ]
There were many dead animals &amp; carcases. My understanding is that these were burned to get rid of bodies, again perhaps to save the expense??

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but I really cannot help you with this one because I didnt hear Mr Gray give evidence about this. However, if I find out anything I'll bring it to the attention of the board.

[ QUOTE ]
As you say, they are not worth anything to him in this state. But I'm sure as you're so close to him / his family that you will know that there is more to come &amp; further charges to be delt with... I can only imagine this will be 'old news' to you as you claim to be so in the know...?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Close to him / his family - in what way?

I dont know of anymore charges so if there are anymore then I'm as in the dark about them as everyone else.


----------



## ru-fi-do (12 May 2009)

Or perhaps because he told the truth he would get hounded by 'Grays' associates......... Is that closer to the truth


----------



## nicky_jakey (12 May 2009)

you clearly take great pleasure in going through peoples posts &amp; twisting everything written. 

You know damn well that the horses were certainly NOT obese - I can't believe your even trying to suggest this??? 

So where are you suggesting the obese horses are? I would have loved to have seen them.

Guilty of what - OF ALL CHARGES - do you really need things spelt out??

Well clearly since April 08, the evidence compiled by the RSPCA is now much more conslusive.

'Seeing as much as Peter Green has seen' DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. As others have said you are evasive.

I am making the assumption that you are close to him - my mistake if not. I don't think I am alone in making this assumption as why would you be so hell bent on defending him if not??

Let's see what the future holds regarding him &amp; further court appearances. I suggest we leave it there as I don't want to say anything which may imact on future hearings.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Good evening patty. I would like you to make an open and honest statement about who you are, what your relationship is with this case, and why you took it upon yourself to become so interested in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been completely honest with you. Many people throughout the country have become very interested in the case. Just because someone diggs a little further and bothers to try to find out more information than most would bother to, does not mean such a person is any more closer to the family involved than the next person. If I sided with the RSPCA after my findings then I am more than sure that I would have been commended for my efforts rather than be accused of all that I have been accused of. I have some very helpful contacts - just like PW claims to have. 


[ QUOTE ]
You have replied to this style of question twice now with what are in my opinion evasive answers, very much the style of a politicians. In order to stop me from believing that you are either fake, or in some way linked with the defence team, please can you OPENLY and WHOLLY explain the above 
to me in plain english as I seem to have missed something.

Thank you.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well unless I give out my personal details I'm not sure how else I am supposed to tell you who I am.

I'm affraid you're going to have to conclude whatever you will because I will not give my personal details to total strangers.


----------



## legend (12 May 2009)

Patty,
I response to whether I think it is fair that the Judge should be entitled to draw an adverse inference from ALL of the Grays failure to comment whilst in police interview; I think it is TOTALLY FAIR AND RIGHT.  I suggest you go and research the case law that establishes under what circumstances adverse inferences may be drawn.  
The Grays, when arrested and at the beginning of the interview will have been cautioned.  
Are you disputing that?  If so, please state time and date that a complaint was logged with the IPCC and expected date of completion of their enquiries.

If not, you accept that they were told that 
IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION, WHEN QUESTIONED, SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT.  
The judge is therefore perfectly entitled to draw an inference from any failure to provide an account from the defendant.  

You appear to be suggesting that the horses arrived at their premises in that condition?  If so, perhaps you could enlighten us why that wouldnt be EXACTLY what was said in the taped police interview? 
If the Grays are stating that they picked the horses up in that condition, why did they not state WHEN ASKED in police interview
 I purchased horse x from person 1 at place A at [time] on [date].  I present my receipt and horse xs passport as supporting evidence that I have only just purchased this animal.
If you are claiming that the Grays horses were all in perfectly good condition (apart from the dead horses, OBVIOUSLY) why did the Grays not say WHEN ASKED in police interview 
The horses on my land that are not currently dead are in good health, and I present my vet bills as evidence that horse x was examined by my vet Mr whatever on [date] at [time].  Please contact him on this number and he will be happy to provide a statement confirming the above.
Ah no, but wait...didnt the defence vet claim that the deaths may have been due to a massive outbreak of worms?  Worms which could have been prevented by an appropriate CARE program including worming (both routinely and new entrants to the herd), poo-picking and not overstocking land).  
Unless there is a new type of worm that appears unexpectedly despite all the above having been done that no-one else has discovered yet?  Is this what you are suggesting?  Does it kill instantly and with none of the recognisable and well documented symptoms?  Does it prevent timely removal of the bodies?
Perhaps it is a type of worm that Equine Specialist vets are not familiar with, and only mixed practice vet surgeons are able to identify it?
Or one that took the other defence vet  several months to work it out,  and that was after he had compiled his initial 73 page report on his findings.  Well GOSH, how do I hire him to look at my horses? When mine are ill, I find it PERFECTLY REASONABLE that it takes SEVERAL MONTHS for an allegedly competent vet to diagnose something as SIMPLE as worms! 
Regarding the dead horses, why not answer WHEN ASKED 
Dead horse 1 died at [time] on [date] of [condition] as diagnosed by my vet  and i present my vet bills as evidence that horse x was examined by my vet Mr whatever on [date] at [time].  Please contact him on this number and he will be happy to provide a statement confirming the above.  Dead horse 2 ditto. Dead horse 3 ditto. Ad nauseum.
Then continue with:
They were all due to be buried at [time] on [date] in [place] and I present the appropriate permissions from x county council confirming that I have permission to do this.  
In an earlier post you questioned
 where they died,
When were they going to be removed.
When dead pet was going to be buried

By including where they died are you suggesting that some of the horses died in places other than Spindles Farm?  If so, why did the Grays not state WHEN ASKED in interview Dead horse 6 was already dead when i had it transported to my land for [insert LEGITIMATE purpose here].  It died at [time] on [date] at [place] of [condition] whilst it was in the care of [owner].  I provide the owners details and they will be happy to provide a statement.  I am an approved [knackerman/rendering plant/burial site/cremation agent/insert or delete as appropriate].  I provide [documents] to prove that I am licensed by [relevant authority].

On a vaguely related note, wasn't Peter Green the vet that used to do articles for Horse and Hound? 
Admin, if you are reading this thread is it possible that you could approach him to do an article about this case in a forthcoming issue?  Thanks.


----------



## Llwyncwn (12 May 2009)

bloody hell   
	
	
		
		
	


	









I was at THT and recognise PWs pics, it was so very sad.  I have witnessed the evidence which is the 14 most poorly who went to the nearest centre.  Two had strangles which were immediately isolated (one being a chestnut mare), the rest were weak and depressed, full of lice and worms.  As PW explained, the donkeys were immediately to the right when entering the barn and when THT staff told me of Gladys (ancient donkey) and how she arrived before the other donkeys and just laid down exhausted, given up, the whole atmosphere was very thought provoking.

I have an open mind and if this man and his family are innocent, set up by authorities and tarred, I would want to leave my country.


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, a horse was removed from a field by the RSPCA. Mr Gray was prosecuted and found guilty. Mr Gray had no knowledge of the prosecution until he received notice that he had been found guilty. Mr Gray appealed and won. 

[/ QUOTE ]

43. Mr. Gray was convicted in 2006 ( *upheld on appeal* ) of causing unnecessary suffering to a Piebald colt by unreasonably failing to obtain veterinary treatment for the horses diarrhoea  fine £3,500 and deprived of ownership of the animal,

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others.pdf 

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I cant believe how blatent this is in the report.

In May 2005 Mr Gray had a horse removed from a field by no other then the little Ms Hampton herself. The horse was removed along with another horse which didnt belong to Mr Gray. It was a shared field. Mr Gray owned other horses in that same field but they wasnt removed. When Mr Gray discovered the RSPCA had removed his horse he called them to ask what was going on. They prosecuted Mr Gray but he wasnt aware of it until notice came that he had been found guilty in his absence. The charge was that the animal had insuficient food and water. Mr Gray appealed and WON the appeal. The RSPCA certainly shot their self in the foot with that one because if there wasnt enough food and water in the field for THAT particular animal then the same would have been true for the rest of the animals, but they was not removed.


----------



## dozzie (12 May 2009)

This is the advice given by the Self Help group who support people accused by the RSPCA.

http://the-shg.org/Arrest.htm

This makes interesting reading if any of you have time.

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/Defending%20Animal%20Welfare%20Prosecutions.htm

I also found this site very enlightening. Takes a while to get through the links but well worth it if you want to see the other side of the story and are willing not to believe everything you see in the press.

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/

I have read through the court reports and summing up and I also have further questions. 

65 horses went to Norfolk (I think). Described as a safe haven.  No-one was allowed to see them. In the trial there was no evidence that veterinary care was required. In fact the emphasis was on the fact the the sanctuary had to build shelters and create paddocks/pens. 

So 65 horses were deemed to be needing no special care. Where are the photographs? Why was nobody allowed to know where they were? They were happy to let people see the poor ones but not the healthy ones. Why? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





To present a fair picture to the general public the RSPCA should have released pictures of ALL the horses, IMO. 

To present a fair picture to the court they should have presented pictures of ALL the horses, IMO.

Why didnt they do this?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





Finally, why was his son found guilty but not given the opportunity to defend himself? That seems like a medieval approach to justice.


----------



## the watcher (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, a horse was removed from a field by the RSPCA. Mr Gray was prosecuted and found guilty. Mr Gray had no knowledge of the prosecution until he received notice that he had been found guilty. Mr Gray appealed and won. 

[/ QUOTE ]

43. Mr. Gray was convicted in 2006 ( *upheld on appeal* ) of causing unnecessary suffering to a Piebald colt by unreasonably failing to obtain veterinary treatment for the horses diarrhoea  fine £3,500 and deprived of ownership of the animal,

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others.pdf 

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I cant believe how blatent this is in the report.

In May 2005 Mr Gray had a horse removed from a field by no other then the little Ms Hampton herself. The horse was removed along with another horse which didnt belong to Mr Gray. It was a shared field. Mr Gray owned other horses in that same field but they wasnt removed. When Mr Gray discovered the RSPCA had removed his horse he called them to ask what was going on. They prosecuted Mr Gray but he wasnt aware of it until notice came that he had been found guilty in his absence. The charge was that the animal had insuficient food and water. Mr Gray appealed and WON the appeal. The RSPCA certainly shot their self in the foot with that one because if there wasnt enough food and water in the field for THAT particular animal then the same would have been true for the rest of the animals, but they was not removed. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know all this to be fact how, exactly?


----------



## SillySausage (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
This is the advice given by the Self Help group who support people accused by the RSPCA.

http://the-shg.org/Arrest.htm

This makes interesting reading if any of you have time.

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/Defending%20Animal%20Welfare%20Prosecutions.htm

I also found this site very enlightening. Takes a while to get through the links but well worth it if you want to see the other side of the story and are willing not to believe everything you see in the press.

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/

I have read through the court reports and summing up and I also have further questions. 

65 horses went to Norfolk (I think). Described as a safe haven.  No-one was allowed to see them. In the trial there was no evidence that veterinary care was required. In fact the emphasis was on the fact the the sanctuary had to build shelters and create paddocks/pens. 

So 65 horses were deemed to be needing no special care. Where are the photographs? Why was nobody allowed to know where they were? They were happy to let people see the poor ones but not the healthy ones. Why? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





To present a fair picture to the general public the RSPCA should have released pictures of ALL the horses, IMO. 

To present a fair picture to the court they should have presented pictures of ALL the horses, IMO.

Why didnt they do this?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





Finally, why was his son found guilty but not given the opportunity to defend himself? That seems like a medieval approach to justice.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I said in the beginning of this thread that I had seen some when they were first removed. These were in Norfolk. I would not class them as 'healthy' in any way!


----------



## dozzie (12 May 2009)

No they didnt go to Redwings, they went to an undisclosed location.


----------



## Quadro (12 May 2009)

QR
dozzie thank you for showing me that site, makes me angry im prepared to admit that there will always be right and wrong on both sides but i dont think an organisation as large as rspca is corrupt, it is hardly the russian mafia, its a respected well known national organisation and i feel that website is just an uprising from other people who did not have the decency to look after there animals properly in the 1t place


----------



## SillySausage (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
No they didnt go to Redwings, they went to an undisclosed location. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about Redwings


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Patty,
I response to whether I think it is fair that the Judge should be entitled to draw an adverse inference from ALL of the Grays failure to comment whilst in police interview; I think it is TOTALLY FAIR AND RIGHT.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you suggest that all people who give no-comment police interviews on the advice of a solicitor, are all guilty?

If not, do you believe it is totally right and fair for a judge, after seeing and hearing evidence that _could_ have been produced in a police interview but was not, to find people guilty just because they didnt produce _that_ evidence in the police interview because they were advised by their solicitor not to?


[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you go and research the case law that establishes under what circumstances adverse inferences may be drawn. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this but it does not mean he _must_ find them guilty just because they made no comment.

[ QUOTE ]
The Grays, when arrested and at the beginning of the interview will have been cautioned. 

[/ QUOTE ]

They were not arrested, but was threatend with arrest if they didnt have the interviews. They later found out that such actions taken by the police was not lawful. I truely believe that their solicitor at that time should have still been in law school.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you disputing that?  If so, please state time and date that a complaint was logged with the IPCC and expected date of completion of their enquiries.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not disputing it but it still does not make it fair.

[ QUOTE ]
If not, you accept that they were told that 
IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION, WHEN QUESTIONED, SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT. 

[/ QUOTE ]

They were not arrested.

[ QUOTE ]
The judge is therefore perfectly entitled to draw an inference from any failure to provide an account from the defendant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The defendants may not have made comment in the police station but the judge heard why they didnt give an account at the police station - and he also heard all the evidence they would have given if they had commented in their interviews. So basically the judge dismissed irrefutable evidence just because they didnt give that evidence in a police interview.

[ QUOTE ]
You appear to be suggesting that the horses arrived at their premises in that condition?

[/ QUOTE ]

The word _condition_ keeps being used in broad brush comments and questions. 

Some did, some were animals that Mr Gray was in the process of building up. Most were as fat as butter but so conveniant for the RSPCA that the public wasnt fortunate enough to see those animals.


[ QUOTE ]
If so, perhaps you could enlighten us why that wouldnt be EXACTLY what was said in the taped police interview? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, they were instructed by their solicitor at the time not to make any comment. They obiviously thought he knew best.

I remember hearing Jodie Gray answer a question from Mr Seabrook about the no comment police interview. She said she had wished she had not listened to the solicitor but she thought he knew best. This was a whole new experience to her.


[ QUOTE ]
If the Grays are stating that they picked the horses up in that condition, why did they not state WHEN ASKED in police interview
 I purchased horse x from person 1 at place A at [time] on [date].  I present my receipt and horse xs passport as supporting evidence that I have only just purchased this animal.
If you are claiming that the Grays horses were all in perfectly good condition (apart from the dead horses, OBVIOUSLY) why did the Grays not say WHEN ASKED in police interview 
The horses on my land that are not currently dead are in good health, and I present my vet bills as evidence that horse x was examined by my vet Mr whatever on [date] at [time].  Please contact him on this number and he will be happy to provide a statement confirming the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Need I repeat why the Grays never answered questions in the police interview?

After what they had just experienced and seeing how the RSPCA can do and say as they please - they sought legal advice and trusted it was the right thing to do.


[ QUOTE ]
Ah no, but wait...didnt the defence vet claim that the deaths may have been due to a massive outbreak of worms?  Worms which could have been prevented by an appropriate CARE program including worming (both routinely and new entrants to the herd), poo-picking and not overstocking land).  
Unless there is a new type of worm that appears unexpectedly despite all the above having been done that no-one else has discovered yet?  Is this what you are suggesting?  Does it kill instantly and with none of the recognisable and well documented symptoms?  Does it prevent timely removal of the bodies?
Perhaps it is a type of worm that Equine Specialist vets are not familiar with, and only mixed practice vet surgeons are able to identify it?
Or one that took the other defence vet  several months to work it out,  and that was after he had compiled his initial 73 page report on his findings.  Well GOSH, how do I hire him to look at my horses? When mine are ill, I find it PERFECTLY REASONABLE that it takes SEVERAL MONTHS for an allegedly competent vet to diagnose something as SIMPLE as worms! 

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you take another look at the report. Though out of context as it is, I feel it will answer your questions better than I can. I have answered the same questions time after time. People dont seem to be reading through the thread and think they are asking all new and improved questions, when really they are doing no more than repeating what has already been asked.



[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the dead horses, why not answer WHEN ASKED 
Dead horse 1 died at [time] on [date] of [condition] as diagnosed by my vet  and i present my vet bills as evidence that horse x was examined by my vet Mr whatever on [date] at [time].  Please contact him on this number and he will be happy to provide a statement confirming the above.  Dead horse 2 ditto. Dead horse 3 ditto. Ad nauseum.
Then continue with:
They were all due to be buried at [time] on [date] in [place] and I present the appropriate permissions from x county council confirming that I have permission to do this. 

[/ QUOTE ]

They did what other people do in such circumstances. But here, I'll break it down for you.

1. They hired a solicitor.

2. the took his advice which was to make NO COMMENT.

3. They acted upon that advice.

[ QUOTE ]
In an earlier post you questioned
 where they died,
When were they going to be removed.
When dead pet was going to be buried

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look through the tread you'll see.

[ QUOTE ]
By including where they died are you suggesting that some of the horses died in places other than Spindles Farm?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, why did the Grays not state WHEN ASKED in interview Dead horse 6 was already dead when i had it transported to my land for [insert LEGITIMATE purpose here].  It died at [time] on [date] at [place] of [condition] whilst it was in the care of [owner].  I provide the owners details and they will be happy to provide a statement.  I am an approved [knackerman/rendering plant/burial site/cremation agent/insert or delete as appropriate].  I provide [documents] to prove that I am licensed by [relevant authority].

[/ QUOTE ]


No comment.


[ QUOTE ]
On a vaguely related note, wasn't Peter Green the vet that used to do articles for Horse and Hound? 
Admin, if you are reading this thread is it possible that you could approach him to do an article about this case in a forthcoming issue?  Thanks. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and while you're at it ask Peter Green about the little comment he made to the Asian security guard before he gave his evidence. Something about the Gray family not being as bad as they were being made to look in the court room.

He really should be careful who is within earshot before makeing comments about people who's names he is about to drag through the mud.

Ask him about his little chat with Cordelia Gray when he asked her for a sweet just before he walked into the witness room.


----------



## dozzie (12 May 2009)

Ok but why are there no photographs?


----------



## claire2 (12 May 2009)

Hi every body ! just a other to back the gray family it stands out a mile that they are so INERCENT !!!!


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps because he told the truth he would get hounded by 'Grays' associates......... Is that closer to the truth 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

So he was telling the truth yet kept apologizing to Mr Gray while at SF?


----------



## Quadro (12 May 2009)

shame you cannot spell


----------



## claire2 (12 May 2009)

I see that poor patty is the only person that walks about with her eyes and ears open has ive herd KATIE ROBINSON  DONT !!!!!!!


----------



## claire2 (12 May 2009)

Its not about the spellings it about the TRUTH !!!!!!!


----------



## ru-fi-do (12 May 2009)

PMSL! Your a bright one!


----------



## claire2 (12 May 2009)

NOt that they think they are vet exsperts and police officers / and a member of the public like the R.S.P.C.A.  thats all they are is a member of the public but now they think they are school teachers aswell !!! now come on !!!! im just writeing in little sort hand quadro !!!!!ok ?


----------



## Quadro (12 May 2009)

my dear short hand and bad spelling are totally different things, you are using that latter, and no it is not ok


----------



## patty19 (12 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty. you have said on this thread that you do not know JG and his family but simply took an interest in the investigation, if I understand you correctly.

If this is true you could not have been at the farm before the RSPCA visited, or there when the RSPCA and Police attended,

[/ QUOTE ]

I had never been to the yard before the raid, no.

[ QUOTE ]
nor there subsequently when further animals were removed (you commented earlier that one was removed because it had a 'scratch on its leg' - that is so not true, I saw those ponies and they were walking skeletons but you will be happy to know they have put on weight with good care).

[/ QUOTE ]

They were removed against the wishes of the vet. The vet made a full report and said Mr Gray was being harassed by the RSPCA. And I know for a fact that they were most certainly NOT walking skeletons. That is a blatant lie.

[ QUOTE ]
So, if everything you are saying here is simply a report of what you have heard the defence say in court you are horribly, horribly naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see, thats where you are wrong....I have done so much digging, have gathered tons of information and have scrutinized every single piece of information, and sat through hours upon hours in the court listening to both cases and taking and comparing notes, so that I would NOT be horribly naive. However, with the mountain of information I had even before it went to court, I knew Mr Gray was innocent. And as for his family members, prosecuting them was an utter joke because Kirsty Hampton and Claire Ryder know for a fact that the woman had no dealings with the animals. And as for the young Jamie Gray...I'm baffled at how he could possibly be responsible for a vast amount of animals at the age of 14.
If you look into each charge, it's hard to imagain how the judge could possibly expect some of those things from a mere boy. 


[ QUOTE ]
i don't know what your issue is with the RSPCA - but you are very mistaken if you believe that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here. Those of us who have known of JG's activities for years know this - you should just come to terms with it, there is nothing you can say to defend this family.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had issues before the JG case went to court, but after hearing the lies they told in court gave me even more reason to have issues with them......Most of the prosecution witnesses completely contradicted one another - and themselves. Kirsty Hampton re-wrote her statement after hearing evidence from another prosecution witness, which apparently, 'jogged her memory'. She was allowed to change what she said in her first statement, which was contradicted by the other witness, to say the exact same thing as that witness. She was then re-called to the stand after being released as a witness. Thats just not right.

[ QUOTE ]
JG has more Court cases in the pipeline, I understand, on other matters (all horse related), hopefully this is enough to put him and his family out of business and away from all animals for a very, very long time 

[/ QUOTE ]

DEFRA or Trading standards I believe.


----------



## Paddywhack (13 May 2009)

Oh for christ sake Patty,pack it in !!!!
Nobody really gives a toss what you think,get a life and instead of  writing page fter page on a national forum.
The trial was not a 1 or 2 day trial,it went on for weeks,the prosecution had an overwhelming amount of evidence,if you want to write long letters in the Greys defense,write to the defense lawyer and give him advice and inform him what he did wrong. At the end of the day both sides had their chance to speak up,but only 1 side can win ! 
And luckily in this case the right verdict came in..


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't know what your issue is with the RSPCA - but you are very mistaken if you believe that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here. Those of us who have known of JG's activities for years know this - you should just come to terms with it, there is nothing you can say to defend this family.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"I had issues before the JG case went to court, but after hearing the lies they told in court gave me even more reason to have issues with them......Most of the prosecution witnesses completely contradicted one another - and themselves. Kirsty Hampton re-wrote her statement after hearing evidence from another prosecution witness, which apparently, 'jogged her memory'. She was allowed to change what she said in her first statement, which was contradicted by the other witness, to say the exact same thing as that witness. She was then re-called to the stand after being released as a witness. Thats just not right."




So, does that make you a bit of an anti RSPCA activist who has the time and resources to follow this trial in detail?

Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe, especially if you have approached this with the mindset that all RSPCA staff, all Equine Welfare Staff, all vets and all Police Officers involved in this case must be liars - and the defendants (who are the only people in the case with a good reason to lie) are telling the clear unblemished truth.

I don't have the time or inclination now to challenge some of your points - which are actually just rubbish. But, you have called me a liar and I will not allow that to pass unchallenged.

You said there was nothing wrong (other than a little scratch) with two ponies that were later seized and removed by the RSPCA. You have not seen these so only have the word of JG and family (presumably) on which to base your opinion.

I saw them within 24 hours of their arrival at their current home, they were in dire condition - a little scratch would have been the least of their problems - and I am no tree hugger and fully understand the principles of keeping horses as stock, rather than as pets. Funnily enough it has only taken access to good hay and decent grazing to put them right - the very things that the animals on JG's farm were denied.

Only one person has been hoodwinked here, and it is you patty - in some ways I feel sorry for you, now knowing where you are coming from. Conspiracy theories only work as theory - they are rarely found in real life.


----------



## RantBucket (13 May 2009)

I think paddywhack has expressed the views of a lot os us on this forum. JG and his family were found guilty after a 51 day trial during which a great deal of evidence was heard from both sides, and they lost the case.


----------



## Taboo1968 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
  You see, thats where you are wrong....I have done so much digging, have gathered tons of information and have scrutinized every single piece of information, and sat through hours upon hours in the court listening to both cases and taking and comparing notes, so that I would NOT be horribly naive

[/ QUOTE ] 

Can I just ask one question with reference to your above statement?

WHY?

What can you possibly gain from doing all that?  And if you were so interested, why miss the penultimate day of JG giving evidence, surely that would be the pinnacle of the case, his one chance to defend himself and you missed it?

I really cannot get my head round why soneone, who says they are nothing to do with the case, would go to so much trouble to gain all this information and not put it to use???


----------



## nicky_jakey (13 May 2009)

Patty

I quote:
"And as for the young Jamie Gray...I'm baffled at how he could possibly be responsible for a vast amount of animals at the age of 14.
If you look into each charge, it's hard to imagain how the judge could possibly expect some of those things from a mere boy."

Have you ever met JG's son??? He is certainly not 14 but 16 - GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. 
If you had ever had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting him you certainly wouldn't describe him as your above quote.

Get real and STOP DEFENDING THE GUILTY
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING


----------



## ForeverBroke_ (13 May 2009)

Having just read 15 pages all i one hit, im amazed that this is still going on. I dont understand how such blatent cruelty and neglect is even being questioned.. There is enough conclusive evidence, in my opinion that horses were left in poor conditions ( to say the least.) Dead and emaciated horses are enough ...let alone letting horses stand next to those that have died . 

Patty, you say that you "mistook " those photos at the horse trust, for those at SF because of the bedding. How?! 


I'll be posting photos for comparison ...


----------



## ForeverBroke_ (13 May 2009)

Admitedly, these photos aren't great ... 







Brown, sodden ground at SF, warm, dry straw at the horse trust.


----------



## tania01 (13 May 2009)

Whatever you put patty will continue to defend them all,it amazes me still and many others here how she says she  has facts that noone has still yet not seen. 

When she has never stepped a foot on  SF before this came to light yet still  manages to have facts about SF. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





How does she have facts if she has never been there?
Where are the facts?

Patty also  claims that the RSPCA dug up the bodies, again where is the proof?she has never been on there to know.

Its not worth feeding.


----------



## dozzie (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe,  

[/ QUOTE ] 

I agree with this statement totally MH. But it works both ways. 

The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty. The images were awful I agree, and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth. 

The images and press release presented an extremely biassed view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry and donations flooded in. He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as  those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented. 

The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim.

However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals. 

Finally FWIW I dont think Patty is on a crusade against the RSPCA. 

I gave the links not Patty. So if anyone is questioning the methods of the RSPCA it is me.

Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence. She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court. That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves.


----------



## spaniel (13 May 2009)

People keep stating that the RSPCA published these  pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial.  Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

dozzie

maybe I am in the lucky (or unlucky) position of knowing more than was disclosed to the general public - which is why throughout I have been careful not to say anything too specific.

i do accept that a closed mind, in either direction, can lead to jumping to conclusions and also that the press would of course only publish the most impactive pictures - because they are in the business of selling newsprint or TV time

it is also the case that there are examples of people who have been dealt with by the RSPCA who feel very hard done by - without knowing the full circumstances from a better source i wouldn't comment on the rights or wrongs of any of those cases.

i haven't called patty a liar, i have said she is naive and inclined to set too much by what the Gray family have said in their defence - unlike the prosecution case there are no penalties if they are caught out in a lie.

Patty did call me a liar though - which I have challenged


----------



## lily1 (13 May 2009)

Sounds like patty has got verbal diahorrea they are guilty get a life patty &amp; a job!


----------



## JM07 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these  pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial.  Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Said, Spaniel


----------



## Gingernags (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
 Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe,  

[/ QUOTE ] 

I agree with this statement totally MH. But it works both ways. 

The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty. The images were awful I agree, and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth. 

The images and press release presented an extremely biased view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry and donations flooded in. He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as  those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented. 

The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim. [\quote]

 <font color="red">  But the point being there are other members on here who have seen the ACTUAL state these equines were in at the point they were siezed - not carefully selected photos and media hype - so although Patty has seen images in court - there are people on this forum who have seen the actual animals- no hype, no slant, no selection - and quite frankly they come across as more credible. </font>


[ QUOTE ]
 Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence. She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court. That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves. 

[/ QUOTE ]

 <font color="red">   But she has called MH a liar when MH states she has seen these horses firsthand.  Plus the alleged "fat as butter" ones that went elswhere and were not photographed - have been seen by another member - again who has physically seen the state of the animals with their own eyes and contradicts that.

There appears to be two sides here - 

Either if Patty is to be believed - the Grays are wonderful, looked after their horses well, and have been totally set up.  In which case as she alleges - the RSPCA are lying, as are The Horse Trust, vets, police, knackermen - everyone that isn't JG and family are lying through their teeth as nothing has been done wrongly, no horses have been mistreated, he hasn't been cruel or starved them and has always got treatment for them.  Members here who have seen them are all liars.  The press are withholding ordinary pics and haven't yet smelled a rat.

Are you trying to tell me the media would not be on to this like a shot to break a massive scandal if this view by Patty was right?  It would be a bigger story than the original - damn right they'd blow it open!

Also the whole English legal system has failed.

v

The Grays are guilty of cruelty on a huge scale.  The RSPCA are correct, the vets are correct.  People on here who have seen the horses are telling the truth.  The media is printing genuine and fair coverage, the Legal system has done its job.  The only interest in this case for everyone is seeing justice done and even if landed with huge costs they can't recover, they have done it to hit back at people who do not treat their animals with care and respect and are a disgrace to anyone decent who owns animals.

Quite frankly its a no brainer.  I cannot believe in Patty's version that everyone is out to get JG and everyone has lied.

I think on balance, it is 100% more likely that the Grays have lied as they are the ones who needed to lie.</font>

Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it?  I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.

The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.

That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming.


----------



## dozzie (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

And they could have refused.


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

And they could have refused.






[/ QUOTE ]

Why should they - this case has been a bit of a PR triumph for them, and they certainly worked hard enough for it, along with all the other agencies involved.

the public need to know and understand about cruelty and neglect.

people who are looking to retire horses need to know what can happen if they do not do enough background checks


----------



## TheresaW (13 May 2009)

Excellent post GingerNags.


----------



## jacks_mum (13 May 2009)

I look forward to seeing Patty/MJ's book when it hits the stands, I think he/she is a reporter or author (would be author). Should make interesting reading


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it?  I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.

The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.

That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The worms do exist and they can kill and cause emaciation within a very short time frame.

The little red worm has an encysted form that burrows into the gut wall and stays there, sometimes for years before it decides to erupt, damaging the wall as it does so.

It is also true that many wormers that claim to kill little red worms do not explain that they are ineffective if the worms are present in the gut wall in the encysted form, so many people are still worming their animals imagining that their horses are safe.

No-one knows what the trigger is that causes the worms to decide to erupt through the gut wall.  They usually do so in late autumn or spring.  The larvae then pass through the horse are into the next host.

These worms have developed resistance even to febendazole based wormers, the original 5 day course that was once the only treatment.  Equest is still capable of dealing with them, but few people are aware of the problems.  

Worse, febendazole may cause further damage to the gut wall.   And worming can actually induce an eruption of these worms.

It is perfectly possible for horses that have passed through markets or dealers yards to become infected and it is also likely that lower quality horses will carry such encysted worm burdens simply because their owners did not realise the need for such a specialist wormer.

And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him.


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

'And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him. '

Oh please - try getting your head out of that RSCPA hating hole you put it in and look at all the other evidence.
If you want a stick to beat the RSPCA with, this case is not the one.


----------



## Gingernags (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

It is perfectly possible for horses that have passed through markets or dealers yards to become infected and it is also likely that lower quality horses will carry such encysted worm burdens simply because their owners did not realise the need for such a specialist wormer.

And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him. 

[/ QUOTE ]

But Equest is not a specialist wormer - we use it on rotation as one of the most effective wormers - we worm with it summer and winter alternated with a tapeworm wormer in spring and autumn.

With a 13 week cover period it is one of the most economical wormers on the market!

And if you were a dealer of low end horses and ran this risk, its one of the cheaper and more effective ways of making sure your "herd" is covered for extended periods of time.

I don't believe from the coverage we've heard and has been reproduced - that over 48 hours he suddenly lost loads of stock despite care and treatment, from these worms.

I think over a period of time he failed to identify and treat several horses resulting in debilitation and death, and not as sudden as he says.

I think the lack of care and feed and appalling conditions were most likely the cause of the breakout of any illness as the animals were in no fit state to fight it being weak and malnourished and kept in overcrowded squalor.

I actually hate the RSPCA with a passion and disagree with a lot they do - but in this case I think they are totally 100 percent in the right.


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Have you ever met JG's son??? He is certainly not 14 but 16 - GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. 
If you had ever had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting him you certainly wouldn't describe him as your above quote.

Get real and STOP DEFENDING THE GUILTY
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING 

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps he is 16 now but was 14 at the time of the raid?  In which case the RSPCA should not have prosecuted the son.

Remember the case of RSPCA v C?  

RSPCA prosecuted a girl whose father failed to take the family cat to the vet and also prosecuted the girl for failing to seek veterinary treatment.

RSPCA eventually lost on the grounds that the girl could not be expected to go against her father's decisions and in any case would have no money.

On top of that, the RSPCA campaigned to make the person responsible for an under 16 the person responsible for any failures on their part in terms of animal welfare.  They cannot have it both ways.


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen.


----------



## Gingernags (13 May 2009)

At 14 years old I was fully capable and totally responsible for looking after my own horse - Dad paid for it - I got on with it.  Had the horse needed the vet - I'd have called the vet and dealt with any potential fallout later.  My horses welfare would always come first.  Everyone I know with animals agrees they qould rather waste a callout being on the safe side than risk their animal's health.

At 10 years old I was helping run yards, perfectly capable of letting people know if there were problems and asking for help when needed and knowing when you needed the vet.

How many farming families have kids responsible for large amounts of livestock on a daily basis as they are brought up to do so and help out?


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

i don't know what your issue is with the RSPCA - but you are very mistaken if you believe that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here.

[/ QUOTE ]

For as long as I have breath in my lungs I will always KNOW that a miscarriage of just has in FACT been done. Only God almighy Himself  could tell me otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Those of us who have known of JG's activities for years know this - you should just come to terms with it, there is nothing you can say to defend this family.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are very wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

So, does that make you a bit of an anti RSPCA activist who has the time and resources to follow this trial in detail?

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to be a HUGE HUGE fan of the RSPCA and donted to the organization. Now however, I would rather burn money than give it to an organization that is hell bent on tearing peoples lives apart.

[ QUOTE ]
Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe, especially if you have approached this with the mindset that all RSPCA staff, all Equine Welfare Staff, all vets and all Police Officers involved in this case must be liars - and the defendants (who are the only people in the case with a good reason to lie) are telling the clear unblemished truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a very open mind before the JG case. However, the RSPCA has given me every good reason to feel the way I do about them. None of the defendants were caught in lies  - the prosecution witnesses were caught out in lies to many to number.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have the time or inclination now to challenge some of your points - which are actually just rubbish. But, you have called me a liar and I will not allow that to pass unchallenged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please feel free to chanllenge.

[ QUOTE ]
You said there was nothing wrong (other than a little scratch) with two ponies that were later seized and removed by the RSPCA. You have not seen these so only have the word of JG and family (presumably) on which to base your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats where you are wrong. I have also seen the other animals which were in the yard on that day - which were not removed. The two which were removed were indeed removed against the advice of a vet who later made a full report concering the 2 horses, and of the RSPCA's harrassment of Mr Gray.

If I remember rightly they were 2 Haflingers. 

[ QUOTE ]
I saw them within 24 hours of their arrival at their current home, they were in dire condition - a little scratch would have been the least of their problems - and I am no tree hugger and fully understand the principles of keeping horses as stock, rather than as pets. Funnily enough it has only taken access to good hay and decent grazing to put them right - the very things that the animals on JG's farm were denied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are wrong. 


[ QUOTE ]
Only one person has been hoodwinked here, and it is you patty - in some ways I feel sorry for you, now knowing where you are coming from. Conspiracy theories only work as theory - they are rarely found in real life. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Example:

Same EVIL CONNIVING Organization - Different country. 

I got pulptations while reading parts of this. It's heartwrenching.


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Legal precedent under the 1911 Act found against the RSPCA on this one.  No doubt the inevitable Grey appeals will determine whether the RSPA's actions are lawful under the 2006 Act.

Note that no-one can neglect any animal with impunity by claiming it belongs to a family member under the age of 16 under the 2006 Act.  The responsible adult is fully liable for any breaches by the child.


----------



## Quadro (13 May 2009)

excellet point gingernags i was the same as you i 2 had my ponies from an early age and would muck them out etc before school and i knew that if they were not looked after properly then they would go!!!, at age 14 there is no doubt in my mind that you know right from wrong this has been proven at a much earlier age (the jamie bulger case??) so age imo is not an excuse for gross negligence


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Example:

Same EVIL CONNIVING Organization - Different country. 

I got pulptations while reading parts of this. It's heartwrenching. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The Australians are now challenging their RSPCA's right to bring prosecutions.  Time for the UK to follow suit perhaps!

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200905/s2562342.htm

RSPCA's role in prosecutions questioned

Wednesday, 06/05/2009

The way animal welfare is monitored and prosecuted in Australia is being criticised by an increasing number of lawyers and academics.

Some think that a private, charitable organisation like the RSPCA should be replaced by an independent government body in the case of animal welfare compliance, particularly for farmed animals.

Peter Sankoff, the co-editor of a new book, Animal Law in Australasia, says it wouldn't be difficult to develop an alternative model.

"The real question is why are animal welfare crimes just about the only crime that are dealt with by a private body?" he says.


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

_Thats where you are wrong. I have also seen the other animals which were in the yard on that day - which were not removed. The two which were removed were indeed removed against the advice of a vet who later made a full report concering the 2 horses, and of the RSPCA's harrassment of Mr Gray._ 

We must have seen different animals - the ones I saw were certainly not haflingers - they were both small welsh type ponies


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Legal precedent under the 1911 Act found against the RSPCA on this one.  No doubt the inevitable Grey appeals will determine whether the RSPA's actions are lawful under the 2006 Act.

Note that no-one can neglect any animal with impunity by claiming it belongs to a family member under the age of 16 under the 2006 Act.  The responsible adult is fully liable for any breaches by the child. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.

Are appeals inevitable?


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.

Are appeals inevitable? 

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be utterly inequitable for someone to be tried for a crime they might commit in the future. 

I cannot answer for the Greys in terms of their eventual decision on whether to appeal, but with such a flawed Judgement they have little to lose and everything to gain.


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
  You see, thats where you are wrong....I have done so much digging, have gathered tons of information and have scrutinized every single piece of information, and sat through hours upon hours in the court listening to both cases and taking and comparing notes, so that I would NOT be horribly naive

[/ QUOTE ] 

Can I just ask one question with reference to your above statement?

WHY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

You see, the problem is, when people are hit with the media hype like it was on the 9th of January 08 and the following days, people have no reason not to have an instant hatred for the person who is said to have been so cruel. After the initial impact which tugged upon the hearts strings of animal lovers and others up and down the country, people unconsciencly only want to hear how terrible that person is, and anything said, other than how evil he is, is shot down in flames. 


Like 1000's of other people I took an instant interest. I was fortunate enought to have the time to go to Amersham the following day (10th of Jan) - and the contacts which got me further than the rest of those that took an instant interest.

I had my own baised idea of what horse dealers where all about so I was uttlery shocked to see what I saw on the 10th. Still not satisfies though, I dug a little deeper and deeper, asked question after question from different sourses, did my homework on all main witnesses, scrutinizes everything I received until I had irrefutable answers and evidence. I didnt intend on going out of my way to such an extent and didnt even realise where I was until I sat back and looked at myself. With the information I had I knew without a shadow of a doubt that Mr Gray was innocent of what he was being accused of. This drove me to sit for hours upon hours taking notes in the back of the court room, to where I witnessed first hand the very cause for the different view and respect I now have of the RSPCA - And the realisation that their power is extremely underestimated by the general publc and the majority of animals owners all over the country. 



[ QUOTE ]
What can you possibly gain from doing all that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowledge. And extremely valuable knowledge at that!


[ QUOTE ]
And if you were so interested, why miss the penultimate day of JG giving evidence, surely that would be the pinnacle of the case, his one chance to defend himself and you missed it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where you got that idea from?

[ QUOTE ]
I really cannot get my head round why soneone, who says they are nothing to do with the case, would go to so much trouble to gain all this information and not put it to use??? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well now I hope I have explained this for you. Maybe I am among a minority of people who would go to such length. But like I said, this wasnt my intention at the outset.


----------



## M_G (13 May 2009)

Perhaps you could share all this evidence with us instead of skitting around with no photographic evidence....

If things were dug up I want to see the holes that were left


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty

I quote:
"And as for the young Jamie Gray...I'm baffled at how he could possibly be responsible for a vast amount of animals at the age of 14.
If you look into each charge, it's hard to imagain how the judge could possibly expect some of those things from a mere boy."

Have you ever met JG's son??? He is certainly not 14 but 16 - GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. 
If you had ever had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting him you certainly wouldn't describe him as your above quote.

Get real and STOP DEFENDING THE GUILTY
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING 

[/ QUOTE ]

My FACTS are right. At the time he was supposed to have committed the crimes he was 14 years old.

So please get YOUR facts right before YOU post. Thank you.


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Admitedly, these photos aren't great ... 







Brown, sodden ground at SF, warm, dry straw at the horse trust. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know for a fact that horses were kept in that barn - and that Mr Gray's hired man wasnt in the proccess of clearing it before he found that another of his animals had died, and so put it in there?

Funny how only such a barn was published, and the barns that I confused for the barn at the sancuary wasnt. Yes funny that!!


----------



## sam1am (13 May 2009)

Im gonna give my 2 pence worth to this, 

I like everyody else was shocked about this case when it first came to light.

I am not taking sides; BUT i have seen the 2 videos ( that were on h+h news) and yes there were dead animals, some poor looking animals etc. what i would like to point out is that at the end of one of the short clips (cannot remember which one) at some sanctuary they turn out two of the "rescue cases" now feel free to jump down my neck if u dissagree with me but these two pony's look the picture of health!! and happy to go with it!

I think this case has been the victim of sensationalism(sp) I think JG Mismanaged. had more than he could cope with. and was dealing with the majority of these horses as stock animals; Which they were!

I am not taking sides, and do not condone cruelty but have read up on this and do not see how his 2 daughters have anything to do with it, there names shopuld not be draged throughmuck like this.

Please correct me if i am wrong.


----------



## WoopsiiD (13 May 2009)

Can I just ask Patty-what do you do for a living?


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever you put patty will continue to defend them all,it amazes me still and many others here how she says she  has facts that noone has still yet not seen. 

When she has never stepped a foot on  SF before this came to light yet still  manages to have facts about SF. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Trust me - As soon as I have those documents in my hands you will have them. What excuse will you use then to continue believing the lies?

[ QUOTE ]
How does she have facts if she has never been there?
Where are the facts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF, with my useful contacts.


[ QUOTE ]
Patty also  claims that the RSPCA dug up the bodies, again where is the proof?she has never been on there to know.

Its not worth feeding. 

[/ QUOTE ]

They did indeed. Most of those photos were taken near a gate that joins the yard to the fields. If they hadnt been buried then they would have been clearly seen by vet Katie Robinson on the 21st Dec 07 when she was there in pen 3 (barn right next to gate) examining the animals to which she issued health certificates for. One animals at a time was taken in to pen 3 to be examined.


----------



## Happy Horse (13 May 2009)

Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview.  Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.

I am trying to keep an open mind although I know exactly my thoughts but there are clearly one or two people supporting the Grays.  I fortunately have faith in the legal process and am happy with the result.

In 18 years of horse ownership and 5 years in one of the largest equine hospitals in the country I have never heard of one horse drop dead from worms let alone the number claimed in this case.  Surely Mr Gray must be the unluckiest horse owner ever!

As a point of interest, why haven't the Grays or Patty with their exposure to the allegedly healthy horses and well bedded pens been able to produce any images of these?


----------



## mtj (13 May 2009)

Patty, may  I also ask what is your profession?


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.

Are appeals inevitable? 

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be utterly inequitable for someone to be tried for a crime they might commit in the future. 

I cannot answer for the Greys in terms of their eventual decision on whether to appeal, but with such a flawed Judgement they have little to lose and everything to gain. 

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't tried for crimes he might yet commit, he was tried, with others, for crime that have already been committed - and found guilty. My point was that it would have been wrong to exclude him from this process merely by virtue of his age


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview.  Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is perfectly normal advice to give a no comment interview.  This is one of the reasons why the result should be appealed. 

While the court can be sceptical of evidence that could have been provided at iterview it is unusual to say the least to discount all of the defendant's evidence.

Note also that it is not for the defendants to prove their innocence, at least not in the UK.  It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.  There is no requirement for a defendant to give evidence at his own trial at all.


----------



## Paddywhack (13 May 2009)

He was 15 when the raid was !
James John Gray (05/09/63) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; Julie Gray (24/05/67) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; Jodie Gray (12/09/82) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; and Cordelia Gray (29/05/88) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire are due to appear at Banbury Magistrates Court at 10am on Tuesday 13 May.

They face 12 charges related to section 4 and section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and cover causing unnecessary suffering to and failing to meet the welfare needs of a total of 125 equines, removed between 4 and 12 January 2008.  

A 15-year-old male, who cannot be named for legal reasons, will also be facing charges in connection with this case."

Patty go back where you came from,you are tedious now with your cr@p and page after page with quotes that is most likely rubbish, you know nothing and is just trying to stall things since people are starting to see through you  realizing that you are fake.....and don't waste your time quoting me since i can't read it since you are on my ignore !

And yo,ask the Gray's why they kept the barn with the thin and starved ponies/donkeys locked when Katie,Bob or R.S.P.C.A came for their visits,no wonder that no one was aware that they were on the farm  !!!! Everyone knows that they can ONLY report animals that they can SEE !!!!!!!


----------



## mtj (13 May 2009)

Fenris, were you also in court during the proceedings?


----------



## Tabbi (13 May 2009)

I have followed this post and I still believe the conviction is just.
If there was any evidence to prove otherwise I would presume that this came up in the court case and the judge had seen this evidence, yet they still got a conviction.

If the Grays are appealing against their conviction then they will need to produce something to prove that they did indeed provide appropriate veterinary care, food and water.
Just because the animals are "stock" animals this does not mean that it is ok not to care for them appropriately.

I do find it unusual that patty is privvy to all this information about the Grays yet has no connection with the Grays.

Sorry but the video/photos say it all.....if you could produce video/photos showing the opposite then that would be very interesting to see.


----------



## Quadro (13 May 2009)

patty has already told me in a previous post she does not work she is a "wife and mother" and her husband a "successful" business man 
take from that what u will


----------



## WoopsiiD (13 May 2009)

Oh right quadro......


----------



## mtj (13 May 2009)

well given how often Jamie Gray didn't turn up in court, at least Patty will have been able to keep up with the ironing


----------



## WoopsiiD (13 May 2009)

So being a Domestic Engineering Operative just wasn't enough eh?


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Fenris, were you also in court during the proceedings? 

[/ QUOTE ]

No.


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


He wasn't tried for crimes he might yet commit, he was tried, with others, for crime that have already been committed - and found guilty. My point was that it would have been wrong to exclude him from this process merely by virtue of his age 

[/ QUOTE ]

But that is what RSPCA v C indicates should happen.  Nevertheless, we have a new Act now, so this is the ideal chance to determine whether the precedents should change.


----------



## WishfulThinker (13 May 2009)

Anyone else think we should alert the media to this thread, so they can dig and see what they can uncover?  They will probably be able to find out who Patty is (if they don't know already) and so they can speak to them about their uncovered evidence and get to the bottom of whatever is supposedly going on?


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
The images were awful I agree,

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth. 

[/ QUOTE ]

They did indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
The images and press release presented an extremely biassed view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally.

[ QUOTE ]
and donations flooded in.

[/ QUOTE ]

and still are. 

[ QUOTE ]
He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as  those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The legal team of a certain newspaper was in court that day applying for the images to be released. The application was granted but Mr Gray was already guilty in the eyes of the nation. Those releases put the younger family members of the Gray family in instant danger. 

[ QUOTE ]
The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree.

[ QUOTE ]
However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, it does not appear to make any difference. He is guilty in the eyes of the nation. And it obviously didnt make any difference in court.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally FWIW I dont think Patty is on a crusade against the RSPCA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. 

I am a great believe in justice and honesty at all costs. Sadly the opposite bought about such a verdict.

During the case in April 08 in which the Grays were awarded their aminals back, the RSPCA tried to bargain with the family. For the 2nd time, they offered to drop all charges against the Grays if they signed their animals over to the RSPCA. The Family declined. 

[ QUOTE ]
I gave the links not Patty. So if anyone is questioning the methods of the RSPCA it is me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would do every animal owner well to brush up on their knowledge where the RSPCA are concerned. 

They are an extremely powerful organization. My personal opinion is that they are above the law. The police and vets seem to be putty in their hands, and they are an idol to the smaller animal charities. 

Far fetched? It would seem so on the face of it - but when people care to search deeper the true colours of the so-called animal loving charity are revealed. I dont expect people to take my word for it. The information is available for anyone who will care to look at it.


[ QUOTE ]
Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are 100% correct.

[ QUOTE ]
That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Something I cant grasp either.


----------



## mtj (13 May 2009)

Absolutely, one of my friends used to be a hack on the Mail on Sunday.

I remember asking her about some of the interviews and she told me that all the tabloids employ private detectives.

I doubt if they would have any trouble hacking into HHO to find patty's ip address.


----------



## dozzie (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it? I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.

The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.

That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming.   

[/ QUOTE ] 

Yes, LONG TERM,  so it really comes back down to when did he take ownership of those horses.


----------



## nicky_jakey (13 May 2009)

patty

your quote:  "I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF"

So are we to assume that Jamie Gray welcomed you with open arms and let you walk around the yard &amp; fields...???


----------



## WoopsiiD (13 May 2009)

"Quote:
    However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals.



Sadly, it does not appear to make any difference. He is guilty in the eyes of the nation. And it obviously didnt make any difference in court."

 <font color="red">  </font> How long had he had them patty?


----------



## Taboo1968 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if you were so interested, why miss the penultimate day of JG giving evidence, surely that would be the pinnacle of the case, his one chance to defend himself and you missed it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not sure where you got that idea from?



[/ QUOTE ] 

Somewhere in these 18 pages you stated that you did not hear JG give evidence, so thats where that idea came from..... 

Yes you are definately a minority, as I still cannot see what there is to gain from your little adventure, other than the fact that you've got nothing better to do!!! Your choice, but at the end of the day, Judgement has been passed and the verdict was guilty...... No doubt if there has been a huge miscarriage of justice, there will be an appeal..... we'll just have to wait and see!!!!

And why on earth re register as someone else, when your still registered as Myjack???


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Can I just ask Patty-what do you do for a living? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a wife and mother.


----------



## Paddywhack (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty

your quote:  "I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF"

So are we to assume that Jamie Gray welcomed you with open arms 
and let you walk around the yard &amp; fields...??? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well,somewhere in these 18 pages or another thread Patty has stated that she has never been to the farm nor meet J.G. I do have a life and do not have the time to go through it all ,find it and do the quote,and also how does a mother and wife of a successfull business man have the time to sit up all night and write on a forum ? 
I am also that and when night times comes I am in bed so that I can be alert the next day !!! Nope pieces does not fit I am afraid,
Patty is here late afternoon/early evening and in the middle of the night,on 1 or 2 occasion she/he/it has been here in the morning,which makes me think that she sits in another country with a huge time difference,and has therefor not been in court.


----------



## mtj (13 May 2009)

So you have lots in common with Mrs Gray


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these  pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial.  Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You are indeed correct. The press did requested them. BUT  it was the RSPCA that TOOK the photos, and only gave the images to the court and press that would cause public outcry. The RSPCA could have (IF THEY WANTED TO) have also produced the photos of all the animals in lovely condition. 

The Gray family produced photos of all the other animals to the court. So why were they not published?

A side note for you....The RSPCA and an editor of a certain national news paper are beyond friendly.


----------



## Quadro (13 May 2009)

ah but patty's husband is a "successful" business man mrs grays' obviously not so much


----------



## Tabbi (13 May 2009)

Can you then please post those pics here so we can see them?


----------



## mtj (13 May 2009)

last time i looked, the uk still has a number of national newspapers


----------



## Happy Horse (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview.  Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is perfectly normal advice to give a no comment interview.  This is one of the reasons why the result should be appealed. 

While the court can be sceptical of evidence that could have been provided at iterview it is unusual to say the least to discount all of the defendant's evidence.

Note also that it is not for the defendants to prove their innocence, at least not in the UK.  It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.  There is no requirement for a defendant to give evidence at his own trial at all. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Patty has regularly blamed the lawyer for advising the Grays not to comment as a reason for their defense failing in court.  You seem to be at odds with one another here.

It seems clear to me that the prosecution evidence was more than sufficient to convict the Grays and their failure to provide any evidence in their own defence under questioning is their own fault and can't be blamed on anyone other than themselves or their lawyer - if the latter is the case then they should be taking legal action against them.  Maybe you should be encouraging this as you seem so friendly with them instead of banging the same old drum on here.


----------



## Gingernags (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

You are indeed correct. The press did requested them. BUT  it was the RSPCA that TOOK the photos, and only gave the images to the court and press that would cause public outcry. The RSPCA could have (IF THEY WANTED TO) have also produced the photos of all the animals in lovely condition. 

The Gray family produced photos of all the other animals to the court. So why were they not published?

A side note for you....The RSPCA and an editor of a certain national news paper are beyond friendly. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I swear Al Fayed comes across as more reasonable in his conspiracy theory!!!!

You are telling us that photos exist of these animals in excellent condition, backing up the fact that everyone but the Grays have lied... and you expect us to beleive that the vultures that are the british press, wouldn't absolutely delight in publishing the scandal of the century?

Someone being best buddies with one editor would make it all the more appealing for the rest in scooping them!

The UK press would sell photos of their granny in the buff at an orgy of goats if they thought they could!

No way. absolutely no way, could a conspiracy of this magnitude and cost be carried off just to "get" some insignificant horse dealer - FGS its too fantastic an idea for a hollywood film!!!!


----------



## RantBucket (13 May 2009)

Patty should sell her story to one of the tabloids, they could serialise it and with the money she makes she could pay JGs and his familys fines for them if she is so fond of them.


----------



## RantBucket (13 May 2009)

Patty cant be a very good wife and mother spending all her waking hours fighting for a lost cause like JG, unless of course she is paying for childcare so as to allow her the time to keep everybody on this thread entertained.  

It is strange how she suddenly went from being MYJACK to PATTY, sounds like mystic Meg to me everything she says, and fortunately at the end of the day it wont make an iota of difference the Grays are still guilty, and its less than a month to the happy day when they will all be sentenced.  
Maybe we should all go on 12th June to Aylesbury Magistrates and meet her afterwards for coffee and a chat, I assume if she is that involved she will be sitting at the back of the court as usual!


----------



## WoopsiiD (13 May 2009)

I'm sorry to sound so cynical but is there some kind of financial gain for you patty?
I just can't get my head round the fact that some one who says she has nothing to do with the Grays, hasn't got her own horses and is from all accounts a stay at home mother would set out on such a quest surely at some cost to yourself?


----------



## dozzie (13 May 2009)

The horses were given a clean bill of health on Dec 21st I think. 

Encysted redworm cannot be detected by worm counts or blood tests.

Mass eruption of encysted redworm can be fatal and usually happens late winter early Spring but can happen at any time. it is not known why mass eruptions occur at other times. 

It can cause both rapid or gradual decline. 

http://www.equinecentre.co.uk/vet7.htm


----------



## JanetGeorge (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

It would do every animal owner well to brush up on their knowledge where the RSPCA are concerned. 

They are an extremely powerful organization. My personal opinion is that they are above the law. The police and vets seem to be putty in their hands, and they are an idol to the smaller animal charities. 



[/ QUOTE ]

There is NO doubt that the RSPCA is a bossy, somewhat 'extreme' organisation.  It has prosecuted cases it shouldn't have prosecuted - for political reasons (anyone remember the 'horse on the gate' case?)  A number of prosecutions where convictions were obtained in Magistrate's Court were overturned on Appeal.  A High Court judge in one Appeal case accused the RSPCA of "driving a coach &amp; horses through PACE."

However, the RSPCA is NOT above the law - that has been proven on many occasions.  Nor are they 'an idol to the smaller animal charities."  Most of the smaller animal charities loathe and detest the RSPCA - believing (correctly IMHO) that it wastes money on vindictive prosecutions that could be better spent on animal WELFARE!  In fact, even most of its own branches loathe HO!

And little people HAVE taken on the RSPCA and won - there are good equine law specialists who just LOVE a chance to wrap the RSPCA lawyers up in their own inadequacies!

I am sure there were some breaches of PACE in this case.  HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that reputable equine charities like World Horse Welfare, Redwings, Blue Cross, BHS et al would have supported the RSPCA in this case if there WAS no case!  Nor do I believe the police, trading standards, reputable vets AND a senior judge have ALL been hoodwinked by the RSPCA!

Anyone who does should be undergoing treatment!


----------



## legend (13 May 2009)

Fenris, I have to take issue with your comment that it is perfectly standard for a solicitor to advise that a client give a no comment interview.  For starters, why would there be a need for solicitor if that was all they were going to advise?!  If that is all your legal advisors are telling you, youre not getting value for money!  The practise of saying no comment *may* have been the case before the introduction of the new/extended police caution, but is certainly not the case now.  If you have nothing to hide, why not take the opportunity (that frankly we are lucky to have in this country) to put your side of the story over at the earliest opportunity?  And more than that, on a tape which can be either played, or a transcript read in court to demonstrate that it is a true recording of what was stated in interview.  As I mentioned in my earlier post to Patty, you both REALLY NEED to go and read the stated case law on this issue, as it is too long, boring and complex for me to go into here.  But please dont post stuff that you clearly have got 7th hand without a full understanding.  Patty has asked us not to blindly believe all that is written in the media and I urge you to do the same, as your knowledge of this area of the law is distinctly lacking.  

In response to Patty;

[ QUOTE ]
 So do you suggest that all people who give no-comment police interviews on the advice of a solicitor, are all guilty? 

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I suggest that the judge is entitled to draw an inference from no comment interviews, and that they are entitled to disbelieve all people who have failed to advance their defence WHEN ASKED, since they have been fully warned that this will happen.  

[ QUOTE ]
 If not, do you believe it is totally right and fair for a judge, after seeing and hearing evidence that _could_ have been produced in a police interview but was not, to find people guilty just because they didnt produce _that_ evidence in the police interview because they were advised by their solicitor not to? 

[/ QUOTE ]

See my full answer above.

[ QUOTE ]
 I understand this but it does not mean he _must_ find them guilty just because they made no comment. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well clearly you dont, otherwise you would not be repeatedly asking about it.  There is no must.  See my fuller answer above.

 [ QUOTE ]
 They were not arrested, but was threatened with arrest if they didnt have the interviews. They later found out that such actions taken by the police was not lawful. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

Again, I dont know if you got that information from the same solicitor, but it is wrong.  As you have admitted, there has been no complaint made to the IPCC regards their police interviews, then they must be satisfied that the procedures were correctly followed.  For your information, it makes not one iota of difference whether they were arrested or not prior to interview, they are still fully cautioned as above.  The caution is then broken down into plain English so that the person being interviewed has a full understanding.

Your claims that the Grays trusted their solicitor so implicitly are misguided.  Having had the caution they will have been well aware of the consequences of remaining silent.  Are you suggesting that they are so blindly trusting that they would do whatever a solicitor said?  What if he had advised them that they would get off if they signed all their assets over to him?  I think you are doing the Grays a disservice by claiming them to be that easily led and lacking in intelligence.  

Your assertions that not all of the Grays horses were in poor condition are irrelevant.  None of the Grays were charged with, nor found guilty of failing to care for every single equine that ever had the misfortune to pass through their hands.  They faced specific charges relating to specific equines and these are the only ones that are relevant to this discussion.  Even if he had an extra 50 horses that lived in the mortal equivalent of horsey paradise, the judge has ruled that he still did not care correctly for those that were the subject of the guilty findings.  There are plenty of people who have neglected only one or some of their animals and yet treated some of the others perfectly adequately.  The fact that someone has given appropriate care to some of the animals and not others makes it worse in my view, as it shows that they did know how to care for the animal properly and didnt.

[ QUOTE ]
 I suggest you take another look at the report. Though out of context as it is, I feel it will answer your questions better than I can. I have answered the same questions time after time. People dont seem to be reading through the thread and think they are asking all new and improved questions, when really they are doing no more than repeating what has already been asked. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I am asking this question again because I found the last answer incomplete and unconvincing and thus I was asking for some more supporting evidence.  Clearly there is none, otherwise you would have provided it.

[ QUOTE ]
They did what other people do in such circumstances. But here, I'll break it down for you.
1. They hired a solicitor.
2. the took his advice which was to make NO COMMENT.
3. They acted upon that advice. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad choice! Please see above for fuller explanation of why this was so misguided.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, why did the Grays not state WHEN ASKED in interview Dead horse 6 was already dead when i had it transported to my land for [insert LEGITIMATE purpose here].  It died at [time] on [date] at [place] of [condition] whilst it was in the care of [owner].  I provide the owners details and they will be happy to provide a statement.  I am an approved [knackerman/rendering plant/burial site/cremation agent/insert or delete as appropriate].  I provide [documents] to prove that I am licensed by [relevant authority].

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
 No comment. 

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 That was a joke....right?! 
Seriously.  Read my above on why people are now entitled to disbelieve anything you later choose to say on this matter.
Regarding the dead horses, as far as I am concerned, if they had been buried, Mr Gray would have needed permission to do so, and this would have needed to be done in a suitable place AND TO A SUITABLE DEPTH. If this permission was gained, why has it not been produced?  Even if they had been buried, they could never have been uncovered without heavy machinery if this had been done to an adequate standard.


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
But the point being there are other members on here who have seen the ACTUAL state these equines were in at the point they were siezed - not carefully selected photos and media hype - so although Patty has seen images in court - there are people on this forum who have seen the actual animals- no hype, no slant, no selection - and quite frankly they come across as more credible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the animals were not in the best condition and I have never disputed that. However, what proof do these other members have to say that they are in that condition because Mr Gray starved them and/or neglected them?
What proof do those other members have to say that Mr Gray was not trying to build those animals up at the time they were seized?

The idea of Mr Gray starving them was put into the minds of the public from day one. So people look at such animals with the mind that they have been starved. 

No one even bothers to think that they were seized from a trader who may have only had them for the matter of hours/days/weeks. And maybe they could have come along in condition since the trader had owned them. Nor do they think that maybe starvation is not the underlying cause for their condition.

Some of those animals may not have had the body score your horses have, but by no means were they at the bottom of the scale. 

All of the above was bought out in court and Mr Gray provided papers which gave irrefutable proof the it wasnt possible for him to be the cause for the condition that some of them were in. He showed proof of his worming program -Names, dates, times, places of purchase were all provided to the court along with veterinary papers and medication.

However, the majority of the animals the public were allowed to see was not in the worst condition. I'm not saying their condition was fantastic but neither were they in the condition that the RSPCA have put into the minds of people - including those who have seen them.

And everyone claims they have seen them within hours of the seizure but according to the RSPCA they were in quarenteine. That is of course all these people are those working at the sanctuaries.

The RSPCA said all were etc etc.....why were photos of ALL the animals not produced in the prosecutions evidence? 

Why were the photos which were provided to the court by the Grays not given to the media to publish?


[ QUOTE ]
But she has called MH a liar when MH states she has seen these horses firsthand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look throught the thread you will see I didnt call MH a liar because she claimed to have seen the horses firsthand.


[ QUOTE ]
Plus the alleged "fat as butter" ones that went elswhere and were not photographed - have been seen by another member - again who has physically seen the state of the animals with their own eyes and contradicts that.[ QUOTE ]


Those were at an undisclosed location - same with the barrel shaped shetlands, because apparently they were worried that Mr Gray would go steal them back.

[ QUOTE ]
There appears to be two sides here - 

Either if Patty is to be believed - the Grays are wonderful, looked after their horses well, and have been totally set up. 
In which case as she alleges - the RSPCA are lying, as are The Horse Trust, vets, police, knackermen - everyone that isn't JG and family are lying through their teeth as nothing has been done wrongly, no horses have been mistreated, he hasn't been cruel or starved them and has always got treatment for them.  Members here who have seen them are all liars.  The press are withholding ordinary pics and haven't yet smelled a rat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should do some deep digging and find out for yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying to tell me the media would not be on to this like a shot to break a massive scandal if this view by Patty was right?  It would be a bigger story than the original - damn right they'd blow it open!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my, please dont be so sure.  

[ QUOTE ]
Also the whole English legal system has failed.

v


[/ QUOTE ]


Wouldnt be the first time.

[ QUOTE ]
The Grays are guilty of cruelty on a huge scale.  The RSPCA are correct, the vets are correct. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this because?


[ QUOTE ]
People on here who have seen the horses are telling the truth.  The media is printing genuine and fair coverage, the Legal system has done its job.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this because?



[ QUOTE ]
The only interest in this case for everyone is seeing justice done and even if landed with huge costs they can't recover, they have done it to hit back at people who do not treat their animals with care and respect and are a disgrace to anyone decent who owns animals.

Quite frankly its a no brainer.  I cannot believe in Patty's version that everyone is out to get JG and everyone has lied.

I think on balance, it is 100% more likely that the Grays have lied as they are the ones who needed to lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Grays were cross examined and was consistant in every way even though the prosecution tried to twist everyword they breathed. They provided irrefutable evidence which proved the RSPCA and media reports WRONG. The prosecution witnesses contradicted each other plus themselves....and several of the prosecution witnesses were good witnesses in confirming what the Grays had said.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it?  I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.

The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.

That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should be a vet then as you seem to believe that you know more than every vet involved in the case - INCLUDING that of the PROSECUTION expert vet who stated that John Parker was more experienced than him.


----------



## Taboo1968 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

It is strange how she suddenly went from being MYJACK to PATTY, sounds like mystic Meg to me everything she says, and fortunately at the end of the day it wont make an iota of difference the Grays are still guilty, and its less than a month to the happy day when they will all be sentenced.  
Maybe we should all go on 12th June to Aylesbury Magistrates and meet her afterwards for coffee and a chat, I assume if she is that involved she will be sitting at the back of the court as usual! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Now thats an idea!!!!  Everyone form a queue and get your name badges fixed to your shirt, then we can lynch every one that has'nt got a name badge and demand identification!!!!!  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 ROFL


----------



## ForeverBroke_ (13 May 2009)

Patty, you bang on ..and on..and on about proof. E.g, is there any proof to show he starved them...
The proof to me is in the state of the poor things when they were taken from SF..
Is there any proof to say he didnt?


----------



## mtj (13 May 2009)

well said Legend.

I had been wondering about the permission to bury.  as we all know the environment agency takes an interest in this

it does rather seem that Patty and Fernis are either being led a merry dance by the Grays, or are more closely associated than they wish to declare


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

And they could have refused.






[/ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA didnt even try to refuse. 

BTW, I have tried to PM you several times but your inbox is full.  :


----------



## Gingernags (13 May 2009)

I so can't be bothered with you any more.

Other than your say so you have not produced one shred of evidence on here.  we have only your say so against the word of the RSPCA,Professionals, media and the legal system.

You have not provided one single photo to back you up.

You HAVE implied if not downright stated that other members on here are lying when they said they've actually seen the state of these horses.

IMO - MY OPINION which is what you've quoted and put other peoples words into above - if these horses were in such an appalling state when he bought them - it would have been kinder to send them to to a slaughter house.

What the hell did he buy them for?  Its quite obvious he did not have the resources and the skill to fix them. I don't think any dealer worth their reputation has wastage figures like his!

Nor would they risk their own pets bringing in animals that could spread god knows what.

And I note you haven't answered the question about the burials - Did JG have permission to bury the horses or not?  Did he apply to the council?

Funny too that the RSPCA found all these dead horses - and you say dug them up to which again you have no proof - how would they know where they were so quickly?

Your conspiracy theory is currently ranking up there with the Kennedy assassination and area 51.


----------



## Fenris (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Fenris, I have to take issue with your comment that it is perfectly standard for a solicitor to advise that a client give a no comment interview.  For starters, why would there be a need for solicitor if that was all they were going to advise?!  If that is all your legal advisors are telling you, youre not getting value for money!  The practise of saying no comment *may* have been the case before the introduction of the new/extended police caution, but is certainly not the case now.  If you have nothing to hide, why not take the opportunity (that frankly we are lucky to have in this country) to put your side of the story over at the earliest opportunity?  And more than that, on a tape which can be either played, or a transcript read in court to demonstrate that it is a true recording of what was stated in interview.  As I mentioned in my earlier post to Patty, you both REALLY NEED to go and read the stated case law on this issue, as it is too long, boring and complex for me to go into here.  But please dont post stuff that you clearly have got 7th hand without a full understanding.  Patty has asked us not to blindly believe all that is written in the media and I urge you to do the same, as your knowledge of this area of the law is distinctly lacking.  



[/ QUOTE ]

There are many ways of dealing with an interview.  One can give a "full and frank" interview answering all questions with as much detail as possible.  This is not a good idea, despite the fact of the changes in the law which have NOT removed the right to silence but have enabled a court to "draw inferences" from failure to state something which is later used in court.

For those who wonder why telling the truth is not a good idea take a look at an excellent site that explains why you should never answer questions. Remember the RSPCA have no rights. No powers. Nothing. Go and watch the videos at

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07/eight-reasons-even-innocent-shouldnt.html

Going back to the ways of dealing with interviews.  Your solicitor (or police station representative) might tell you to answer questions apart from those he advises you not to anwer.

He might advise you to draw up a written statement to hand in and to make no comment answers to any other questions.

And the quickest interview ever was one in an RSPCA case where the solicitor walked into the room, sat down and asked the RSPCA man what evidence he had against his client.  Reply was "none yet".  Solicitor stands up and says "Goodbye then, let us know when you have some and we'll come back"

You see the RSPCA don't obey PACE despite their protestations.  Nor do they comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The whole point of an RSPCA interview is an information trawling exercise aimed at finding some reason to prosecute.   

Indeed, one has to wonder how it is that the police make all of their facilities available to an organisation that parliament chose not to empower under both the 2006 and the 1911 Acts, despite the fact that the RSPCA sponsored both.


----------



## tania01 (13 May 2009)

Patty please can you answer this as i have asked a few times and still no answer.

Im correct in saying that before this came to light you had never set foot on SF?

You never knew the grays before this came to light?

If this is correct how can you have facts that none were starved and none neglected if you never been there? 

It seems that you have taken the words of the grays and others involved with no actual facts when you didn know of the grays or SF before this came to light.


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

And they could have refused.






[/ QUOTE ]

Why should they - this case has been a bit of a PR triumph for them, and they certainly worked hard enough for it, along with all the other agencies involved.

the public need to know and understand about cruelty and neglect.

people who are looking to retire horses need to know what can happen if they do not do enough background checks 

[/ QUOTE ]

Woo hold up a moment MH -  at the time those photos were published a guilty verdict had not been reached.

How would you of replied to Dozzie if they had been found not-guilty?


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

It is quite simple - there is no doubt in my mind at all that those horses and ponies had been severely neglected - the photographs spoke for themselves. If JG had been able to come up with a timely and reasonable explanation as to how and why they were in that state, and how he had nothing to do with the neglect, or deaths, or lack of available feed, or any of the other grisly conditions there then of course he should not have been found guilty - but that doesn't take away from the fact that some point these animals were exposed to extreme neglect. 

As a flag to the public and salient warning those pictures stand up on their own. 

As it turns out, he did not provide those timely and reasonable explanations to the satisfaction of the Court, and it appears there was sufficient evidence to prove that he and his family had a real hand in those conditions - therefore they were all found guilty.


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
The worms do exist and they can kill and cause emaciation within a very short time frame.

The little red worm has an encysted form that burrows into the gut wall and stays there, sometimes for years before it decides to erupt, damaging the wall as it does so.

It is also true that many wormers that claim to kill little red worms do not explain that they are ineffective if the worms are present in the gut wall in the encysted form, so many people are still worming their animals imagining that their horses are safe.

No-one knows what the trigger is that causes the worms to decide to erupt through the gut wall.  They usually do so in late autumn or spring.  The larvae then pass through the horse are into the next host.

These worms have developed resistance even to febendazole based wormers, the original 5 day course that was once the only treatment.  Equest is still capable of dealing with them, but few people are aware of the problems.  

Worse, febendazole may cause further damage to the gut wall.   And worming can actually induce an eruption of these worms.

It is perfectly possible for horses that have passed through markets or dealers yards to become infected and it is also likely that lower quality horses will carry such encysted worm burdens simply because their owners did not realise the need for such a specialist wormer.

And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him. 

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost exactly what was heard in court. And the fact that wormers can induce eruption took me by suprise to be honest.


----------



## the watcher (13 May 2009)

_There are many ways of dealing with an interview. One can give a "full and frank" interview answering all questions with as much detail as possible. This is not a good idea, despite the fact of the changes in the law which have NOT removed the right to silence but have enabled a court to "draw inferences" from failure to state something which is later used in court.  For those who wonder why telling the truth is not a good idea take a look at an excellent site that explains why you should never answer questions. Remember the RSPCA have no rights. No powers. Nothing. Go and watch the videos at  http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07/eight-reasons-even-innocent-shouldnt.html  Going back to the ways of dealing with interviews. Your solicitor (or police station representative) might tell you to answer questions apart from those he advises you not to anwer.  He might advise you to draw up a written statement to hand in and to make no comment answers to any other questions._ 

Fenris - you really have been talking to the wrong people.
A no comment interview is never a good idea from the point of the defendant - it gives the prosecution an entirely free hand to put every question they wish, and the defendant misses the only opportunity they have to put their side.

As for your example of the solicitor who said to come back when you have got some evidence - actually, arresting somebody to secure evidence by way of questioning is perfectly legal - sometimes it even gives innocent people an early opportunity to clear up misunderstandings and confusion. Asking a person questions is completely legal in any circumstances, please don't imply that it is not.

Why would an innocent person wish to drag out any kind of enquiry?


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
'And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him. '

Oh please - try getting your head out of that RSCPA hating hole you put it in and *look at all the other evidence.*
If you want a stick to beat the RSPCA with, this case is not the one. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is?


----------



## ForeverBroke_ (13 May 2009)

Patty, for the second time i ask...

What evidence do YOU have to prove otherwise?


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


But Equest is not a specialist wormer - we use it on rotation as one of the most effective wormers - we worm with it summer and winter alternated with a tapeworm wormer in spring and autumn.

With a 13 week cover period it is one of the most economical wormers on the market!

And if you were a dealer of low end horses and ran this risk, its one of the cheaper and more effective ways of making sure your "herd" is covered for extended periods of time.

I don't believe from the coverage we've heard and has been reproduced - that over 48 hours he suddenly lost loads of stock despite care and treatment, from these worms.

I think over a period of time he failed to identify and treat several horses resulting in debilitation and death, and not as sudden as he says.

I think the lack of care and feed and appalling conditions were most likely the cause of the breakout of any illness as the animals were in no fit state to fight it being weak and malnourished and kept in overcrowded squalor.

I actually hate the RSPCA with a passion and disagree with a lot they do - but in this case I think they are totally 100 percent in the right. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Gray gave evidence that he wormed his animals before they came off his lorry.

Defence vet John Parker gave evidence that not alot is know about this and not alot of people know about it. Mr Peter Green didnt know too much about it and told the court that Mr John Parker was more experienced than himself.

Apart from a handful and his pets, Mr Gray didnt own any of the animals over a very long period.

Evidence was produced to the court that there was no lack of care and feed, and the conditions were not appalling or over crowded. 

Sure, the small frame in which images were shown in the press would serve it's purpose and appear to confirm what was said about Mr Gray and his farm.

SF is 40 acres and the yard has the capacity to house 100 horses.


----------



## WoopsiiD (13 May 2009)

Forty acres and capacity for 100?
Hmmm may have found a use for google earth!


----------



## mtj (13 May 2009)

Patty we really do need to know the status of the burials.

As you stated you have been a horse owner, i am sure you are very aware that horse burial is a very contencious (sp) issue.  

Please provide data that the burials you claim were performed by the Grays were legal ie took place with the approval of defra/environment agency.

This really is a fundamental element of your credibility.

If you are unable to secure this information, may I suggest you review your sources .


----------



## WoopsiiD (13 May 2009)

Taken from Defra
"The definition of a pet animal given within the ABPR is: any animal belonging to species normally nourished and kept, but not consumed, by humans for purposes other than farming."

Notice the use of the word NOURISHED!


----------



## ForeverBroke_ (13 May 2009)

I think im being ignored


----------



## WoopsiiD (13 May 2009)

Looks that way!
Maybe she has gone to put some washing on???


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Perhaps he is 16 now but was 14 at the time of the raid? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
In which case the RSPCA should not have prosecuted the son.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I can agree that a 14 year old boy should not be prosecuted for animals cruelty IF infact he had committed the crime. 


However, in the case of Jamie Gray junior and the nature of the charges, I cannot for the life of me see how these charges could apply to a 14 year old boy.

Just like the case you mention concerning the young girl and the cat.


----------



## ForeverBroke_ (13 May 2009)

Yep, being ignored 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Her loss


----------



## patty19 (13 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen. 

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case then the RSPCA should have prosecuted the other Gray children ranging from 4 years old instead of Jodie and Cordelia who didnt even live at SF..


----------



## WishfulThinker (14 May 2009)

Legend had it spot on really.  He wasn't convicted for ALL the horses only specific ones. 

But like say.........you ad a stud farm of wonderful healthy beasties, and one was left to starve/neglected...........they would be charged for that neglected one, but just because they have other healthy ones doesn't make them less guilty. 

But still..................why would anyone want to have over 100 horses?!


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that just that just a tad bit unreasonable?

[ QUOTE ]
Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they realised they would have to answer questions at some point. I dont suppose they thought that by going no comment the questions would disappear.

They went no comment because they were told to. 


[ QUOTE ]

and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the evidence they produced in court proving their innocence means nothing because the fact that they made no comment interviews means they are guilty?

Each accusation made by the RSPCA fell apart with each piece of evidence Mr Gray provided - but hey, they went no comment in an interview with the RSPCA so therefore, they MUST be guilty? 

And you think that it is totally fair to dismiss their evidence on this basis alone?


[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to keep an open mind although I know exactly my thoughts but there are clearly one or two people supporting the Grays.  I fortunately have faith in the legal process and am happy with the result.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have an open mind but are happy with the result?

That does not seem very open minded to me.

[ QUOTE ]
In 18 years of horse ownership and 5 years in one of the largest equine hospitals in the country I have never heard of one horse drop dead from worms let alone the number claimed in this case.  Surely Mr Gray must be the unluckiest horse owner ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about him being the unluckiest horse owner EVER. But I most certainly do believe he is unlucky.

If you look through the thread you'll see information about the worm situation.

[ QUOTE ]
As a point of interest, why haven't the Grays or Patty with their exposure to the allegedly healthy horses and well bedded pens been able to produce any images of these? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted the photos last year but I'm no longer in possession of them, but I hope to be very soon.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
At 14 years old I was fully capable and totally responsible for looking after my own horse - Dad paid for it - I got on with it.  Had the horse needed the vet - I'd have called the vet and dealt with any potential fallout later.  My horses welfare would always come first.  Everyone I know with animals agrees they qould rather waste a callout being on the safe side than risk their animal's health.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point. I'm not saying he is not capable of looking afer horses. but in the eyes of the judge he is guilty of crimes which would need huge finacial backing to prevent.  How is a 14 year old boy supposed to meet such financial needs?

[ QUOTE ]
At 10 years old I was helping run yards, perfectly capable of letting people know if there were problems and asking for help when needed and knowing when you needed the vet.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you picked up the bill when they needed a vet?

[ QUOTE ]
How many farming families have kids responsible for large amounts of livestock on a daily basis as they are brought up to do so and help out? 

[/ QUOTE ]

How many of those kids are financially responsible for those large amounts of live stock?


Dont you think it is rather unreasonable to expect a 14 year old boy to have the funds to care for 100+horses?


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
excellet point gingernags i was the same as you i 2 had my ponies from an early age and would muck them out etc before school and i knew that if they were not looked after properly then they would go!!!, at age 14 there is no doubt in my mind that you know right from wrong this has been proven at a much earlier age (the jamie bulger case??) so age imo is not an excuse for gross negligence 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you were financially responsible the 100 + horses that were not yours?


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
He was 15 when the raid was !
James John Gray (05/09/63) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; Julie Gray (24/05/67) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; Jodie Gray (12/09/82) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; and Cordelia Gray (29/05/88) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire are due to appear at Banbury Magistrates Court at 10am on Tuesday 13 May.

They face 12 charges related to section 4 and section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and cover causing unnecessary suffering to and failing to meet the welfare needs of a total of 125 equines, removed between 4 and 12 January 2008.  

A 15-year-old male, who cannot be named for legal reasons, will also be facing charges in connection with this case."

Patty go back where you came from,you are tedious now with your cr@p and page after page with quotes that is most likely rubbish, you know nothing and is just trying to stall things since people are starting to see through you  realizing that you are fake.....and don't waste your time quoting me since i can't read it since you are on my ignore !

[/ QUOTE ]

Well well isnt that brave of you!! You come down from your fence have a jab but the quickly jump back up on the fence so the favor is not returned. 

I know nothing - Like I didnt know Baskerville an Katie Robinson were JG vets? This fact you strongly denied along with the fact that Katie Robinson issued health certificates?

YOU are the only FAKE around here PW.

[ QUOTE ]
And yo,ask the Gray's why they kept the barn with the thin and starved ponies/donkeys locked when Katie,Bob or R.S.P.C.A came for their visits,no wonder that no one was aware that they were on the farm  !!!! Everyone knows that they can ONLY report animals that they can SEE !!!!!!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats bull - all the barns are together divided into large pens by walls low enough to see over, with all open fronts and cattle gates. Nothing can be hidden. So dont bother trying to dribble your lies to me.

You are wrong about JG junior too. At the time of the raid he was 14.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I have followed this post and I still believe the conviction is just.
If there was any evidence to prove otherwise I would presume that this came up in the court case and the judge had seen this evidence, yet they still got a conviction.

If the Grays are appealing against their conviction then they will need to produce something to prove that they did indeed provide appropriate veterinary care, food and water.
Just because the animals are "stock" animals this does not mean that it is ok not to care for them appropriately.

I do find it unusual that patty is privvy to all this information about the Grays yet has no connection with the Grays.

Sorry but the video/photos say it all.....if you could produce video/photos showing the opposite then that would be very interesting to see. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrefutable evidence was provided by Mr Gray which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accusations against him and his family are indeed incorrect.

I am waiting on some photos which I was hoping to have within the past couple of days but unfortunately this is not going to be possible just yet. I did post photos last year but my computer crashed and I'm still waiting for data to be transfered. So I will post whichever set comes back first.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else think we should alert the media to this thread, so they can dig and see what they can uncover?  They will probably be able to find out who Patty is (if they don't know already) and so they can speak to them about their uncovered evidence and get to the bottom of whatever is supposedly going on? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be my guest.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, one of my friends used to be a hack on the Mail on Sunday.

I remember asking her about some of the interviews and she told me that all the tabloids employ private detectives.

I doubt if they would have any trouble hacking into HHO to find patty's ip address. 

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably would not have a problem finding my address but I dont care because I have nothing to hide. So toddle along and go tell your friend to start hacking away.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty

your quote:  "I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF"

So are we to assume that Jamie Gray welcomed you with open arms and let you walk around the yard &amp; fields...??? 

[/ QUOTE ]

JG was not always there and I never went alone. But when he was there he barely said 2 words to me personally. He came over as a rather quite man.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
    "Quote:
    However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals.



Sadly, it does not appear to make any difference. He is guilty in the eyes of the nation. And it obviously didnt make any difference in court."

 <font color="red">  </font> How long had he had them patty? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant remember the exact dates he gave for each animal and I have not got my notes with me but I can remember that most of them he only had for a very short time. He brought them over the space of the couple of months leading up to the seizer. There was either 2 or 3 that he had for longer (I think one was a stallion). The pets he had even longer. One  as long as 16 years and another for 12 years.. A mare called blondey and a little stallion called Billy. The years he gave to Billy and Blondey stuck in my mind because they are older than half of the Grays children. Yet according to the RSPCA they were being starved.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if you were so interested, why miss the penultimate day of JG giving evidence, surely that would be the pinnacle of the case, his one chance to defend himself and you missed it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not sure where you got that idea from?



[/ QUOTE ] 

Somewhere in these 18 pages you stated that you did not hear JG give evidence, so thats where that idea came from..... 

Yes you are definately a minority, as I still cannot see what there is to gain from your little adventure, other than the fact that you've got nothing better to do!!! Your choice, but at the end of the day, Judgement has been passed and the verdict was guilty...... No doubt if there has been a huge miscarriage of justice, there will be an appeal..... we'll just have to wait and see!!!!

And why on earth re register as someone else, when your still registered as Myjack??? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never said that I didnt hear JG  give evidence. He was the main person I wanted to hear give evidence.


I'll delete myjack account.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Well,somewhere in these 18 pages or another thread Patty has stated that she has never been to the farm nor meet J.G. 

[/ QUOTE ]

More dribble!! 

If I had stated any such thing YOU for sure would have pounced on me like a vulcher.

[ QUOTE ]
I do have a life and do not have the time to go through it all ,find it and do the quote,

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries - if it's there I'm sure someone will find it sooner or later.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
and also how does a mother and wife of a successfull business man have the time to sit up all night and write on a forum ? 

[/ QUOTE ]


For someone who has me on ignore because you dont wish to speak with me, you sure have a funny way of showing it,
But my answer to you is - I do what I like and answer to no one. Least of all - YOU. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
I am also that and when night times comes I am in bed so that I can be alert the next day !!! Nope pieces does not fit I am afraid,

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh well - I'm not bothered if you believe me or not. Not a problem!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
Patty is here late afternoon/early evening and in the middle of the night,on 1 or 2 occasion she/he/it has been here in the morning,which makes me think that she sits in another country with a huge time difference,and has therefor not been in court. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe your own hogwash if you wish - again, not my problem!!


----------



## saalsk (14 May 2009)

Having plowed through all 21 pages of this now, nothing that has been said (and repeating it ad nauseum hasn't made it more believable Patty) has made me think that JG is anything other than a sad little man who had far too many horses to deal with, and ended up not looking after any of them properly. The sad fact is that the horses were badly neglected and some paid the ultimate price. Whether you are an RSPCA fan or not (I have mixed views) at least they have tried to make sure that someone is being held responsible for the desperate conditions these poor animals were forced to live in. The buck can be passed, and fingers pointed, and lies told but in the end, he was found guilty by law. The law may not always get it right, but in this case I think it has. As owner of the horses he is to be held responsible for their health and living conditions whether he has owned them for a few days or 16 years. If he had owned a horse for 16 years then it suggests that the conditions were not always that bad. If something had happened (money, time, too many horses on too little grazing etc) then that is perhaps a reason why things had got so out of hand. It does not excuse the conditions though, and perhaps now he will look back on the whole sorry story and wish he had done something about it before things got so extreme. I am no fan of JG (as I expect few animal lovers are) but as a VN (for nearly 20y) I have seen how conditions can get out of hand (dogs with matted coats, long nails, rabbits with maggots from dirty cages, over populated hamster cages when Tim and Tom turned out to be Tim and Tammy etc) without the owners meaning to be cruel. This still doesn't mean it is acceptable, but there is a difference between down right animal cruelty and cruelty though neglect or lack of knowledge. I have seen people leading strong horses in from the field in a Chifney, and I have seen horses with horrific mouth injuries from having the same Chifney too roughly handled. The owner did not mean to break the horses lower jaw and was mortified at the damage she had done. But she did it with her own hands. How many obese dogs are there out there ? I notice that the RSPCA has just prosecuted an elderly man for the obese state of his collie - the old man struggled to walk the dog, fed it tit bits all the time and didnt clear up it's poo from the house. The dog was removed and has now lost weight. But the man also lived in the house with the mess and the poo, and is devastated at loosing his only companion. I have held a horse while it was humanely destroyed after being attacked by thugs with a knife. There is a story in the Mail about a bloke throwing his dogs into the sea before hauling them out after their "exercise" and taking them home. All of these cases sickened me, but the motives and situations are different. 

If JG started out as an animal lover and owner of horses who were looked after and cared for, how very, very sad that things ended up like they have with horses dead, dying, injured and malnourished. I hope he is ashamed of himself, and of his family in their participation. 

I believe in karma. I hope that Jamie Bulgers killers will suffer as he did. I hope that Baby P's Mum sees his little face every day of her life and is reminded that she allowed it to happen. I hope the lads who caused the young horse to drown at Appleby dream of his thrashing legs and terrified eyes. I hope the old man with the obese collie manages to improve his own standard of living. I hope the man who's 2 year old son was killed in the fairground learns to live with this terrible accident and realises it was just a terrible accident.  

I hope that the rescued horses find new homes where they will be loved, treasured and looked after for the rest of their days.


----------



## RantBucket (14 May 2009)

Well said Saalsk


----------



## Paddywhack (14 May 2009)

I can't believe that Patty has spent another night quoting ,crikey someone needs a life ,not even going to go so low to check what was written to/about me,most likely all twisted since Patty can't stand to hear the truth form other people since she knows nothing herself  !
Now people,enough is enough,by feeding her we are going down to her low level,so lets all stop it!


----------



## RantBucket (14 May 2009)

Patty keeps banging on about the Grays no comment interviews effecting the verdict surely the whole point was Michael Fullerton, Richard Cherrill, Nigel Weller, John Parker and Ms Forsyth all said what the Grays werent able to say in court and they all defended them in the best way they could considering they all were trying to defend the indefensible that is, and with all that they were all found GUILTY after 51 days in a courtroom, surely that must indicate to even the strongest of JG supporters that they were obviously guilty as hell.


----------



## RantBucket (14 May 2009)

I agree with PW I can't understand why so many people are either replying to Patty or speak directly to her by asking her questions, it will only inflate her ego, anyway I expect she is sound asleep now and will be until midday, its her children I feel sorry for, she must neglect them an awful lot staying up until the early hours posting away about the RSPCA conspiracy and travesty of justice etc. Get a life girl and go and work in a charity shop it would be more productive.


----------



## tania01 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty please can you answer this as i have asked a few times and still no answer.

Im correct in saying that before this came to light you had never set foot on SF?

You never knew the grays before this came to light?

If this is correct how can you have facts that none were starved and none neglected if you never been there? 

It seems that you have taken the words of the grays and others involved with no actual facts when you didn know of the grays or SF before this came to light. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Also what facts and photos have you that the bodies were dug up.


Please patty could you answer this as have asked quite a few times thank you.


----------



## Amymay (14 May 2009)

Patty - why are you so invested in this???


----------



## mtj (14 May 2009)

well i'm still waiting for confirmation of the legality of any burials.

if any horses were exhumed, then I'm wondering if it was on the order of defra etc

maybe we ought to be sending this thread to the local water board.

they may wish to have a little chat with the Messrs Gray


----------



## the watcher (14 May 2009)

_Mr Gray gave evidence that he wormed his animals before they came off his lorry._ 

_Defence vet John Parker gave evidence that not alot is know about this and not alot of people know about it. Mr Peter Green didnt know too much about it and told the court that Mr John Parker was more experienced than himself._ 

If the above related to horses reacting badly to worming because they already carry a large worm burden it is hogwash. Any experienced horse perosn knows (and JG should certainly have known) that worming a horse that is potentially carry a huge burden (and you can often tell just by looking at them) has the potential to induce colic at least, and often more serious problems - which is why, when treating neglected equines, lower doses are often given over a number of days, and sometimes not until overall condition has improved to the extent where they can cope with it. Ideally, of course, equines of this nature should then be isolated for 24 hours so that they can shed their worm burden without immediately reinfecting other horses - I'm willing to bet this didn't happen either. 

JG may have been able to prove that he purchased wormer - he cannot prove that he necessarily administered it at all(he could have just sold it on) or that he administered it correctly and in line with recommendations or in correct quantities for weight.


----------



## Taboo1968 (14 May 2009)

I am now beginning to agree with the person who said Al Fayed's conspiracy theory is looking more credible!!!  21 pages of mostly the same thing over and over again!!!!!  Just like the endless pages before, repeating the same thing, saying they had proof.....

Well if there ever was a time to hold onto credibility, I'd get the proof and the data and the photo's and get them published NOW!!!! instead of constantly bleating on about the same old thing all the time!


----------



## Tabbi (14 May 2009)

well said MrT


----------



## arry (14 May 2009)

If this Patty honestly isnt related to the Grays then im wondering if the Gray family are worried they have a serious stalker on their hands. Although she is defending them, who really goes to such lengths to defend someone they dont know.

If I was the Grays, I would be scared, very scared!
Having some woman constantly dig into my past and turn up at my home would be way worse punishment than anything the courts could dole out.


----------



## native (14 May 2009)

ROFL arry - spot on I think!!


----------



## EstherSupporter (14 May 2009)

I have to comend you saalsk on your post....very well written.


----------



## Fenris (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
  I notice that the RSPCA has just prosecuted an elderly man for the obese state of his collie - the old man struggled to walk the dog, fed it tit bits all the time and didnt clear up it's poo from the house. The dog was removed and has now lost weight. But the man also lived in the house with the mess and the poo, and is devastated at loosing his only companion. 


[/ QUOTE ]

The perfect example of what is wrong with the RSPCA.

Had the Cinnamon Trust become involved they would have gone to walk the dog.  They would have ensured the house wasn't fouled by the dog.  They would have provided companionship and friendship for the old man and his dog.

Why?

Because they believe that when people get too old or ill to cope they need help not condemnation.  They work to keep the elderly and their (often elderly) pets together so that neither suffers the emotional distress of being parted from the homes and companions they have loved all their lives.

Would it have been beneath the RSPCA to help in this way intead of putting man and dog through this misery?  Was the RSPCA inspector too proud to go in and do a bit of cleaning?

Perhaps so.  And perhaps they could learn a lot from:

http://www.cinnamon.org.uk/


----------



## Fenris (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


I believe in karma. 



[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if there is a form of karma out there for those who lack the compassion to forgive people who make mistakes?

A form of karma that puts them in the same circumstances as those they condemn and sits back and watches to see if they can do any better?


----------



## Fenris (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
_Mr Gray gave evidence that he wormed his animals before they came off his lorry._ 

_Defence vet John Parker gave evidence that not alot is know about this and not alot of people know about it. Mr Peter Green didnt know too much about it and told the court that Mr John Parker was more experienced than himself._ 

If the above related to horses reacting badly to worming because they already carry a large worm burden it is hogwash. Any experienced horse perosn knows (and JG should certainly have known) that worming a horse that is potentially carry a huge burden (and you can often tell just by looking at them) 

[/ QUOTE ]

You either haven't been listening to what has been said about this type of worm infestation or simply don't understand what has been said.

There is no evidence to be seen that a horse has encysted little red worms tucked away in his gut wall.

Most wormings will not touch the encyted form, but some will actually trigger their eruption.

[ QUOTE ]
has the potential to induce colic at least, and often more serious problems - which is why, when treating neglected equines, lower doses are often given over a number of days, and sometimes not until overall condition has improved to the extent where they can cope with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you have missed what has been said.  

The five day treatment does not always work.  The worms have developed a resistance to it.

[ QUOTE ]
 Ideally, of course, equines of this nature should then be isolated for 24 hours so that they can shed their worm burden without immediately reinfecting other horses - I'm willing to bet this didn't happen either. 

JG may have been able to prove that he purchased wormer - he cannot prove that he necessarily administered it at all(he could have just sold it on) or that he administered it correctly and in line with recommendations or in correct quantities for weight. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about snatching at straws.  

Yes, the RSPCA always try to tell the magistrates that proof of purchase of veterinary medicines or feed does not prove that the animal was given them.  Not all magistrates are fooled by such reaching for straws in order to save a prosecution that was ill founded.


----------



## the watcher (14 May 2009)

_Talk about snatching at straws. _ 

it isn't me who is snatching at straws here.


----------



## Taboo1968 (14 May 2009)

I just want the so called proof posted asap, so then everyone can stop repeating themselves......


----------



## siennamum (14 May 2009)

I've wanted to avoid this thread, as it's just a troll fest, but Fenris there is a danger that someone might read some of your unremitting shi*e and think you are talking facts so just to clarify matters.

As a small point when talking about something you know nothing about - use the correct terminology, it's not 'little' redworm it's small redworm. 

If JG lost a large number (10%) of his stock over a one week period over Xmas as we are apparently being led to believe (laughable) because of a spontaneous eruption of small redworm then it flies in the face of science:

"Small redworm larvae can develop into adults within a period of five weeks. In the autumn, however, their development is prolonged and they remain in cysts as tiny inhibited larvae (early L3 larvae) or as larger late 3rd and 4th stage larvae within the gut wall. These are broadly termed encysted larvae but in the late winter or spring, an unknown trigger causes these larvae to resume their development. The symptoms of simultaneous emergence of large numbers of 4th-stage larvae are colic, weight loss, diarrhoea and can cause devastating damage to the large intestine, sometimes resulting in death."

In other words Fenris, he would have lost these animals in March, NOT January. Although this is just pedantics really isn't it, they were starved - as is obvious from pictures which have been widely published, and he couldn't be bothered to either treat or feed them, and so they died of neglect. Why the simple explanation is so hard for you grasp is a mystery, though I suppose you must have a boring life and this is a bit of excitement for you


----------



## ForeverBroke_ (14 May 2009)

If patty asks for evidence once more..

If she also ignores me once more... 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Patty , you BANG ON AND ON about evidence, the RSPCA have produced ' evidence' of the photos that people can make their own opinion of. 
The Grays/ You have contributed no evidence to proove them other wise.

So please , dont talk to us about evidence. Or infact, dont talk at all ...


----------



## diamonddogs (14 May 2009)

I can just about accept there there may have been equines in the yard that WERE looked after and healthy, but this is a very smelly red herring. If only ONE horse was removed from the yard in that state, he's still as guilty as hell, so can we please move on from the posts about the condition of SOME of the animals. If there WERE animals there in good condition that's a good thing, but the majority of the animals we saw were either sick, ill, suffering, or just plain dead, and they're the ones that the Grays had to answer for and the ones we're discussing.

Or is it OK to abuse SOME of your animals as long as SOME are fine and healthy? Personally I don't give a stuff if Gray abused one horse or a thousand horses - he's an abuser and as such is guilty as hell and deserves everything he gets.

Something that's been puzzling me all along about this thread - how on earth can Patty get away with saying over and over again that witnesses are liars? There are laws against this you know - be very careful who you call a liar. And there seems to be a thinly veiled suggestion that the judge was no better than he should be either. If any of these people took umbrage over it, HHO would be held accountable for the words as owner of the forum.

And please stop boasting about all this information you claim to have. If you have it, let's see it. If you don't STFU about it.

I still can't for the life of me see what your agenda is here, but you have one. Oh yes.


----------



## spaniel (14 May 2009)

I was quite prepared to wait until the trial was over for PW to come back here with the evidence she spent weeks going on and on about last year,  the evidence that was so special and important in the Grays defence that she couldnt possibly tell us anything until it was all over.

Sadly I am growing older by the minute and am not prepared to spend any more of my life waiting.

21 pages later and we are still none the wiser.


----------



## Taboo1968 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 And please stop boasting about all this information you claim to have. If you have it, let's see it. If you don't STFU about it. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

Well said!


----------



## JM07 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I was quite prepared to wait until the trial was over for PW to come back here with the evidence she spent weeks going on and on about last year,  the evidence that was so special and important in the Grays defence that she couldnt possibly tell us anything until it was all over.

Sadly I am growing older by the minute and am not prepared to spend any more of my life waiting.

21 pages later and we are still none the wiser. 

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you might mean MJ, Spans....

paddywack has always been in "guilty" camp...rightly, too


----------



## Fenris (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


If JG lost a large number (10%) of his stock over a one week period over Xmas as we are apparently being led to believe (laughable) because of a spontaneous eruption of small redworm then it flies in the face of science:

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making the mistake of measuring the percentage of loss against the number of animals on the holding at the time. 

Think instead of the total throughput of the yard. 

[ QUOTE ]
 in the late winter or spring, an unknown trigger causes these larvae to resume their development. The symptoms of simultaneous emergence of large numbers of 4th-stage larvae are colic, weight loss, diarrhoea and can cause devastating damage to the large intestine, sometimes resulting in death."

In other words Fenris, he would have lost these animals in March, NOT January. Although this is just pedantics really isn't it, they were starved - as is obvious from pictures which have been widely published, and he couldn't be bothered to either treat or feed them, and so they died of neglect. Why the simple explanation is so hard for you grasp is a mystery, though I suppose you must have a boring life and this is a bit of excitement for you 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

You appear to have forgotten the effects that climate change is having both on the spread of diseases and on the timesof year they become prevalent.

In any event, little red worm has been know to erupt at any thime throughout the early autumn to early summer period.

Note that there is more to proving starvation than having a picture of a thin animal.  

You have to prove that no underlying condition either caused or contributed to the lack of condition.

One way to do that is to show evidence of starvation in the bloodwork, something that cannot be disguised.

Perhaps you can explain why the RSPCA failed to do that?


----------



## Taboo1968 (14 May 2009)

And if there was ALL this evidence, why was it not made known to the Grays legal team in the first place?????
After all, you've had a good few months before the procescution started to make it available to them????
Pardon the pun but 

Talk about shutting the stable door AFTER the horse has bolted!!!!


----------



## spaniel (14 May 2009)

i think you might mean MJ, Spans....

paddywack has always been in "guilty" camp...rightly, too 


You are correct JM....senior moment ...... profound apols to PW


----------



## siennamum (14 May 2009)

Honestly Fenris, you just made that all up didn't you?

What utter nonsense, although I wonder whether you could suggest the JG not guilty due to Global Warming argument to Patty. She's desperate, it might help!


----------



## WoopsiiD (14 May 2009)

Just general questions for all posters...
Would you buy an emaciated pony from some one?
Or would you call the RSPCA?
If the RSPCA came to you re:the skeleton you just bought would you not tell them WHO YOU bought it from?

It all seems a bit to much 'It was like that when I got here,
honest'

If he did buy them like that why has he not just said where and who he got them from?
Did they all have passports? Surely previous owners could be contacted?


----------



## diamonddogs (14 May 2009)

According to the article in H&amp;H:

[ QUOTE ]
Buckinghamshire Trading Standards has said it has no plans to prosecute Gray for passport offences, *despite only 63 passports being found for 143 horses*.

Team leader David Pickering said the passport violations were "amost an irrelevance. To be honest, we never really thought about it," he told H&amp;H

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Patty keeps saying, a paragon of society.


----------



## Paddywhack (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


i think you might mean MJ, Spans....

paddywack has always been in "guilty" camp...rightly, too 


You are correct JM....senior moment ...... profound apols to PW 

[/ QUOTE ]
Phew thank you JM07...was trying to scratch my brain trying to remember what evidence i was supposed to know


----------



## Taboo1968 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
According to the article in H&amp;H:
[ QUOTE ]
Buckinghamshire Trading Standards has said it has no plans to prosecute Gray for passport offences, *despite only 63 passports being found for 143 horses*.
Team leader David Pickering said the passport violations were "amost an irrelevance. To be honest, we never really thought about it," he told H&amp;H

[/ QUOTE ]
Like Patty keeps saying, a paragon of society. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank god we dont follow his example then!!!!  Yes a real paragon of society!  although which society I am not sure of!!!


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Patty has regularly blamed the lawyer for advising the Grays not to comment as a reason for their defense failing in court.  You seem to be at odds with one another here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Patty has done no such thing - I have not BLAMED the Lawyer. I feel it was unreasonable to dismiss all the factual evidence, and oral testimonies of the defence just because they made no comment interviews. They didnt make no comment interviews because they had anything to hide - they made them because they were advised to. Such advice is given to people everyday by lawyers. This doe not mean those people are guilty.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems clear to me that the prosecution evidence was more than sufficient to convict the Grays and their failure to provide any evidence in their own defence under questioning is their own fault and can't be blamed on anyone other than themselves or their lawyer - if the latter is the case then they should be taking legal action against them.  Maybe you should be encouraging this as you seem so friendly with them instead of banging the same old drum on here. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Gray provided evidence which destroyed the the prosecutions claims. However all that FACTUAL evidence was dismissed, along with the their testimonies just because they didnt provide them in their interviews with the RSPCA.

When asked by the prosecution as to why they made no comment interviews they replied that their lawyer told them to. If listening to that advide makes them stupid then so be it -but it certainly does not make them guilty of the accusations against them.

The judge didnt find them guilty because they didnt produce the evidence to refute the accusations against them - they were found guilty because they made no comment interviews. So basically making a no comment interview is a crime now.

He didnt appear to have a problem with the evidence they produced - so if they had if commented in their interviews they would have got a not guilty.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

Sorry - Double post.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I just want the so called proof posted asap, so then everyone can stop repeating themselves...... 

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have said, I cant get them right now. I was expecting to recieve them a couple of days ago but I got a phone call telling me I could not have them just yet. 

I did post the photos last year and did have them on my computer but it crashed and I'm still waiting for data to be transfered. 

The posters who are still here who were here last year all saw them. INCLUDING PW.


----------



## Taboo1968 (14 May 2009)

Well the sooner we get the proof the better for your credibilty eh?  And I was here last year, but like you had a name change (but not by registering another account!)


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
If patty asks for evidence once more..

If she also ignores me once more... 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Patty , you BANG ON AND ON about evidence, the RSPCA have produced ' evidence' of the photos that people can make their own opinion of. 
The Grays/ You have contributed no evidence to proove them other wise.

So please , dont talk to us about evidence. Or infact, dont talk at all ... 

[/ QUOTE ]

I am NOT ignoring ANYONE. I am working my way through the thread. YOU are no one special to whoms post I must jump to. 

If I have missed any of your posts then I suggest you please direct me to them so I can answer them.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I can just about accept there there may have been equines in the yard that WERE looked after and healthy, but this is a very smelly red herring.  *If only ONE horse was removed from the yard in that state, he's still as guilty as hell,*  so can we please move on from the posts about the condition of SOME of the animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilty of what exactly?


[ QUOTE ]
If there WERE animals there in good condition that's a good thing, but the majority of the animals we saw were either sick, ill, suffering, or just plain dead, and they're the ones that the Grays had to answer for and the ones we're discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, discuss these animals BUT lets NOT forget what was said about ALL the animals. Apparently they were all starved and some were placed in quarentine at a secret location - as was the stetlands because it was feared that Mr Gray would go steal them back. 

Lets talk about the donkey (Gladys I believe) who was apparently too weak to walk that she had to be carried onto the trailer. Lets talk about the donkey who was given a clean bill of health on the 5th of January but was dead on the 6th of January. Lets talk about the cribber (donkey) - lets see how fantastic she looks NOW she has been removed from the "evil" Mr Gray who apparently starved her. 

Lets talk about the huge hay stack which had to be passed by the RSPCA when they entered the farm, while they claim there was NO food on site.

Lets talk about the health certificates issued by VET Katie Robinson who was at the farm on the 21st of December 07. Yet who later testified against Mr Gray. Lets talk about Bob Baskerville who has been his vet for 9 years and who has been paid £1000's, along with Katie Robinson, by Mr Gray for their services.

Yes, lets talk about all the dead animals that was not there 2 weeks prior. 


[ QUOTE ]
Or is it OK to abuse SOME of your animals as long as SOME are fine and healthy? Personally I don't give a stuff if Gray abused one horse or a thousand horses - he's an abuser and as such is guilty as hell and deserves everything he gets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me what you believe he is guilty of?

[ QUOTE ]
Something that's been puzzling me all along about this thread - how on earth can Patty get away with saying over and over again that witnesses are liars?

[/ QUOTE ]

I witnesses it firsthand while sitting at the back of the court. They were torn to ribbons.


----------



## patty19 (14 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to sound so cynical but is there some kind of financial gain for you patty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely NOT!!!

The truth cannot be brought - any anyone who would try to finanically gain from it would have no morals what so ever.

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't get my head round the fact that some one who says she has nothing to do with the Grays, hasn't got her own horses and is from all accounts a stay at home mother would set out on such a quest surely at some cost to yourself? 

[/ QUOTE ]

And I can truely understand why you find it so difficult to get your head around. I didnt set out to get such a grasp on the whole thing but somehow it just happened. As I found out more and more, and discovered my contacts could provide me with more information and facts than I appreciated them for, I was at a place I didnt realise I had reached until I sat back and looked. I am without a shadow of a doubt that Mr Gray is innocent. If I had the slightest inckling that Mr Gray could be guilty of any of the dreadful crimes he has been accused of, I would by no means defend him. NEVER!!!!

Animals deserve out love and respect.


----------



## patty19 (15 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Just general questions for all posters...
Would you buy an emaciated pony from some one?
Or would you call the RSPCA?
If the RSPCA came to you re:the skeleton you just bought would you not tell them WHO YOU bought it from?

It all seems a bit to much 'It was like that when I got here,
honest'

If he did buy them like that why has he not just said where and who he got them from?
Did they all have passports? Surely previous owners could be contacted? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Both sides gave evidence and among that evidence there was only ONE question asked during the raid. Mr Gray was asked by an RSPCA inspector pointing at a dead horse how it had died - Mr Gray answered Worms.

No one asked Mr Gray anymore questions and Mr Gray was made to sit in his vehicle.

However, when Mr Gray was given the oppertunity during the trial to provide the court with dates, names, locations, etc as to where he brought each individual animals he provided the evidence in full with documented proof. He also told the court when asked, where and when he discovered each of the dead animals. Mr Gray produced every shred of evidence needed to prove his innocence. However, his one mistake was acting upon the advice of a Lawyer who told him and his family to make no comment in their interviews with the RSPCA. Which is obiviously a crime if we are to go by the reason soley given for the verdict.

I am by no means blaming the lawyer. Mr Gray and his family did not have to act upon the legal advice they were given but did so. This however does not mean they are guilty - The evidence Mr Gray produced in court proved as such.


----------



## patty19 (15 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly Fenris, you just made that all up didn't you?

What utter nonsense, although I wonder whether you could suggest the JG not guilty due to Global Warming argument to Patty.  *She's desperate* , it might help! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I? Please enlighten me.


----------



## patty19 (15 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
According to the article in H&amp;H:

[ QUOTE ]
Buckinghamshire Trading Standards has said it has no plans to prosecute Gray for passport offences, *despite only 63 passports being found for 143 horses*.

Team leader David Pickering said the passport violations were "amost an irrelevance. To be honest, we never really thought about it," he told H&amp;H

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Patty keeps saying, a paragon of society. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my - someone cant count.

If this is the case then I'm not sure which passports he produced to the court that awarded Mr Gray his animals back. That said, I believe he told the court that he does not have passports for the young which were born on SF, or for some of the pets which he has owned for many years.


----------



## patty19 (15 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Well the sooner we get the proof the better for your credibilty eh?  And I was here last year, but like you had a name change (but not by registering another account!)  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

And you saw the photos I posted?

If you dont mind me asking - What was your  name last year?


----------



## patty19 (15 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty please can you answer this as i have asked a few times and still no answer.

Im correct in saying that before this came to light you had never set foot on SF?

You never knew the grays before this came to light?

If this is correct how can you have facts that none were starved and none neglected if you never been there? 

It seems that you have taken the words of the grays and others involved with no actual facts when you didn know of the grays or SF before this came to light. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Also what facts and photos have you that the bodies were dug up.


Please patty could you answer this as have asked quite a few times thank you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no photos of the animals being dug up. However, if they had not been dug up and the bones were just scattered all over the place like the RSPCA are saying, then surely RSPCA Ms Claire Ryder and Vet Katie Robinson would have done something about it when they were at the farm 2 weeks earlier.

If you care to look through the thread you'll see that I have answered these questions more than once. I'm not going to repeat myself.


----------



## shokkyy (15 May 2009)

Blimey, this is scarey. Let me see if I've got this straight.

So the RSPCA, Redwings, ILPH, Horse Trust and police force really had it in for Jamie Gray. Basically, they snuck in during the night, planted dead horses all over his farm, snuck in a few more with strangles, lice, overgrown feet, malnutrition and assorted gut, organ and skin issues. They then put the thumbscrews on his local vet and convinced him to go along with everything they said. And despite presenting irrefutable evidence of his innocence in court, Jamie Gray and family were found guilty. Oh, and horses with encysted larvae show absolutely no evidence of their condition until the moment they drop dead, which they do on a regular basis.

Have I got that right?


----------



## Paddywhack (15 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Blimey, this is scarey. Let me see if I've got this straight.

So the RSPCA, Redwings, ILPH, Horse Trust and police force really had it in for Jamie Gray. Basically, they snuck in during the night, planted dead horses all over his farm, snuck in a few more with strangles, lice, overgrown feet, malnutrition and assorted gut, organ and skin issues. They then put the thumbscrews on his local vet and convinced him to go along with everything they said. And despite presenting irrefutable evidence of his innocence in court, Jamie Gray and family were found guilty. Oh, and horses with encysted larvae show absolutely no evidence of their condition until the moment they drop dead, which they do on a regular basis.

Have I got that right? 

[/ QUOTE ]
you summed it up perfectly ,maybe with your post Patty c/o can go back under her rock and stay there ???


----------



## tania01 (15 May 2009)

Thank you for answering me.



I do not  seem to see where you said you have facts or seen  photos of the grays before this came to light.

I also don't seem to see where you have facts of the grays lifestyle before this came to light.

You never knew them before this so you have no idea of what they did and how they lived or how he treated his horses before this came to light,you only have the rubbish that you been fed,as i also keep saying you never knew him before yet you have facts on his lifestyle before this 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Also  you keep saying you have facts that he never neglected or starved his horses HOW when you never knew of him.?


----------



## Taboo1968 (15 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well the sooner we get the proof the better for your credibilty eh?  And I was here last year, but like you had a name change (but not by registering another account!)  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]
And you saw the photos I posted?
If you dont mind me asking - What was your  name last year? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on Patty, your such a good detective you should have worked that one out all by yourself!!!  After all you flung that much [****] at me, surely you remember who I am?

In fact I shall now apply to admin to change my name back to make it a little easier for you shall I, but how you haven't worked out such a simple thing against the fact that you've managed to get all this "evidence" that JG is innocent is quite funny!!!!


----------



## mtj (15 May 2009)

bodies - permission to bury?

as you have chosen not to address this issue, i think we can safely assume that if any burials occured, it was done illegally.

hopefully you have dropped the Grays into yet another presecution.
well done Patty.

I'm signing off this one now.  Personally, i think Janetgeorge summoned up the situation perfectly.

I believe the  Grays are guilty of neglect, and if you are not part of the family, then someone is clearly taking advantage.

Patty, please think about why you have chosen to get involved.  I suspect there is some aspect of your life causing depression and this case is providing you with a distraction.

Please take the advice of one of the other posters and get involved with charity work.  You will soon meet individuals with far graver problems than the Grays.

Fenris - whatever your issues are with the RSPCA, you can not ignore the alleged buried bodies.   Either way this issue illustrates that the Gray operation has been correctly represented by the media.

Corpses - jolly inconvenient arent they?


----------



## WoopsiiD (15 May 2009)

Thank you for answering Patty.
Although I cannot agree with you on this matter I do have to commend you on the fact that once you have an idea in your head you really do go all out for it.


----------



## diamonddogs (15 May 2009)

Before I withdraw from the thread, I'd just like to say all credit to Gray for having a nice bouncy haystack in full view of everyone. What a shame he didn't want to disturb its beauty by cutting a few bales open for his horses.

OK, I've got this all straight in my head now.

And to all the nasty HHOers who keep saying all these horrible things about Mr Gray, 3-2-1, you're back in the room. It was all a horrible nightmare, like in Dallas. None of it really happened, and Gray's place is full of pretty, fat My Little Ponies gamboling about.

And the big bad welfare charities all got eaten up by the Good Giant.

Get real Patty. If this so-called "evidence" that you have actually exists (sorry, I don't believe you've got a goddam thing - you just want to keep this myth going that you know more than us because you're a twisted individual getting off on it, and if you're not, prove me wrong) I'm sure it would have been very useful for the defence to have sight of it before the trial.

Isn't withholding evidence an offence in itself?


----------



## Happy Horse (15 May 2009)

Some more questions:

AS a trader who depends on these animals for his livelihood, once the first one died, presumably from unknown causes did the Grays have a post mortem carried out to discover the cause of death?  If not, why did they choose not to knowing that it may be passed on to the other animals in their care?  If they did have a post mortem which showed small encysted redworms, did they then treat all the other horses on the site to prevent any more deaths?

Why would the knacker man lie about being available over Christmas?  What did he have to gain from telling lies?  What proof is there that he was not available? If as he said he was available for the whole period, why didn't JG pay for the bodies to be removed to prevent possible environmental and health problems from the decomposing bodies?  Were the remaining horses however fat and healthy removed to prevent them being exposed to possible disease from these corpses?  Even if they were kept seperately there is the possibility of contamination to water, food, soil etc from organisms from the dead bodies.

I have no reason to think that Patty is not involve with the Grays other then her say so and I wonder who she is that she is going to get hold of all this evidence in favour of the Grays presumably from the Grays or the defense if she is just an interested member of the public.  I do look forward to seeing it though - it must be something pretty special if it backs up all her claims.


----------



## Taboo1968 (15 May 2009)

Ah there we go - should make things a little easier now - back to OVIDIUS for those that couldn't work out who I was!!!!  

However fully intend to revert to MrT again in a few days!


----------



## Paddywhack (15 May 2009)

The day Patty got any information there will be 13 months in a year,53 weeks in a year and 8 days in a week...........WHY would Patty receive ANY proof to prove the Grays innocence when his lawyer couldn't ??? 
NAH she is full of cr@p 
The only thing that she has ever provided were some staged photos of some well looking horses that were "supposed" to be from S.F at the raid last year, again CR@P coming from a source that saw the horses at the raid and quickly confirmed that the photos were NOT taken at the time of the raid  !


----------



## RantBucket (15 May 2009)

Goodness no Patty tonight, maybe shes got RSI or out doing her Hetty Wainthropp investigations at SF again, such dedication to JG.


----------



## Paddywhack (15 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Goodness no Patty tonight, maybe shes got RSI or out doing her Hetty Wainthropp investigations at SF again, such dedication to JG. 

[/ QUOTE ]
sssssssshhhhhhhh not to loud lol she can stay where she is


----------



## A1fie (16 May 2009)

I just wanted to clarify something in relation to the no comment interviews.   Whilst it is true to say that the Gray's relied on their solicitors advice and that in hindsight it was maybe silly to, it doesn't really explain why a solicitor might have advised them to do so.  

The caution has been amended to include the words 'that it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something you later rely on in court'.  

Obviously what was said in both instructions and advice is confidential but a solicitor will be very aware that should a matter proceed to trial, an adverse inference could be drawn by a silence in interview.  I do not know what was said in consultation however if for example James Gray put forward his account as per his evidence, it would be difficult to see why he was not advised to say so at the time.  

Solicitors are aware that they can always be called to give evidence in court, if legal priviledge is waived, as to the reasons for their advice to answer no-comment.  As such, they make sure that the client knows all the pro's and consequences of all their available options in interview, including answering questions and saying no comment.

In advising a no-comment interview a solicitor will have based his advice on primarily 2 things, the evidence and the client's instructions.  If the evidence was weak for example, and unlikely to result in further action, that may be a good reason for a no comment interview.  In relation to the evidence, It must be able to be said that the scene at Spindalls invited some explanation from Gray, therefore the evidence was sufficient to require an explanation.

The client's instructions are the second consideration for the solicitor. If for example Gray gave the same account to his solicitor as he did in evidence, it is difficult to see why the solicitor would have told him not to put his defence forward at that stage.  Bear in mind the solicitor will be aware that he can be called to explain his advice in court and also that he will know from case law that a solicitors advice to say no comment does not prevent an inference being drawn.

I am not saying therefore that Gray said no comment because he hadn't yet thought of his defence but it was open to Gray to waive priviledge in court and ask his solicitor to explain the reasons for his advice.  A good example of this would be in a situation where Gray had told his solicitor all of which he subsequently told the court.  He would have the opportunity to call his solicitor so the solicitor could confirm by looking at his notes that Gray did give this account at that time. 

This would of course go a long way to re-butting the inference that Gray subsequently made up his defence.  A court would then be made aware that the defence although not given in interview, was given to his solicitor and subsequently not made up.  This could have to a large extent negated the adverse inference drawn.

From what I am aware Gray did not call his solicitor to give evidence to the court on what his instructions on were at interview.  

This could mean that Gray did not tell his solicitor the account he later gave to the court.


----------



## patty19 (18 May 2009)

I recieved some photos today and when I went to publish them I saw that the photos were there from last year.


http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj168/Horsedevotee/?newest=1

I am waiting on another batch of photos and when they arrive I will post them. Not too sure how long I'll have to wait.


----------



## Paddywhack (19 May 2009)

yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz go back under the stone, never seen so much cr@p in mylife,those photos were again NOT from the raid,and the numbers are not written on the horses any one can see that


----------



## Amymay (19 May 2009)

Where did these photos come from?


----------



## Gingernags (19 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Where did these photos come from? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why AM, I'm surprised you hav to ask, these are 100% genuine photos of the horses at Amersham that were so wrongfully siezed from Mr James-genuine-geezer-done-nothing-wrong-its-all-a-conspiracy-honest-guv-Gray!

The ones that completely blow the RSPCA and vet evidence out of the water...

Can't you tell???


----------



## brighteyes (19 May 2009)

You must have run out of room on your phone/camera by the time you got round to the thin ones?  Or did you delete those?  I am having difficulty believing that they are unbiased depictions of SF.  The same difficulty I am having believing JG is entirely innocent of horse neglect.


----------



## Cuffey (19 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I recieved some photos today and when I went to publish them I saw that the photos were there from last year.


http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj168/Horsedevotee/?newest=1

I am waiting on another batch of photos and when they arrive I will post them. Not too sure how long I'll have to wait. 

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be interesting to see if you have any pictures of those horses/ponies which went to the Horse Trust and were the subject of the court case

I would be looking for numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 18a, 19, 20

I may be wrong but I understand all horses were removed to prevent them from the same fate that others had clearly suffered

With the kind of turnover of horses Mr Gray said the farm had, I imagine the land to be 'horse sick' and worms and salmonella can continue to exist in the ground for quite some time.  For any 'farmer' (I use the term loosely) to lose the quantity of stock he was admitting to (10 a year) it should have been obvious that changes needed to be made in the management of the farm.


----------



## Paddywhack (19 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did these photos come from? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why AM, I'm surprised you hav to ask, these are 100% genuine photos of the horses at Amersham that were so wrongfully siezed from Mr James-genuine-geezer-done-nothing-wrong-its-all-a-conspiracy-honest-guv-Gray!

The ones that completely blow the RSPCA and vet evidence out of the water...

Can't you tell??? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]
well said,i could do the same and then with the right equipment write number on top of the photos so that people will think its on the animals  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 good try Patty


----------



## patty19 (19 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz go back under the stone, never seen so much cr@p in mylife,those photos were again NOT from the raid,and the numbers are not written on the horses any one can see that 

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY.yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 

Get over yourself PW. Those photo were indeed from the raid. You tried your best to tell people I was lying last year and made yourself look like an idiot - carry on and you'll achive the same for yourself this year.


----------



## patty19 (19 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
You must have run out of room on your phone/camera by the time you got round to the thin ones?  Or did you delete those?  I am having difficulty believing that they are unbiased depictions of SF.  The same difficulty I am having believing JG is entirely innocent of horse neglect. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The media have given you the photos of the thin animals. Unfortunately they didnt give you photos of ALL the animals. That said, they gave you a sob story of how terribly thin ALL the animals were.

The Grays would have nothing to lose by me pubishing photos of the thin animals because they have already been shown by the media. But what would the RSPCA have to lose by allowing photos of the other animals to be published? If nothing, then WHY have they not given them to the media? And why did they not give them to the court?


----------



## patty19 (19 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I recieved some photos today and when I went to publish them I saw that the photos were there from last year.


http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj168/Horsedevotee/?newest=1

I am waiting on another batch of photos and when they arrive I will post them. Not too sure how long I'll have to wait. 

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be interesting to see if you have any pictures of those horses/ponies which went to the Horse Trust and were the subject of the court case

[ QUOTE ]
I would be looking for numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 18a, 19, 20

[/ QUOTE ]

If I can get them I will post them. 

[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong but I understand all horses were removed to prevent them from the same fate that others had clearly suffered

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the most recent story as far as I am aware. However, at one point it was said that ALL the animals were emaciated.

[ QUOTE ]
With the kind of turnover of horses Mr Gray said the farm had, I imagine the land to be 'horse sick' and worms and salmonella can continue to exist in the ground for quite some time.  For any 'farmer' (I use the term loosely) to lose the quantity of stock he was admitting to (10 a year) it should have been obvious that changes needed to be made in the management of the farm. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The latest outbreak aside. Concerning the previous years, basically those 10 horses all die as a result from going to spindles farm? That they would not have died if they had been purchased by another trader or private owner? Or if Mr Gray had put them at another location?

I find it rather hard to believe that any trader would willingly put his purchases on a farm knowing it was riddled with danger which would cost him thousands of pounds in losses.


----------



## patty19 (19 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

well said,i could do the same and then with the right equipment write number on top of the photos so that people will think its on the animals  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 good try Patty 

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have seen all of the animals like you claim you have then you will KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that the horses in those photos are most certainly of the raid at Spindles Farm. 

I have posted several more that I recieved late last night. They have now been posted on photobucket too.


----------



## dozzie (19 May 2009)

Thanks for posting the link Patty. It does show a different side to the story. There are clearly horses in good shape and on good bedding.


----------



## patty19 (19 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting the link Patty. It does show a different side to the story. There are clearly horses in good shape and on good bedding. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone can see what's staring them right in the face. 

As much as the people here have hung drawn and quatered JG and his family without knowing the facts, I would hate for them to have the RSPCA knock at their doors.

I have seen the effect this whole thing has had on that family and it's not something I would wish on anyone. Unless of course, that person was guilty of the crimes the Gray family have been wrongly accused of.


----------



## Cuffey (20 May 2009)

According to newspaper article 16 and 17 were young colts both with body score of 1 when removed
The photos shown are not body score 1 nor do they look very young I give up.


----------



## dozzie (20 May 2009)

So are the photos wrong or were the press wrong? 

People keep stating that the photos that the RSPCA provided are enough evidence. 

So why are these photos being questioned against the press evidence? How many people have said they dont believe everything they read in the press? 

Unfortunately they do! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Despite thinking that they dont.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
According to newspaper article 16 and 17 were young colts both with body score of 1 when removed

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the RSPCA vets all the animals were 1 and below. 


By looking at a photo of the teeth of one particular fallen animal Peter Green said it was an aged pony, when in fact it was a foal. 

[ QUOTE ]
The photos shown are not body score 1 nor do they look very young I give up. 

[/ QUOTE ]


But the RSPCA vets scored those animals at 1 or below.

If this is their idea of a body score of 1 then I suggest all you people start feeding your horses chocolate to put some fat on their emaciated frames.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
So are the photos wrong or were the press wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quiet clearly it's the press reports that were wrong. I'm not blaming the press for being wrong. It's not the press that are supposed to be the experts. It's the RSPCA's so-called veterinary experts that are wrong - and purposely so I believe.

[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the photos that the RSPCA provided are enough evidence. 

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only enough because people want it to be enough.

[ QUOTE ]
So why are these photos being questioned against the press evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people do not like to believe that they have been duped by the "charity" that they have donated their hard earned money to.

[ QUOTE ]
How many people have said they dont believe everything they read in the press? 

Unfortunately they do! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Despite thinking that they dont.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Or maybe they dont but push any doubt to the back of their mind because they want to believe the press.


----------



## Sugarplum Furry (20 May 2009)

Were these photos produced in court?


----------



## the watcher (20 May 2009)

patty, you can bang on and on about this as much as you like - it doesn't change anything. If out of over 100 equines JG happened to have a handful with decent covering that does not excuse the condition of the vast majority - for all we know the ones that look OK may just have been purchased and not yet deeply exposed to his particular brand of 'horse farming'.

You really have been completely hoodwinked by this family


----------



## dozzie (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 If out of over 100 equines JG happened to have a handful with decent covering that does not excuse the condition of the vast majority 


[/ QUOTE ] 

The vast majority went to The grange, Norfolk. The grange needed to erect shelters and pens. No more than that according to the court report. So they cant have been in the severe conditon quoted. 17 went to the HT on the second day and were said to be a bit underweight but nothing serious. 


 [ QUOTE ]
  for all we know the ones that look OK may just have been purchased 

[/ QUOTE ] 

And for all we know he had had them for months.

And for all we know he had had the thinner ones for a few weeks. 

We dont actually know unless we were in the court.


----------



## the watcher (20 May 2009)

dozzie, even if you were sitting in Court for every day of the trial, there is no guarantee that you would have been hearing the truth, or knowing for certain what the truth is, by the end of the trial.

Yes, there have been miscarriages of justice in the past of all sorts, where it has transpired that the original evidence could not be absolutely relied upon. In criminal cases some innocent people have been convicted wrongly, and I am sure that some guilty people have cast enough doubt over the original evidence as to make their convictions unsafe.

However this case case conducted firmly in the public eye, with a very expert judge unswayed by the possible emotional ignorance of a jury - the decision was based solely upon the evidence put before the judge.

Some of that evidence was accepted, some was rejected. The prosecution team had no reason or motivation to lie, nothing to be gained by doing so, and the prosecution witnesses were from diverse agencies - the very idea of some kind of conspiracy is ludicrous.

The defence, on the other hand, had every reason to lie, to half lie, to withhold evidence, to try and introduce evidence that was unrelated to the case in order to cast some smoke and mirrors. 

You make up your own mind as to whether they did that or not. I know that they were guilty. I don't know that from the press, or from photographs - I know it from seeing horses at first hand connected to JG and I know it from friends and colleagues who were there on the day

As for some of the rescue organisations only having to erect shelter and provide hay - for some of those horses clean shelter, water and readily accessible hay would have been a big step up - and in most cases unless a horse needs urgent medical treatment, they will improve by simply having these essentials provided. They were not being provided before.


----------



## dozzie (20 May 2009)

I think the RSPCA were very selective about what the released to the press. I also think it was wrong to release the pictures before he was found guilty. If the police had been prosecuting I do not believe they would have released the photographs until the case had been concluded and a guilty verdict reached. And rightly so. 

I think it was wrong to give the impression that all the horses were emaciated when the vast majority werent through one-sided press releases which were given before facts were ascertained as to how long he had owned the horses, what state they had been in when he had bought them, what care had been given, why the horses had died etc.  and headlines such as "The worst case of cruelty ever". This seems to be a popular quote with some RSPCA Inspectors.

Had he been found not guilty, he and his family would have endured months of harassment for no reason due to the way the RSPCA publicised it. And the RSPCA would have known it would happen as it invariably does. IMO it is wrong to do that to anyone before all the facts have been determined. As I said, the police wouldnt do it because they are not allowed to do it. 

But the RSPCA do it time and time again.


----------



## Paddywhack (20 May 2009)

There are 2 people in the same corner and that's Patty and Dozzie and I am starting to think that they are a mirror of each other,are they the same person OR are they cooking up together beforehand what to write ? They are sounding like 2 broken records with all the quoting,so Dozzie is now also going on my ignore list .
The photos could not be more FAKE,confirmed from person that was at the raid that these horses were not there at the time,and the person did not recognize the surroundings and is therefor not even sure if they were taken at S.F
I have never been there myself so i would not know.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Were these photos produced in court? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes by the defendants.

The RSPCA could have produced them it they WANTED to because they took exactly the same photos.

A member of the Gray family stood alongside an RSPCA inspector taking the same photos. The court heard that the RSPCA inspector told the defendant that they didnt need to take photos as well because the family would recieve a copy. Good job they did not listen to that inspector because the RSPCA did'nt even produce their own copy to the court. And the defence received no such thing from the RSPCA.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty, you can bang on and on about this as much as you like - it doesn't change anything. If out of over 100 equines JG happened to have a handful with decent covering that does not excuse the condition of the vast majority

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority - you mean the handful of photos published in the media?

[ QUOTE ]
 - for all we know the ones that look OK may just have been purchased and not yet deeply exposed to his particular brand of 'horse farming'.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the thin ones could not possibly have only just been purchased by him?

What is his particular brand of farming?

[ QUOTE ]
You really have been completely hoodwinked by this family 

[/ QUOTE ]

Im affraid the only people who have been hoodwinked are those who have embraced every lie fed to them. And those who have donated their hard earned money to the "charity"


----------



## the watcher (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Were these photos produced in court? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes by the defendants.

The RSPCA could have produced them it they WANTED to because they took exactly the same photos.

A member of the Gray family stood alongside an RSPCA inspector taking the same photos. The court heard that the RSPCA inspector told the defendant that they didnt need to take photos as well because the family would recieve a copy. Good job they did not listen to that inspector because the RSPCA did'nt even produce their own copy to the court. And the defence received no such thing from the RSPCA. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you there at the time the photos were taken? No!

do you know FIRST HAND that the RSPCA took similar photographs? No!

Have you been told by JG and family or their representatives that these photos were taken? Probably - doesn't make it true though.

You can only talk here with any credibility about things that you yourself have seen, anything that you have been told third hand by the defence cannot be judged, by you, by us - and is not relevant or useful.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

Dozzie said&gt;&gt;*And for all we know he had had them for months.

And for all we know he had had the thinner ones for a few weeks. 

We dont actually know unless we were in the court. *




[ QUOTE ]
dozzie, even if you were sitting in Court for every day of the trial, there is no guarantee that you would have been hearing the truth, or knowing for certain what the truth is, by the end of the trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

But apparently YOU know the truth even though you was not there. Funny that!!

Also, Mr Gray produced invoices for his animals. Those invoices had the date, time, place, and seller of those animals - So there's the proof of truth.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, there have been miscarriages of justice in the past of all sorts, where it has transpired that the original evidence could not be absolutely relied upon. In criminal cases some innocent people have been convicted wrongly, and I am sure that some guilty people have cast enough doubt over the original evidence as to make their convictions unsafe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me what evidence the RSPCA had to prove Mr Gray is guilty of cruelty and neglect?

[ QUOTE ]
However this case case conducted firmly in the public eye,

[/ QUOTE ]

What defence evidence did the RSPCA publish? Or was it an all one sided case that was given to the public from day one?


[ QUOTE ]
with a very expert judge unswayed by the possible emotional ignorance of a jury - the decision was based solely upon the evidence put before the judge.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no jury. And at the case in April 08 that judge was not swayed by the blatant lies of the RSPCA. The Gray family did not need a public outcry to win that case, but the RSPCA needed not only the public outcry but also petitions in order to keep hold of the animals. 

[ QUOTE ]
Some of that evidence was accepted, some was rejected. The prosecution team had no reason or motivation to lie, nothing to be gained by doing so,

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course not....lol

Please MH do not be so naive.


[ QUOTE ]
and the prosecution witnesses were from diverse agencies - the very idea of some kind of conspiracy is ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK.

[ QUOTE ]
The defence, on the other hand, had every reason to lie, to half lie, to withhold evidence, to try and introduce evidence that was unrelated to the case in order to cast some smoke and mirrors. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you KNOW for a FACT that the defence withheld evidence, tried to introduce evidence that was unrelated to the case in order to cast some smoke and mirrors?

Or is that just all in your mind?......you have been hoodwinked AGAIN.....but this time not by anyone else but your very own self.

Why would they have every reason to lie?

How could they have produced irrefutable evidence refuting the RSPCA's claims?

How comes the prosecution witnesses got pulled apart?

Why did the RSPCA inspector have to re-write her statement in order for it to agree with another prosecution witness?



[ QUOTE ]
You make up your own mind as to whether they did that or not. I know that they were guilty. I don't know that from the press, or from photographs - I know it from seeing horses at first hand connected to JG and I know it from friends and colleagues who were there on the day

[/ QUOTE ]

Which animals did you see?

And I dont wish to offend but you have been hoodwinked by your friends and colleagues.

[ QUOTE ]
As for some of the rescue organisations only having to erect shelter and provide hay - for some of those horses clean shelter, water and readily accessible hay would have been a big step up - and in most cases unless a horse needs urgent medical treatment, they will improve by simply having these essentials provided. They were not being provided before. 

[/ QUOTE ]

If those animals didnt have clean shelter, water and readily accessible hay then I'm pretty sure they would have needed some kind of  veterinary treatment. Again, you have been hoodwinked.

And what evidence do you know of, or did the RSPCA have, to prove that Mr Gray did not provide those animals with those essentials?


----------



## the watcher (20 May 2009)

patty - i have lost patience. I can't make up my mind whether you are completely mad, a JG relative or just hate the RSPCA so much you have temporarily lost your reason.

Whichever it is, you are not worth speaking to if you will not concede on any level that at least a number of horses on that farm were suffering and neglected.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
There are 2 people in the same corner and that's Patty and Dozzie and I am starting to think that they are a mirror of each other,are they the same person OR are they cooking up together beforehand what to write ?

[/ QUOTE ]

More dribble from no other than the dribbler himself. I've got a bib if you're interested.

Hey Dozzie, be prepared for some verbal diarrhea.

[ QUOTE ]
They are sounding like 2 broken records with all the quoting,so Dozzie is now also going on my ignore list .

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Dozzie wont lose too much sleep.


[ QUOTE ]
The photos could not be more FAKE,confirmed from person that was at the raid that these horses were not there at the time,and the person did not recognize the surroundings and is therefor not even sure if they were taken at S.F
I have never been there myself so i would not know. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a break PW, speaking so much bull in one message must be extremely tiring for your little brain.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Were you there at the time the photos were taken? No!

do you know FIRST HAND that the RSPCA took similar photographs? No!

[/ QUOTE ]

No I was not there when they were taken but I was in the court when the RSPCA did not deny taking the same photos - and I was there when the RSPCA said they would have their copy emailed through to the court. And I was there when the RSPCA identified each of those animals. 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been told by JG and family or their representatives that these photos were taken? Probably - doesn't make it true though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was told by a close contact that they were photos taken by a member of the Gray family - then the RSPCA confimed it in court.

[ QUOTE ]
You can only talk here with any credibility about things that you yourself have seen, anything that you have been told third hand by the defence cannot be judged, by you, by us - and is not relevant or useful. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I was at the trial and heard all the evidence from both sides - and I saw the prosecution witnesses be pulled apart by the defence team. I heard the prosecution witnesses contradict each other and themselves. I saw the prosecution witnesses reading from their note books which contradicted their witness statments. I saw the defence provided irrefutable evidence that refuted the RSPCA claims. I witnessed some of the prosection witnesses suddenly become mute or stutter, or give hilarious answers when they could not answer the simplest of questions which were put to them under cross examination.

The funniest thing of all those answers was from Mr Baskerville when he told the court that a horse always puts it's head in a bucket water when it's going to die. - Even the prosecution team were unable to hold their laughter in.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty - i have lost patience. I can't make up my mind whether you are completely mad, a JG relative or just hate the RSPCA so much you have temporarily lost your reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just may be I am telling the truth?

[ QUOTE ]
Whichever it is, you are not worth speaking to if you will not concede on any level that at least a number of horses on that farm were suffering and neglected. 

[/ QUOTE ]

So I am not worth speaking to because after seeing the facts, I cannot agree with the majority who have formed their opinions by sucking in one sided reports?

Ok.


----------



## dozzie (20 May 2009)

PMSL! 

 I cannot possibly be cooking up anything with Patty. I dont cook!  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Everyone knows that! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Coco pops are my limit! Oh sorry, forgot, I can do toast! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I dont do "cocopops  _on_   toast" though as it would make the toast all soggy.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





I am not too concerned you are ignoring me PW.


----------



## Happy Horse (20 May 2009)

I love the photo showing the newly sprinkled fresh straw!  I'd place my money on that being put down for the photographs, it proves nothing at all and certainly doesn't represent the images shown in the video!  We are being led to believe that the shitty pens were just used for dead bodies - lovely, again not the case according to the vets reports.  I have worked with one of the vets who gave evidence in the case for several years in the past and I trust 100% that his reporting would be totally fair and honest.  I had no idea he was involved until I read the report from the hearing.

In some of the photos of the fatter horses there seem to be an awful lot in close proximity and I believe this was one of the problems cited by the vets and inspectors.  Others look ok but clearly have thick coats as you would expect in the middle of winter but the coats look dull and the ribs can be seen through the coats.  A photo can never tell the full story - a vets report can.


----------



## Happy Horse (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
patty - i have lost patience. I can't make up my mind whether you are completely mad, a JG relative or just hate the RSPCA so much you have temporarily lost your reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just may be I am telling the truth?

[ QUOTE ]
Whichever it is, you are not worth speaking to if you will not concede on any level that at least a number of horses on that farm were suffering and neglected. 

[/ QUOTE ]

So I am not worth speaking to because after seeing the facts, I cannot agree with the majority who have formed their opinions by sucking in one sided reports?

Ok. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You are entitled to your opinion Patty (and Dozzie).  The thing is that the Grays have been found guilty and nothing you can say or do will change it and there are a lot of people with different opinions who are very pleased with the result.  Just because you disagree doesn't make you right.


----------



## Paddywhack (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
patty - i have lost patience. I can't make up my mind whether you are completely mad, a JG relative or just hate the RSPCA so much you have temporarily lost your reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just may be I am telling the truth?

[ QUOTE ]
Whichever it is, you are not worth speaking to if you will not concede on any level that at least a number of horses on that farm were suffering and neglected. 

[/ QUOTE ]

So I am not worth speaking to because after seeing the facts, I cannot agree with the majority who have formed their opinions by sucking in one sided reports?

Ok. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You are entitled to your opinion Patty (and Dozzie).  The thing is that the Grays have been found guilty and nothing you can say or do will change it and there are a lot of people with different opinions who are very pleased with the result.  Just because you disagree doesn't make you right. 

[/ QUOTE ]
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD THERE, I AM SO TIRED OF THEM ,I GOT THEM BOTH ON IGNORE NOW BUT I KNOW THAT ALL THEY DO IS QUOTING THE SAME RUBBISH OVER AND OVER AGAIN...I KNOW THAT THEY  HAVE QUOTED ME AND I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY SAY,I SUPPORTED THE WINNING SIDE AND THATS ALL THAT MATTERS,THEY MUST BE SO SAD,LONELY AND BORED PEOPLE IF ALL THEY CAN DO IS QUOTE PEOPLE ON A NATIONAL FORUM.THEY KNOW CHICKEN SH*T ABOUT J.G AND THE CASE......I GOT A HUBBY AND KIDS AND HORSES AND I PREFER TO PUT MY ENERGY WHERE IT IS NEEDED.....


----------



## jhoward (20 May 2009)

could you all pop and look at this?

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/sh...ID=#Post4406866


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I love the photo showing the newly sprinkled fresh straw!  I'd place my money on that being put down for the photographs,

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes, I'm sure that when the Gray family saw the RSPCA getting their cameras out the Grays asked the RSPCA to halt for a few moments so they can lay fresh straw for the benefit of the photos....PMSL. The RSPCA took exactly the same photos.  
	
	
		
		
	


	







[ QUOTE ]
it proves nothing at all and certainly doesn't represent the images shown in the video!

[/ QUOTE ]

And the fiction horror story given alongside the video does not represent those photos.


[ QUOTE ]
We are being led to believe that the shitty pens were just used for dead bodies - lovely, again not the case according to the vets reports.  I have worked with one of the vets who gave evidence in the case for several years in the past and I trust 100% that his reporting would be totally fair and honest.  I had no idea he was involved until I read the report from the hearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well maybe you should ask that vet why he gave those animals the body score of 1. If he truely believes the body scores he gave, he has no business being a vet. He desperately needs to go back to school.

[ QUOTE ]
In some of the photos of the fatter horses there seem to be an awful lot in close proximity and I believe this was one of the problems cited by the vets and inspectors.  Others look ok but clearly have thick coats as you would expect in the middle of winter but the coats look dull and the ribs can be seen through the coats.  A photo can never tell the full story - a vets report can. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me ribs in those photos. And while you are at it may be you could point out which animals you would believe to have a body score of one. Cheers.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





I'll certainly agree that a photo can never tell the full story. Unfortunately any story can be given to unsuspecting people when that story comes with photos which were in the press. 

It's a shame that people just embrace any old crap because it's given by an organization that most people dont suspect would lie.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD THERE, I AM SO TIRED OF THEM ,I GOT THEM BOTH ON IGNORE NOW

[/ QUOTE ]

Aww PW you break my heart.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
BUT I KNOW THAT ALL THEY DO IS QUOTING THE SAME RUBBISH OVER AND OVER AGAIN

[/ QUOTE ]

But however, it's the TRUTH.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
...I KNOW THAT THEY  HAVE QUOTED ME AND I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY SAY

[/ QUOTE ]

And we're supposed to care for what YOU say? Dont flatter yourself PW.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
,I SUPPORTED THE WINNING SIDE AND THATS ALL THAT MATTERS,THEY MUST BE SO SAD,LONELY AND BORED PEOPLE IF ALL THEY CAN DO IS QUOTE PEOPLE ON A NATIONAL FORUM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yer, and now we're saddened even more because you have us on ignore.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
THEY KNOW CHICKEN SH*T ABOUT J.G AND THE CASE......

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say so PW.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
I GOT A HUBBY AND KIDS AND HORSES AND I PREFER TO PUT MY ENERGY WHERE IT IS NEEDED..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I suggest you put your enegy into them instead of coming here with your verbal diarrhea.


----------



## Happy Horse (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Well maybe you should ask that vet why he gave those animals the body score of 1. If he truely believes the body scores he gave, he has no business being a vet. He desperately needs to go back to school.



[/ QUOTE ] 

I'd believe him over you any day and I trust him 100% you should be careful about making potentially defamatory comments.  JG has been proved guilty, the vets have not.

The picture of the fresh fluffy straw could have been taken at any time and place.  There is nothing even to show where it is.

Sorry but too me that many dead horses, too many excuses as to why they had not been disposed of, burning and decomposing bodies on the premises.  There are no excuses.  You clearly think keeping numerous dead horses for days around livestock is acceptable, I think it is irresponsible and putting the other horses at risk of disease.

BTW you never answered my questions about whether postmortems were carried out when the first horses died and what the PM showed.  Did he allow 20+ horses to die without requesting a formal postmortem on any of them?

Why would the knackerman lie about being available?  What proof was there that he was supposedly not available to remove the bodies over the preiod?

If no PMs were carried out then why not and if JG knew the cause of death as encysted redworms were all the remaining horses treated as a preventative measure?


----------



## pricklyflower (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Were you there at the time the photos were taken? No!

do you know FIRST HAND that the RSPCA took similar photographs? No!

[/ QUOTE ]

No I was not there when they were taken but I was in the court when the RSPCA did not deny taking the same photos - and I was there when the RSPCA said they would have their copy emailed through to the court. And I was there when the RSPCA identified each of those animals. 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been told by JG and family or their representatives that these photos were taken? Probably - doesn't make it true though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was told by a close contact that they were photos taken by a member of the Gray family - then the RSPCA confimed it in court.

[ QUOTE ]
You can only talk here with any credibility about things that you yourself have seen, anything that you have been told third hand by the defence cannot be judged, by you, by us - and is not relevant or useful. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I was at the trial and heard all the evidence from both sides - and I saw the prosecution witnesses be pulled apart by the defence team. I heard the prosecution witnesses contradict each other and themselves. I saw the prosecution witnesses reading from their note books which contradicted their witness statments. I saw the defence provided irrefutable evidence that refuted the RSPCA claims. I witnessed some of the prosection witnesses suddenly become mute or stutter, or give hilarious answers when they could not answer the simplest of questions which were put to them under cross examination.

The funniest thing of all those answers was from Mr Baskerville when he told the court that a horse always puts it's head in a bucket water when it's going to die. - Even the prosecution team were unable to hold their laughter in. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Have been following this thread but haven't posted yet but if the prosecution witnesses were pulled apart by the defence team, the prosecution witnesses contradicting each other / reading from note books, stutter, etc, etc (won't quote again) why did the judge find JG guilty? Surely if it was that bad then he wouldn't have given that outcome? Someone said previously that RSPCA, vets, knackerman, etc were all in on it but surely not the judge??


----------



## pricklyflower (20 May 2009)

Also, how can you explain "that" video?  the urine and faeces on the floor of the barn, the emaciated horses, the dead horses which had been there for a long time (you can't say they haven't when you can see the decomposition on the field).  Why were some horses in conditions with clean, fresh straw and others not?  

Thank you.


----------



## competitiondiva (20 May 2009)

Not just them but the trading standards, redwings, horsetrust, WHW etc etc all who were involved must have been in on this conspiracy as evidence of each of the horses will have continued to have been gathered at the various locations the horses went to.  Plus trading standards were there from the beginning!!

mmm Patty do you believe in alien abduction and that 9/11 was an inside job??????!!!!!!!!


----------



## brighteyes (20 May 2009)

In fact the media did show a few perfectly satisfactorily covered ponies.  You should have balanced yours out with a few thin ones


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

I'd believe him over you any day

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem. Thats your choice and your right.


[ QUOTE ]
and I trust him 100% you should be careful about making potentially defamatory comments.  JG has been proved guilty, the vets have not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should direct him to this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
The picture of the fresh fluffy straw could have been taken at any time and place.

[/ QUOTE ]


True - but they were taken at SF. The RSPCA knew that too when they identified them in court. Other prosecution witnesses were questioned on the photos too. There was no dispute what so ever as to what animals they were and where those photos were taken.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing even to show where it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

True - but if you had been in court you would have heard the prosecution witnesses give evidence concerning those animals in those photos and the bedding.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but too me that many dead horses, too many excuses as to why they had not been disposed of, burning and decomposing bodies on the premises.  There are no excuses.  You clearly think keeping numerous dead horses for days around livestock is acceptable, I think it is irresponsible and putting the other horses at risk of disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is where you are trusting the reports. The was no evidence to prove that JG left his fallen animals among the living.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW you never answered my questions about whether postmortems were carried out when the first horses died and what the PM showed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was only 3 postmortems carried out under the instruction of the RSPCA. They were done on the back of a knacker lorry and if I remember rightly, John Parker criticized the fact that the gut walls of those animals were not cut into. He also criticized the postmortems being carried out on the back of a lorry instead of in a proper place on a clean surface.


[ QUOTE ]
Did he allow 20+ horses to die without requesting a formal postmortem on any of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well some of them were pets that he had lost over a number of years so I'm not sure, but I didnt hear any evidence that he had any postmortems carried out.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the knackerman lie about being available?

What proof was there that he was supposedly not available to remove the bodies over the preiod?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should have been in the court. The RSPCA and JG used the same knacker man. 

[ QUOTE ]
If no PMs were carried out then why not and if JG knew the cause of death as encysted redworms were all the remaining horses treated as a preventative measure? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know why no PM's were carried out and JG did NOT know his animals had encysted redworm.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Have been following this thread but haven't posted yet *but if the prosecution witnesses were pulled apart by the defence team, the prosecution witnesses contradicting each other / reading from note books, stutter, etc, etc (won't quote again) why did the judge find JG guilty?* Surely if it was that bad then he wouldn't have given that outcome? Someone said previously that RSPCA, vets, knackerman, etc were all in on it but surely not the judge?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question......After witnessing all I witnessed in that court room, not for the life of me can I think of a single reason why they got a guilty verdict. As much as I try I just cannot answer that question.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how can you explain "that" video?  the urine and faeces on the floor of the barn, the emaciated horses, the dead horses which had been there for a long time (you can't say they haven't when you can see the decomposition on the field).  Why were some horses in conditions with clean, fresh straw and others not?  

Thank you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been accused by other posters of repeating myself - to which they are correct. I have only been repeating myself because people keep asking the same questions over and over again. If you look through this thread you'll find the answers to your questions.


----------



## patty19 (20 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
In fact the media did show a few perfectly satisfactorily covered ponies.  You should have balanced yours out with a few thin ones  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

All the thinnest horses were shown by the media. 

Why is it you people only want to see thin animals? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





If and when I receive photos of the thinnest animals I will post them - not sure you'll come accross anything new because the public have seen them already.


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

So this horse trader who you say wouldn't buy horses and not feed them as it would be bad for his business was happy for horses to die and not find out what they had died of and then leave the bodies lying around the yards.  Surely a responsible trader would want to prevent further deaths.  If JG did not know the cause of death I would suggest he was negligent in not having post mortems carried out as soon as the horses died and removing the bodies straight away.  You have no proof that the dead animals were not among the living the reports say they were - I believe the reports.

Post mortems are not sterile procedures.  I regularly saw them carried out in the back of the knackers lorry when I worked in the equine hospital.  With the number of bodies even carrying them out at the abbatoir would be difficult due to the space needed.  Criticising this when the bodies have been lying for days or months is ridiculous!

The fact that JG and the RSPCA use the same knackerman is irrelevant and does not prove he was not available.

It seems odd that you are criticising the people who kicked a dog to death instantly yet defending this man who allowed horses to suffer and die on his property and yes in my mind they did suffer ( the horse with the genital injury, the horses with severe diarrhoea, the eye infections)  JG states he did not think they were suffering - ignorance is no defence.  I bet he would think differently if it were his own genitals affected!

I hope he is never allowed to own another animal.


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

Patty can you tell me is it your belief that horse KH15 in the video was moved into the pen full of old, wet horse muck specifically for the purposes of the RSPCA video to make JG look bad or was the horse (the one suffering with severe diarrhoea) living in those conditions?  If you think it was moved, what proof do you have?


----------



## patty19 (21 May 2009)

Look at the thread I'm not going to repeat myself. Even the photgraphs have been questioned. It's tiring.


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

I have looked through the thread and can't find your answer specifically about KH15 and the conditions of the stall in the photograph.  You say the beds were clean yet the video of this horse clearly shows otherwise.  Please can you answer this as you say the beds were fresh?


----------



## patty19 (21 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I have looked through the thread and can't find your answer specifically about KH15 and the conditions of the stall in the photograph.  You say the beds were clean yet the video of this horse clearly shows otherwise.  Please can you answer this as you say the beds were fresh? 

[/ QUOTE ]

KH15 was taken into that pen - YES.

This evidence was given in court. And that animal was PTS uneccesarily.


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

Yes I have just been back through the entire post and other than saying the barns were not in appauling conditions you have made no comment on the state of the barn that KH15 is in in the video.  What are your thoughts on this?













And while you are at it, this clearly is not a well maintained deep litter system







This poor little chap is still alive, even if he had just gone down you can not say that the bed is fresh.  It is not a well maintained deep litter bed even.







And do you really believe that this horse who can not open it's eye, which is covered in discharge is not suffering in any way?







And these horses decomposing in the fields - were these dug up or had they been left to rot?  If they had been dug up from the ground, how come they have pure white, clean legs?  Were they washed for the photos?







This one looks pretty clean for an animal that has been dug up!







Again lovely clean legs for a horse that has been dug up - or has it been left to fester and for how long?







So the knacker man, farrier, all the vets, court reporter and RSPA inspectors were all lying and JG was telling the truth.  Hmmmmm.


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have looked through the thread and can't find your answer specifically about KH15 and the conditions of the stall in the photograph.  You say the beds were clean yet the video of this horse clearly shows otherwise.  Please can you answer this as you say the beds were fresh? 

[/ QUOTE ]

KH15 was taken into that pen - YES.

This evidence was given in court. And that animal was PTS uneccesarily.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

So it was taken into a filthy dirty pen (which didn't exist apparently) and what veterinary investigations and treatment had it received for it's severe diarrhoea prior to the raid?  The pictures clearly show a very ill horse and apparently heavily pregnant.  A concientious owner would have the vet out well before it reached that stage.  It also sounds from the ruling that this was the same horse with the infected eye.  Hardly in prime condition for giving birth.


----------



## patty19 (21 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have looked through the thread and can't find your answer specifically about KH15 and the conditions of the stall in the photograph.  You say the beds were clean yet the video of this horse clearly shows otherwise.  Please can you answer this as you say the beds were fresh? 

[/ QUOTE ]

KH15 was taken into that pen - YES.

This evidence was given in court. And that animal was PTS uneccesarily.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

So it was taken into a filthy dirty pen (which didn't exist apparently) and what veterinary investigations and treatment had it received for it's severe diarrhoea prior to the raid?  The pictures clearly show a very ill horse and apparently heavily pregnant.  A concientious owner would have the vet out well before it reached that stage.  It also sounds from the ruling that this was the same horse with the infected eye.  Hardly in prime condition for giving birth. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you believe you have come up with something new like most of the posters do. 

No one said that pen did not exist. If you had looked through the thread like you said, then you would have come accross posts concerning THAT pen. 

Also, maybe you should contact Katie Robinson (VET) who HAD seen those animals.

Katie Robinson had also seen the fallen gray at Mr Grays request. Ms Robinson gave that animal a clean bill of health. That animals died on the morning of the raid.


----------



## Paddywhack (21 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have looked through the thread and can't find your answer specifically about KH15 and the conditions of the stall in the photograph.  You say the beds were clean yet the video of this horse clearly shows otherwise.  Please can you answer this as you say the beds were fresh? 

[/ QUOTE ]

KH15 was taken into that pen - YES.

This evidence was given in court. And that animal was PTS uneccesarily.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

So it was taken into a filthy dirty pen (which didn't exist apparently) and what veterinary investigations and treatment had it received for it's severe diarrhoea prior to the raid?  The pictures clearly show a very ill horse and apparently heavily pregnant.  A concientious owner would have the vet out well before it reached that stage.  It also sounds from the ruling that this was the same horse with the infected eye.  Hardly in prime condition for giving birth. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty lives in such a LALA Land that she is starting to believe her own cr@p


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

What are you talking about!  You show pictures of fluffy straw and make out that was the reality at Spindles farm.

What fallen Grey?  I showed pictures of coloured horses rotting in fields.  I said nothing about a grey horse.  You haven't commented on the horse with the bad eye and whether it was suffering, what treatment the horse in the filthy pen with diarrhoea had received, the state of the pen with the downed pony, or the condition of the rotting horses in the field.  Kind of hard to explain away aren't they?  Regardless of whether any horses were in reasonable condition, these pictures to me show a person who is not capable of maintaining a large herd of horses and for that reason an lifetime ban on the care of animals is perfectly justified.


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

Spot the difference:

A Spindles Farm bed in Pattyland







A Spindles farm bed in reality not quite so "lush, clean and dry!"


----------



## Paddywhack (21 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Spot the difference:

A Spindles Farm bed in Pattyland







A Spindles farm bed in reality not quite so "lush, clean and dry!"







[/ QUOTE ]
HaHa Pattyland is bettter than LaLa land


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

and we have yet to see a photo of any horse on the idyllic Pattyland beds at Spindles Farm.  Perhaps they are all in the evidence she is waiting for!


----------



## pricklyflower (21 May 2009)

Happy Horse - thank you for posting those questions and pictures, that's exactly what I was trying to ask but you posted it 100 times better than I did. I have read this whole post and I can't remember Patty answering specifically about the bedding (although I'm not disputing she didn't, I just don't want to trawl through the whole posts again).

I can *just* about manage to see how some of the poor / neglected horses could be ones that he last had in and were poor when he bought them but there is absolutely no justifiable reason how he can let that barn get so bad and have horses living in those conditions.  Not really the ideal condition to keep an already poor / sick horse!  

So why was one barn lovely and clean with fresh bedding and the other full of urine and faeces?


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

Who knows!  And who knows when or where that photo was taken - it proves Jack Shite!


----------



## pricklyflower (21 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
And these horses decomposing in the fields - were these dug up or had they been left to rot?  If they had been dug up from the ground, how come they have pure white, clean legs?  Were they washed for the photos?







This one looks pretty clean for an animal that has been dug up!







Again lovely clean legs for a horse that has been dug up - or has it been left to fester and for how long?







So the knacker man, farrier, all the vets, court reporter and RSPA inspectors were all lying and JG was telling the truth.  Hmmmmm. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also see where the decomposition has seeped into the ground around the horses so how could the RSPCA have dug them up?


----------



## Happy Horse (21 May 2009)

Yes, no disturbed ground around them at all.  They must have dug them up, washed them and then moved them away from the area they were dug up from without the bodies falling apart.  Very clever of them!


----------



## bexandspooky (21 May 2009)

I have just manages to read this whole thread from start to finish *sighs with relief!!*

I have tried to look at this objectively and with an unbiased view and would like to comment as follows :

1) Patty, you have been asked time and time again throughout this post what made you decide to take such an interest in this case, what connection you have with JG or Spindles farm and for what purpose you are collating this information. By providing this, you may gain a small amount of credibility.

2) I have no doubt that there were horses at Spindles Farm that were not in poor condition. Sadly/luckily these horses are not the point of the court excercise. You can have 500 animals in good condition, but if you are found to be seriously neglecting the 501st animal, then that is your fault for letting that situation occur. I think the argument of whether or not the healthy horses were at Spindles farm is besides the point, it is the unhealthy, dead and dying ones that are rightly being focused upon.

3) To claim that every person involved in this apart from yourself (patty, that is) and the Grey family are lying in some attempt to pervert the course of justice is just a bit 'hollywood' dont you think? Perhaps if you feel that a vast miscarriage of justice has occured, you should present the ways in which you collated your evidence, and your subsequent findings into the form of a report and publish that report for all to view at their will, as well as forward this report to all media bodies for them to investigate this further.

Their means to unearth corruption and make the general public aware of this corruption are far greater than yours. If your evidence is as compelling as you say it is, then I am sure they would not hesitate in following this up - especially considering the high profile nature of this case.

4) Could you clarify for me if you feel that the decomposing carcasses shown in the pictures in the previous few pages of this post are the ones that you feel were dug up? If these were not, do you have evidence of the ones that were, and could you clarify the situation in which these horses have come to remain in this situation.

I am sure that there is more that I would like to ask, but feel that this is enough questioning for the moment!!


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

I have answered every question thats been asked. Try asking some new ones.

And I have provided genuine photos but have been accused of photoshopping them - basically being called a liar and have been called a fake.

Why the hell should I answer the same questions just so people can shout me down and try to accuse me of being a liar and a fake?

Sorry but I'm NO liar and dont appreciate being viewed as one.


----------



## Happy Horse (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I have answered every question thats been asked. Try asking some new ones.

And I have provided genuine photos but have been accused of photoshopping them - basically being called a liar and have been called a fake.

Why the hell should I answer the same questions just so people can shout me down and try to accuse me of being a liar and a fake?

Sorry but I'm NO liar and dont appreciate being viewed as one. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe because you can't answer them!  You have proved nothing yet when photographs are produced and questions asked you refuse to comment.  No one can say that the horse with the bad eye or diarrhoea were not suffering, the dead, decaying animals clearly had not been dug up and the beds in the video are clearly filthy dirty and not fresh and fluffy as you would like to have people believe.  You are making out everyone apart from you is a liar but you don't like it when the tables are turned.  You have proved nothing and JG is still guilty.  Why not quit while you are losing and if you are so convinced of his innocence focus your efforts on trying to convince the people who can do something about it.  Good luck with that!


----------



## Paddywhack (22 May 2009)

I love how the tables have now turned 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Hopefully Patty will now go away


----------



## Sugarplum Furry (22 May 2009)

Paddywhack, maybe we ought to re-name you 'Pattywhack'.

(I promise I mean that is the nicest possible way, it's a play on words that just occured to me.)


----------



## bexandspooky (22 May 2009)

Sorry Patty, perhaps you could direct me to the parts of this thread that show your answers to my particular questions.

I will happily apologise for my poor eyesight and reading skills when you point them out!


----------



## tania01 (22 May 2009)

Patty only answers the questions  she wants to,she has been asked loads of questions that she still has not answered.
Reason being she has no proof she asks other people to prove themselves  but she still has yet to prove her so called information.


----------



## bexandspooky (22 May 2009)

Whilst i suspect that this is the case, I thought that I would give her the change to answer these fairly worded specific questions.

She says that she has answered them before, but can't find her posts - maybe I am being stupid?!

( 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 )


----------



## Happy Horse (22 May 2009)

No you are not being stupid.  If she gets asked a question she can't explain away she has a strop and says she has already answered it.  I read the whole post yesterday and there are plenty of unanswered questions.  Don't hold your breath!


----------



## bexandspooky (22 May 2009)

Oh no, dont worry - I have no intention of that.

I work on the basis that if you give someone enough rope, they will either do something useful with it..........or hang themselves!!

Now, being a sporting kind of person, i see it is only fair that I give Patty the chance to fill in the blanks that I have identified and highlighted, but I suspect that as these questions have been raised and ignored on a number of occasions throughout this post, that this trend will continue.

(please feel free Patty to prove me wrong, and as stated before, I will happily apologise for my failings if I missed where you have answered these before)

Still, god loves a tryer


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

Right I have been through the thread and other threads trying to find where I have answered the questions but somehow they are not there. I did however answer the questions so I'm not sure what has happened. And I have not stated that all the dead animals were dug up.

There was a discussion in court about how long it would take for each animal to decompose. Although Mr Gray moved the fallen animals away from the live animals some were still exposed to the elements and a very wet period of time, etc...

Here is what I did find.



[ QUOTE ]

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4361011/page/0/fpart/17/vc/1


And you know for a fact that horses were kept in that barn - and that Mr Gray's hired man wasnt in the proccess of clearing it before he found that another of his animals had died, and so put it in there?

Funny how only such a barn was published, and the barns that I confused for the barn at the sancuary wasnt. Yes funny that!! 



http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4361011/page/0/fpart/17/vc/1

They did indeed. Most of those photos were taken near a gate that joins the yard to the fields. If they hadnt been buried then they would have been clearly seen by vet Katie Robinson on the 21st Dec 07 when she was there in pen 3 (barn right next to gate) examining the animals to which she issued health certificates for. One animal at a time was taken in to pen 3 to be examined.

[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## Happy Horse (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why did the Grays drag a horse by the neck behind a vehicle, which later died if they are not cruel people? 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you heard this allegation where exactly?

You most certainly did not hear it in court. The prosecution put no such allegation to Mr Gray nor any member of his family.

Thats the media hype for you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

"Neil Harris  Manager - National Trust, Hughenden Manor.
Horses appeared on NT land. Steps taken to establish the ownership. There on 18 December, had received a phone call from Helen Evans. There at 5.30pm and saw the behaviour of people trying to move the horse, saw Mr.Gray, with young female and young boy. Mr. Gray and young male tied rope to head and tail to drag horse to trailer. Saw young male kick horse.  C20"

"48. The vehicle could not be driven close to the animal. Attempts to get it up and moving failed and it was dragged by ropes tied to its tail and head to the trailer. It was pulled up the ramp into the trailer and tied up inside the trailer. It was kicked whilst being dragged by Jamie Gray Jnr."

So the evidence presented did not say the animal was dragged by a vehicle but to prevent suffering to an animal unable to stand surely a vet would be called instead of dragging it by the head and tail to a trailer or kicking it - or was this witness lying in court as well?  The animal was witnessed being collected on December 18th and found in the trailer on January 4th, 17 days later - what was the excuse for not disposing of this one and why was a vet not called to examine it before moving it?

"Inspector Claire Ryder followed up reports about the treatment of the horse on 18th December when she visited Spindles Farm on 21st December 2007. She met Julie Gray and Jamie Gray. When she asked where the equine (C20) was she was told by Jamie that a knackerman from Aylesbury had shot it."

So a knackerman shot it, why did they not remove it there and then?  When the Inspector asked where the horse was, why was she not told it was still in the trailer at that point?


----------



## spaniel (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Right I have been through the thread and other threads trying to find where I have answered the questions but somehow they are not there. I did however answer the questions so I'm not sure what has happened. 

[/ QUOTE ]

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!    Now it seems some wicked HHO fairy is going through all these posts and mysteriously deleting things just to make you look bad.....christ Patty you must be getting pretty paranoid by now.......PMSL......and all of us here who have slogged away at these threads waiting for your pearls of wisdom must be on some sort of mind warping trip because none of us can remember seeing the answers......SPOOOKY!!!!!


----------



## Happy Horse (22 May 2009)

Freaky isn't it!  Everything else is there apart from the answers Patty says she gave but that no one else can remember.......


----------



## Paddywhack (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Freaky isn't it!  Everything else is there apart from the answers Patty says she gave but that no one else can remember....... 

[/ QUOTE ]
So the Queen of Quotes can find things that was written 1 year back but hers have "disappeared" PMSL


----------



## bexandspooky (22 May 2009)

Ok -  I understand that you havent ever said all of the dead horses were dug up, but that wasn't actually the question I asked.

I shall break it down into a few more basic lines so that we are both clear what it is I am trying to establish 
	
	
		
		
	


	





1 - What connection do you have with the greys?

2 - Why do you have such an interest in this case?

3 - For what purpose are you collating this information?

4 - Do you have evidence of the horses that were dug up?

5 - Why did the horses in the above photo's remain decomposing for such a long period of time (note - due to the level of decomposition, I am assuming the length of time was more than say 'a couple of weeks' which would more than compensate for any christmas period delays)

As you say that you have answered these things before and they were lost, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering them again?!

Many thanks and look forward to your clarification!


----------



## Taboo1968 (22 May 2009)

Maybe someone should get the News of The World to investigate this apparent miscarriage of justice and so called conspiracy!!!  Anyone fancy directing them this way - lets face it, this is getting as far fetched as Eastenders on a good day!!!


----------



## bexandspooky (22 May 2009)

Well with all the scandal and untruth that Patty has managed to unearth, then it should make front page news

(Please read this sentance with the appropriate amount of genuine belief and wonder or sarcasm that you feel is appropriate)


----------



## Taboo1968 (25 May 2009)

ROFL!


----------

