From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:10:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.184017.21455@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
> > 
> This is not a question of credentials.  Gerone's role as head of the
> Delta Regional Primate Center permitted him to actually spend time with
> the monkeys, since they were in his possession for a while.  And in no
> sense can Gerone be perceived as an apologist for PETA. 

Gerone's "hands on" experience with these monkeys months after the Taub
incident has absolutely no bearing on whether Taub treated his monkeys in a
cruel fashion.  Gerone's assessment of Taub is an opinion that is obviously
not based on the legal record.  He is, in this instance, acting as an
apologist for PETA.  Despite being targeted and set up by Pacheco, Taub was
fully exhonorated of all cruelty charges.  THAT is what Gerone should say.

>[...]
> > First, I would blame the animal caretakers who suddenly and mysteriously
> > stopped coming to work.  Second, I would blame Pacheco, who noted these
> > conditions in detail yet did absolutely nothing to correct them.  Remember
> > the "water dish" analogy that you have repeatedly ignored.
> 
> Re: the claim that the animal caretakers "suddenly and mysteriously
> stopped coming to work"
> 
> From Pacheco's sworn testimony - Cross (trial transcript, p. 154):
> 
>      Q	In the normal course of events, once a day these animal caretakers
> 	would come in and take these fecal trays, pull them out and empty
> 	them, wouldn't they?
> 
>      A	They wouldn't.  They didn't come in very often.  But when they
> 	did come in that was part of their job.
> 
> 
> From Pacheco's sworn testimony - Cross (trial transcript, p. 164):
> 
>      Q	Now isn't it a fact that after Dr. Taub went on vacation and
> 	was gone, during the period of time you were bringing people 
> 	in the lab, that Amir Schwartz and Bob Osborn, the two animal
> 	caretakers, missed seven days in late August and early September
> 	from work out of 16?
> 
>      A	Well, I would have to check my log to see what I had written
> 	down.  But no one had been fed or the cages hadn't been cleaned.
> 	But that was their regular attendance record for the whole four 
> 	months I was there.
> 
> 	They --
> 
>      Q	How do you know that?
> 
>      A	Because I could, again, I would see the same old bandage in the
> 	fecal tray night after night after night,  And sometimes I would
> 	come in and the monkeys were extremely hungry, extremely agitated
> 	from not being fed for a number of days.
> 
>      Q	If I were to tell you that the caretakers had missed almost no
> 	time prior to Dr. Taub going on vacation, that would surprise
> 	you, wouldn't it?
> 
>      A	I would say it is an absolute lie.

Since you apparently have the trial's transcript and I do not, why don't
you be an agent of truth and fairness rather than acting as a shill for
PETA?

Rather than selectively quoting Pacheco's testimony, why don't you *also*
cite the segment where the caretaker's employment records are admitted into
evidence?  Why don't you cite the sworn testimony of Schwartz and Osborn
*themselves* where they testified that they had been absent from work one
day out of 14 months prior to Taub's vacation?

> [...]
> Pacheco's testimony supports the view that the caretakers were not doing
> their job right along and that there was absolutely no reason for Taub
> not to notice it. 

Not only did Taub "not notice it," but he denies that it happened while he
was there.  Pacheco's assessment of conditions in the lab during this
period is refuted by the sworn testimony of *seven* others, which you have
so conveniently omitted here.  Nobody ever saw conditions resembling those
on Pacheco's photographs.  Most notable of these is Dr. A. G. Perry, a USDA
veterinarian who made an official *unannounced* inspection of Taub's lab
during the time Pacheco was there.

Everyone agrees that conditions deteriorated during Taub's vacation.  Are
you defending Pacheco's actions during this period?  I thought that you
responded to my "water dish" analogy by indicating that you would "give
water to a thirsty dog."  Surely you realize that your indicated course of
action in my analogy differs greatly from Pacheco's actions during Taub's
absence. 

> If you're correct (and I don't know if you are or not), is it really that
> bad to go undercover to expose criminal behavior which might not otherwise
> see the light of day?

Again, Pacheco clearly cared more about gathering evidence against Taub
than about the welfare of the monkeys.  I don't see how you or anyone else
who claims to care about the welfare of animals can defend Pacheco's
actions.  Would you mind explaining this to me?  If you would select
options 1 or 2 from my analogy, how can you defend Pacheco, whose actions
are analogous to option 3?

If Pacheco cares so much for animals why did he not do more than take notes
in his journal when he noticed that the monkeys had not been fed?  In your
opinion, does the fact that it was not his "regular duty" provide a valid
excuse?

>[...]
> > The _Washington Post_ apparently relied on PETA for information rather than
> > reading the opinion of the Appeals Court.  As I have said, the
> > "jurisdictional technicality" was not the whole story.  My claim is
> > corroborated by the reference that I gave.  Check it out.
> 
> Are you talking about the CFAAR reference?  What was the source for CFAAR's
> information?

The CFAAR article was written by Taub.  In this instance, he refers to the
written opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals.  I have not yet obtained
this document.  If your buddies at PETA can send it to you, we might all
know the truth unless you do an unequitable job of citing that document
also.

> [...]
> 
> > Pacheco ... allegedly noted
> > substandard conditions of animal care in detail during Taub's presence, yet
> > did not report them to Taub.  He reported that the procedures in Taub's
> > laboratory were "cruel," but never once questioned the procedures during
> > his five month tenure at Taub's laboratory.  He noted substandard
> > conditions of animal care in detail during Taub's vacation in 1981, yet did
> > absolutely nothing to correct them.
> > 
> 
> Pacheco's sworn testimony - Cross (trial transcript p. 152):
> 
>[testimony deleted]

This tidbit of testimony does absolutely nothing to refute my claim above. 
The fact remains that Pacheco noted the suffering of Taub's monkeys in
Taub's absence, yet did absolutely nothing to notify Taub, or any other
person who would act to immediately remedy the situation.

> I have copies of some of the pictures that were introduced as evidence
> and I find them to be very damning.

Of course you would.  That was Pacheco's intention when he took them.  The
photographs that Pacheco took of the fecal pans depict one day's
accumulation of feces according to Taub.  Yes, this is a matter of opinion
and experience.  Pacheco's opinion of what was "filthy" apparently differs
from those with experience with animal care.

I would say that the opinion of Dr. Perry, a USDA official with experience
in animal care, would carry more weight than that of Pacheco, who has no
such experience.  Dr. Perry, and six others who worked at Taub's lab during
Pacheco's tenure, testified that they never saw any conditions of animal
care that were similar to those depicted in the pictures.

>IMO there is no way that the IBR
> lab could be said to have been run in accordance with any kind of
> reasonable standards. 

Because neither you nor I were there, our opinions count for little. 
Unless you have some experience in animal care that I do not know about,
your opinion about "reasonable standards" is questionable.

When we examine the court testimony in an equitable manner, we have the
sworn testimony of Pacheco, one individual, versus the sworn testimony of
seven other individuals.  Dr.  A. G. Perry, who refuted Pacheco's account
of conditions at Taub's lab, is an expert in matters of animal care, and
trained to spot conditions of neglect such as those that Pacheco alledged. 
Note also that all charges related to the sanitary conditions in Taub's lab
were dismissed BEFORE the Maryland Court of Appeals made its decision.

Taub's SOLE convictions involved an alleged case of osteomyelitis in one
monkey.  The monkey's arm was needlessly amputated.  Pathology reports made
on the arm after amputation indicated that there was no such infection, but
this evidence was withheld by the prosecuting attorney Roger Galvin.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals