From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:38:16 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <mhulsey-311292113957@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.184017.21455@clpd.kodak.com>,
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:

In article <mhulsey-311292113957@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>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.  

This isn't logical.  Obviously the sooner Gerone could have seen the
monkeys after their release from Taub's lab, the better able he would be
to pass a judgment.  But to say that Gerone's experience "has absolutely
no bearing on" the issue sounds like just speculation.

>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.

Do you always assume that if two agents arrive at a similar conclusion,
then one must be an apologist for the other?  Isn't it possible for
different individuals to arrive independently at the same conclusion?

[... Pacheco testimony deleted for space reasons ...]

>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?

I don't have the trial transcript.  As you know, it's too large to
feasibly ship copies around.  I do have some pages of it, which were
sent to me by PETA after I asked them to support some of the Pacheco
claims which you and others have disputed.

>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?

I don't have their testimony.  You seem to always assume the worst
motivation whenever you're disagreeing with someone.  I presented in
writing some very specific questions to PETA.  They responded with pages
from the trial transcript that included some testimony from Pacheco,
Taub, Perry, and Beery.  If I didn't get all the right material, then
it's due to my failure to ask the right questions, despite my best
efforts.  The PETA reps have been very cooperative and forthright. 

>> [...]
>> 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.

I do not see that the Perry testimony which I have is as supportive of
Taub's position as you seem to think.

As for the seven others, you're forgetting evidence from these experts
which supports the Pacheco view:

	Dr. Geza Teleki (ethologist with expertise in primatology).
	Dr. Michael Fox (veterinarian and ethologist).
	Dr. Ronnie Hawkins (physician with laboratory primate experience).
	Dr. John McArdle (primate anatomist and former primate researcher).
	Donald Barnes (psychologist with 17 years experience working with
			monkeys in military research).

These five men had all been in the lab and later presented signed
affidavits documenting their conclusions.

And the NIH investigating committee report mentions examinations by two
veterinarians (Dr. Ott of Chicago's Brookfield Zoo and Dr. Robinson of
the San Diego Zoo).  Both men believed that "the veterinary care given to
animals sustaining injuries to deafferented limbs was not sufficient to
meet their medical needs and that the medical care in general provided
for this colony was inadequate."

>
>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. 

Please go back and check my answer.  I said that in general I would
offer water to a thirsty dog.  I did not say what I would have done had
I been in Pacheco's position.  The analogy is too imperfect for you to
accurately apply my water dish answer to the IBR situation. 

>
>> 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?

No they're not sufficiently analogous.

>
>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?

I've addressed this previously and nothing has been said to undermine my
previous statements.  Pacheco walked a fine line.  He tried to help the
monkeys in small ways without destroying the case.  As you know, there
are those who believe that long run improvements and greater awareness
resulted from this case.  That was Pacheco's hope: that the long term
changes would offset the short term exigencies.  From that standpoint,
it would appear that he chose a reasonable path.

>
>>[...]
>> > 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.

What "buddies" are those?

[...]

>>[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.

This bit of testimony explains why Pacheco felt it unnecessary to
bring to Taub's attention the conditions in the lab.  Taub was right
there - present on the scene - able to see for himself.

>
>> 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.

I didn't find the Perry testimony which I read to be that conclusive.

>
>>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.

Well what sort of experience in animal care would you deem relevant here?  

Could you please supply a brief review of all you know about my
background and indicate which aspects would be relevant and which would
not be?

>
>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.

We also have the five affidavits signed by "experts" who clearly possess
more expertise in this area than Dr.  Perry.  (See above).  And we have
the statements made by two zoo vets which were included in the NIH
investigation report.  (See above). 

>
>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.

If valid information were really withheld, wouldn't this be an actionable
omission which could get Galvin into big legal trouble?

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10860 talk.bizarre:44076 rec.humor:37661 rec.pets.birds:3148 alt.sex:41395