Note that the sound files may take a little time to load after clicking on them. The file size of each segment appears in parentheses alongside each link. Be patient. It is worth the wait!
If you do not currently have an audio player set up to work with your Internet browser, a window will pop up asking you to select one, or else ask you to save the file. You can configure the browser to recognize audio and an audio player with button controls should appear. See the help file for your browser for details. If you still can't get the audio to work, email us and let us know the details of your problem.
The following excerpts were taken directly from the hearing before the Jackson County Commissioners in September 1996
The first segment is testimony by Amanda Morgan, horse owner Michelle Morgan's daughter, who was 13 years old at the time. Amanda was the only person to have claimed to have actually witnessed the "chasing" of the horse by Nadas:
Hear Amanda Morgan's Testimony (215K)
Amanda's mother, Michelle Morgan testified to the following. In particular, be certain to pay attention to the following:
Hear Michelle Morgan's Testimony (189K)
The hearing was chaired by Commissioner Rick Holt. After animal control officer Andy Lane, Amanda Morgan, and Nadas' owner Sean Roach had spoken, Mr. Holt made the following comment. Be sure to note that Mr. Holt indicates that the outcome of the hearing is a foregone conclusion. This occurred well before the end of the hearing when polling of the other Commissioners was to occur to render a decision. It is quite clear that the Commissioners had already made up their minds, and the "hearing" to supposedly determine the facts, was a farce.
Hear Commissioner Holt's Statements (303K)
Michelle Morgan's Current Statements
The following were taken from an interview conducted by Ark Online with Ms. Morgan on January 10th, 1997. The purpose of the interview was to determine how much of what was reported in the smear article by Alberto Enriquez in the Medford Mail-Tribune was accurate, and whether Ms. Morgan's story was consistent with what she had testified to at the hearing.
What is particularly disturbing is Ms. Morgan now insists that Nadas be killed, regardless of any other options. She also seems to be so consumed with anger towards Mr. Roach that her recollection regarding her witnessing the chasing appears to have changed. During the hearing it was determined that Amanda Morgan was the only witness to the "chasing". However Michelle Morgan now claims that isn't true. She now claims that not only did she see it, but that it happened many times. Contrast this with her original statement at the hearing above
Hear Michelle Morgan now claim to have seen the chasing. (35K)
Hear what Michelle Morgan will do to the next dog she has a problem with (22K)
Hear Michelle Morgan say Nadas should be killed. (81K)
Additional Comments and Opinion
It was clear from our interview with Ms. Morgan that she has an excessive amount of anger towards Sean Roach. This is also clear from Alberto Enriquez's Medford Mail-Tribune article. Apparently this anger stemmed from other incidents and disagreements with Mr. Roach.
One must thus question what the real motive was for turning in Nadas. Did Ms. Morgan's anger finally drive her to turn in Nadas to "get" Mr. Roach? She says in her statements that she was fed up with him and his dog. Whether or not Nadas was irresponsibly left to run free should not be the question here. That is not an offense punishable by death.
Notwithstanding the obvious unfairness of this livestock law, one must clearly question the way in which it is actually implemented. Regardless of merit, someone is permitted to claim someone's dog has chased livestock, perhaps to "get back at" someone in anger. When the complainant has calmed down, he or she will discover that by making the complaint in the first place, a potential liability has been incurred, if it is found that the dog has not actually chased livestock. This will predictably harden the position and recollection of the complainant. If officials almost universally side with the complainant in these cases, then you have a prescription for almost certain miscarriage of justice.
Our judicial system, through its rules of requiring burden of proof, is designed to protect us from such abuses. However the implementation of this law occurs outside of the court system. A county animal control hearing does not take place in a courtroom. It does not follow the rules of evidence and judicial procedure. It does not provide for cross-examination of witnesses and the determination of facts. As we have seen in this particular case, the decision was even a foregone conclusion prior to the hearing.