Author Topic: Keystone couple accused of animal cruelty (Read 1739 times)

ms · « **on:** August 04, 2007, 12:57:24 AM »

Keystone couple accused of animal cruelty

By LISE FISHER

Sun staff writer
August 03. 2007 6:01AM

Font Size: 101112131415161718192021222324

A Keystone Heights couple are facing animal cruelty charges after officers accused the pair of torturing animals while performing sex acts involving each other.

Brenda Marie Farrell, 40, and Wesley Clyde Farrell, 42, each are accused of four counts of animal cruelty for injuring and then killing a frog, two chameleons and a parakeet, the Bradford County Sheriff's Office reported Thursday.

A videotape, obtained by officers, showed the couple abusing the animals, which were nailed or taped to a board, according to court records.

On the video, the frog and bird were stabbed or punctured with straight pins. All the animals were slowly decapitated while the couple were naked or partially clothed, officers reported.

The two hurt the animals while they engaged in sex acts, officers said. The couple also used "Voodoo dolls" made from corn husks and the blood from the animals, according to investigators.

Wesley Farrell could be seen on the film telling his wife how to torture live animals, court records also stated. Incidents involving the animals occurred in December 2006 and again in February, records showed.

Officers learned about the film after Brenda Farrell went to Clay County sheriff's deputies in June, claiming her husband might be plotting to kill her because he had told her about a plan he had to kill a female co-worker, according to a Sheriff's Office report.

The slaying was part of Wesley Farrell's sexual fantasy, she said.

During the investigation, officers located the tape showing the animal abuse. The incidents occurred at the couple's former residence in southern Bradford County near Hampton, according to officers.

Investigators determined that claims of Wesley Farrell wanting his wife to hurt his co-worker were unfounded, and no charges were filed in connection with those allegations, said Clay County Sheriff's Lt. David Senters.

However, evidence of animal cruelty was turned over to Bradford County investigators because the incidents allegedly had occurred in that county. Claims of animal cruelty resulted in a criminal case against the couple.

Brenda Farrell, who is a nurse at the Putnam Community Medical Center in Palatka, was arrested earlier in the week, said Bradford County Sheriff's Sgt. Robert Smith. Wesley Farrell, a Florida Department of Transportation employee in Gainesville, turned himself in to officers and was being held at the Bradford County jail Thursday

Graybeard · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2007, 03:36:24 AM »

While I agree what they did was rather sick and improper having a law to put folks in jail for it seems even more sick to me.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2007, 03:43:29 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard on August 04, 2007, 03:36:24 AM

While I agree what they did was rather sick and improper having a law to put folks in jail for it seems even more sick to me.

I certainly agree with you Bill.......

I would be willing to bet Micheal Vick will spend more time behind bars for dog fighting than Mary winkler will for killing her husband.

http://orig.jacksonsun.com/winkler/

Cement Man · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2007, 04:38:12 PM »

I figure that in a country of over 300 million people, the odds are that nothing should be too surprising.

toysoldier · « **Reply #4 on:** August 06, 2007, 02:00:46 PM »

Any mental health professional will tell you that people who torture animals usually go on to bigger, sicker things. Eventually, they start hurting people. Just because it was "only" a frog and a bird doesn't minimize the seriousness of their sickness. Because this is tied into their sick sexual fantasies, they will continue. Maybe their next victim will be the neighbor's cat, or hunting dog. When that isn't enough, they'll grab a child. Do you want these people living next to your grandchildren? Shoot them like the rabid animals they are, before they infect and kill others.

Graybeard · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2007, 05:17:41 PM »

Malarky. I'm way more worried about folks with attitudes like yours than I am them.

Sourdough · « **Reply #6 on:** August 07, 2007, 08:00:31 AM »

I agree with you GB, when growing up I knew lots of little boys that love to torture bugs, snakes, mice, and things. Then one day they decided that it was not the thing to do. Those boys have growen to be fine outstanding people.

toysoldier · « **Reply #7 on:** August 07, 2007, 12:32:46 PM »

Sourdough, the difference is that these are grown people, not children still finding their way. They gained sexual gratification from the torture of animals. This sort of disease is progressive. it doesn't stop with frogs and little birds.

GB, you may call it malarky, but every mental health professional will tell you that the torture of animals, especially by anyone past their early childhood, is a really big alarm signal. These people are sick, and in a dangerous way.

MGMorden · « **Reply #8 on:** August 08, 2007, 06:10:14 AM »

Quote from: toysoldier on August 07, 2007, 12:32:46 PM

GB, you may call it malarky, but every mental health professional will tell you that the torture of animals, especially by anyone past their early childhood, is a really big alarm signal. These people are sick, and in a dangerous way.

And any logics professor will tell you that this argument is a logical fallacy called a "slippery slope". It's not a valid tactic here.

Quote

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope

1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."

3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."

4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

Cement Man · « **Reply #9 on:** August 08, 2007, 07:30:00 AM »

Or maybe...
"There are defects in the bridge, someday it will collapse!"

Since there is no discussion of the intermediate progression of events or remedial steps that might be taken to prevent the collapse, the logics professors deem that a "slippery slope" statement.

Right?

MGMorden · « **Reply #10 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:08:00 AM »

In and of itself, yes indeed that is a slippery slope argument.

What is the nature of these defects? How severe are they? Are they stable or are they progressive? All these things are important to the argument, but are not present in that statement. Remember that invalidating an argument does NOT mean that the point it is trying to make is false. It simply means that the manner in which it is presented is not logical, and the argument cannot be used to prove a point.

For example, if I say that the ocean has at least 100 gallons of water in it because balloons float when filled with helium, then my argument is not valid at all, and you can refute my argument instantly. It doesn't mean that the ocean doesn't have 100 gallons of water in it; it just means that I haven't given you any information that proves otherwise.

In the same vein, that defective bridge could mean that The sidewalks were on the edge were poured flush with the road instead of 3 inches higher (no danger of collapse). It could mean that they used aluminum where they were meant to use steel (high probability of collapse). But without including such information, you have no argument.

rockbilly · « **Reply #11 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:10:47 AM »

The evidence to support toysoldier's theory is very strong. Take a look at the history of mass murderers, and those engaged in perverted sexual crimes against people. Most of these individuals began their career by torturing animals. I don 't know that everyone will progress to that point, but the evidence is there.

The things that sexual perverts do never ceases to amaze me, there are some real sick folks out there.

MGMorden · « **Reply #12 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:44:49 AM »

Quote from: rockbilly on August 08, 2007, 08:10:47 AM

The evidence to support toysoldier's theory is very strong. Take a look at the history of mass murderers, and those engaged in perverted sexual crimes against people. Most of these individuals began their career by torturing animals. I don 't know that everyone will progress to that point, but the evidence is there.

The things that sexual perverts do never ceases to amaze me, there are some real sick folks out there.

Indeed, but what you have there is a relationship that proves that A strongly implies B. A being the fact that they're a serial killer, B being the fact that they have a history of torturing animals. However, the converse statement, being that B implies A, is not a given unless there is evidence supporting that.

For an example of this that's very appropriate to this forum, if I say that being a murder often implies that you own a gun (may not be; this is just an example and I didn't have time to look up a statistically correct example

), then that can be true, but it does NOT mean that owning a gun makes you a murder. The converse in that case is anything but true.

Doesn't mean that a converse CAN'T be true. Just that a converse isn't true unless separately proven and verified.

Cement Man · « **Reply #13 on:** August 08, 2007, 09:00:04 AM »

MGM,
Yes it is a slippery slope argument, as it was meant to be. My only point was that the substantive issues of a statement or argument are not necessarily negated or supported by the "slippery slope test".

Graybeard · « **Reply #14 on:** August 08, 2007, 09:57:01 AM »

Mass murderers hell even murderers period are but a tiny sliver of our total population. To say that a lot of those did things to animals prior to becoming a mass murderer or murderer at all does not mean that any significant percentage of folks who harm animals also will eventually do so to humans.

To the anti hunters I'm sure they'd toss ALL us hunters into that category of harming even torturing animals and they see us as murderers but we don't see ourselves in that way. I just don't buy into the BS argument that just because someone is a sicko that means they will become some other category of sicko later. People the world over have all sorts of fantasies and diversions both sexual and otherwise but to tie one to the other and claim one event automatically means or leads to another just doesn't wash with me.

I don't personally think they events described were a sexual thing at all but some sort of cult worship type thing. I do not believe they considered it a sexual trip but a religious one from what little I've read of the event. It is some kinda pagan perhaps voodoo ritual they were performing from what I see of the description of the events. I think it equally as valid to say all pagans or all those who are involved in voodoo and other such religions are potential murderers than to claim folks who torture animals are. The connection is just too ridiculous to me to consider it valid.

I say again I worry far more about folks who express attitudes as toysoldier than I do folks who have weird sexual fantasies or who torture animals in the manner these folks apparently did.

toysoldier · « **Reply #15 on:** August 08, 2007, 03:59:55 PM »

Quote

I say again I worry far more about folks who express attitudes as toysoldier than I do folks who have weird sexual fantasies or who torture animals in the manner these folks apparently did.

So my intolerance of sick perverts disturbs you. Sorry about that. I happen to think that we need to be a good deal more intolerant of a lot of illegal activity. We'd all (except for the criminals) be a lot safer.

Graybeard · « **Reply #16 on:** August 08, 2007, 06:14:52 PM »

Quote from: toysoldier on August 08, 2007, 03:59:55 PM

Quote
I say again I worry far more about folks who express attitudes as toysoldier than I do folks who have weird sexual fantasies or who torture animals in the manner these folks apparently did.

So my intolerance of sick perverts disturbs you. Sorry about that. I happen to think that we need to be a good deal more intolerant of a lot of illegal activity. We'd all (except for the criminals) be a lot safer.

No what bothers me is your complete intolerance for anything not personally approved by you. It's the EXACT same attitude the anti have regardless of the issue. Their way is the ONLY way and anyone not in lock step should be done away with forever. The issue matters not it's the attitude that bothers me.

There are LOT of other things people do that bothers me a LOT more than these idiots torturning small animals and running around in their own home naked and/or having sex in that same home. Each person seems to have their own little nit to pick with the rest of society and no matter what that nit is they think all who do whatever that thing is should be locked away for life.

In this case their nit just isn't mine and I don't think it's that big a deal as we have a lot worse problems to worry about. You are just one more of those who wants BIG GOVERNMENT to rule out every day lives for us and to pass a law against every singe thing you do not personally approve of. I'm not.

Dee · « **Reply #17 on:** August 08, 2007, 06:44:13 PM »

Quote from: toysoldier on August 08, 2007, 03:59:55 PM

Quote
I say again I worry far more about folks who express attitudes as toysoldier than I do folks who have weird sexual fantasies or who torture animals in the manner these folks apparently did.

So my intolerance of sick perverts disturbs you. Sorry about that. I happen to think that we need to be a good deal more intolerant of a lot of illegal activity. We'd all (except for the criminals) be a lot safer.

Anti gunners, see YOU as a "SICK PERVERT". Perhaps we need to be less TOLERANT OF YOU. We'd all be safer perhaps.

Also those spike hair dos. Those guys that have them? I believe their up to somethin. $:-\$

NONYA · « **Reply #18 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:24:18 PM »

I have made videos of me and my family killing animals of all kinds with all sorts of weapons,rifles,shotguns,handguns,bows,ect.I wonder if they will try to pass a anti hunting video law someday to prevent perves like me from spreading my evil pastime?

30-30man · « **Reply #19 on:** August 09, 2007, 07:19:29 AM »

If they are locking people up for killiing frogs, lizzards, and snakes, I should have at least 30 life sentences. The animal cruelty thing has gone too far in this country, you can't even kick a stupid cat if the neighbors are looking for fear of being locked up. I kill every cat I see whether it is the neighbors or not. They have caused me more than their share of trouble with my poultry business. They get into my buildings and kill the pullets.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #20 on:** August 09, 2007, 04:10:40 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on August 09, 2007, 01:33:53 AM

Quote from: victorcharlie on August 04, 2007, 03:43:29 PM
Quote from: Graybeard on August 04, 2007, 03:36:24 AM
While I agree what they did was rather sick and improper having a law to put folks in jail for it seems even more sick to me.

I certainly agree with you Bill.......

I would be willing to bet Micheal Vick will spend more time behind bars for dog fighting than Mary winkler will for killing her husband.

http://orig.jacksonsun.com/winkler/
.
Vic-C,,,,,hey!....didn't Mary Winkler just run away and was found in NYC..!? Was it her?

...TM7

I don't think so.......Mary is soon to be released. Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Winkler

DDelle338 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 14, 2007, 03:28:29 AM »

“I agree with you GB, when growing up I knew lots of little boys that love to torture bugs, snakes, mice, and things. Then one day they decided that it was not the thing to do. Those boys have growen to be fine outstanding people.”

There is a HUGE difference between kids doing something like what G.B. described and Adults who have already grown but have failed to mature.

“I have made videos of me and my family killing animals of all kinds with all sorts of weapons,rifles,shotguns,handguns,bows,ect.I wonder if they will try to pass a anti hunting video law someday to prevent perves like me from spreading my evil pastime?”

“If they are locking people up for killiing frogs, lizzards, and snakes, I should have at least 30 life sentences. The animal cruelty thing has gone too far in this country, you can't even kick a stupid cat if the neighbors are looking for fear of being locked up. I kill every cat I see whether it is the neighbors or not. They have caused me more than their share of trouble with my poultry business. They get into my buildings and kill the pullets.”

There is also a HUGE difference between “killing” an animal with a gun, bow, trap etc. and torturing with pins, bleach, lighters, and ignition coils etc.
The subject of hunting or dispatching destructive animals should not be compared to what is being done to a lot of animals by these immature or mentally unstable individuals.

There IS something wrong with any adult that is involved in these kinds of actions.
For those that don’t think so, or think this is being blown out of proportion, you can leave your kids or grand kids with them.

rockbilly · « **Reply #22 on:** August 14, 2007, 08:29:39 AM »

I think a lot of the people missed the point totally. It is not a matter of torturing animals, it a mater of getting your "jollies" while doing it. I have no problem with killing frogs, snakes, etc, but I it takes a sick puppy to do it while having sex, or as a sexual turn on.

I have killed thousands of animals, but never at any point did I experience, or expect to experience any form of sexual gratification from doing it. Several studies support the idea that people who engage in this type of activity eventually progress to bigger targets, dogs, live stock, children, and adults. Many go on to have sex with the corpse.

Admittedly, this is a small segment of society, but according to statistics, it happens several hundred times each year here in the USA. Many of these incidents are not publicized because they involve a juvenile offender, or it was a one time incident. The only ones that seen to make the news are the one where a large number of victims are involved.

Go to your search engine and type in "Sex Crimes," do some reading, and I think you might agree.

Graybeard · « **Reply #23 on:** August 14, 2007, 12:01:26 PM »

I say again I do not think it had anything to do with sex but was a cult or voodoo type ritual sacreficying the critters was part of the ritual not a sex turn on in this case. I cannot say some folks might not use in in that manner but I kinda doubt it. That they were nude does not make it a sexual deal but just part of the ritual sacrefice.

As I said they are without a doubt sick puppies I just think the thing is being blown all out of proportion. There are a lot of things going on out there I'm more concerned about than folks abusing animals and these days anything you do beyond feeding one is considered abuse it seems.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #24 on:** August 14, 2007, 12:28:14 PM »

Mary was released today.

http://www.wsmv.com/news/13891086/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news

The things I find disturbing most on the left try to portray as "normal".

Sorry, no kool aid for me........

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #25 on:** August 14, 2007, 02:23:07 PM »

GB , I can't add a thing to your post except this , After Nixon why would anyone make a tape ?
they are stupid and sick !

Graybeard · « **Reply #26 on:** August 14, 2007, 04:21:53 PM »

Quote

they are stupid and sick !

You'll get no argument from me on that. But stupid is not against the law and many forms of sickness isn't either.

rockbilly · « **Reply #27 on:** August 15, 2007, 05:42:17 PM »

Y'all ain't gonna turn me in if I shoot some dove are you. The season opens in a few days, and I thought I might get naked and shoot a few..............I sure hope the skeeters ain't out, and I can stay out of dem red bugs (GB, you know what they are, don't you?) and ticks. One of the bad things about hunting this way, ya shore gotta be careful crossing dem waist high barbed wire fences, if something hangs up there ya might have to shoot yourself to get a little relief.

Y'all have a good day now, ya hear! I'm going back to loading shot shells.................

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #28 on:** August 16, 2007, 02:22:35 AM »

better get your self some SPF 100 bullfrog sun screen !
As a courtesy would you give the GPS location on the field you hunt , that's one party we don't want to crash !
you have given HANGING OUT IN A DOVE FIELD a whole new meaning !

Dee · « **Reply #29 on:** August 16, 2007, 03:29:18 AM »

I personally thought it was way too much information on his dove hunting technique.