- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


Very sad: tortured dog

October 13th, 2006, 02:25 PM

Dog's torture outrages town
Calls flood in to RCMP
Dan Singleton, For The Calgary Herald; with files from Jason van Rassel, Calgary Herald.
Published: Friday, October 13, 2006

A mayor's tears summed up her town's shock and outrage over the torture of a dog that was apparently dragged behind a moving vehicle.

"I was in tears when I heard the details of the case," Didsbury Mayor Dorothy Moore said Thursday.

"People are wanting justice, and don't know if they are going to see it or not."

Passersby found the dog, a female collie-Lab cross, lying injured in the street early Sunday.

The dog's legs were bound together with duct tape and there was a tow rope around its neck and a bag covering its head. Several of the dog's bones were broken and it was bleeding profusely.

The injuries were so severe, a veterinarian called to the scene euthanized the dog on the spot.

The case sickened even veteran police investigators, and the Didsbury RCMP detachment fielded dozens of calls from people expressing "outrage at the case," said Sgt. Kevin O'Dwyer.

Likewise, Moore said several residents have approached her with concerns, and her office issued a written statement Thursday afternoon.

"The Town of Didsbury council and administration are shocked and distressed by this unbelievable event in our friendly and hospitable town. This is definitely the antithesis of the spirit of our community," it read.

Police identified two suspects after following a trail of blood from where the dog was found.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, has been charged under the Criminal Code with injuring/endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. He is also charged with obstructing a police investigation.

Investigators said the dog belonged to the Haskett family. A man who answered the door at the Haskett home Thursday declined comment.

A 17-year-old male, whose identity is protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, is also charged with injuring/endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

For adult offenders, each animal cruelty charge carries a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine and/or six months in jail.

The two suspects are scheduled to appear in Didsbury provincial court Nov. 6.
© The Calgary Herald 2006

As a result of this, I'm stepping up my fight for Guardianship. I'm certain that the new bill that is scheduled to go to the House of Commons either won't make it, or won't be enough. We *must* fight for the rights of our pets, and do something to protect them.
More information on the Guardianship campaign here:


October 13th, 2006, 02:34 PM
sick! sick human turds!!

and the "max" penalties are paltry :mad: and what happens to "youth" crimes??!! a slap on the wrist?

man... makes one want to vote for the return of public hangings :mad:

October 13th, 2006, 03:23 PM
sick! sick human turds!!

and the "max" penalties are paltry :mad: and what happens to "youth" crimes??!! a slap on the wrist?

man... makes one want to vote for the return of public hangings :mad:

I totally agree. My stomach turned the second I heard about it, and then hearing more details... ugh. And Didsbury is close. A girl I work with who is almost as adamant about animals as I am said that maybe we should drive up there the day they go to court, to which I responded that probably no one would like to see me do to those kids what they deserve... to have done to them what they did to that dog. :sad:

I have no idea what they'll do to the "kid", I guess it might depend on who they decide was "in charge" and/or driving the vehicle. Personally, I think both of them should have their driver's license revoked (for a few years at least!), and be forced to spend time *helping* injured, abused, & abandoned animals. Banning people from having pets means nothing so long as you can answer an ad in the paper from a breeder or walk into a pet store and buy an animal. I don't even know if the Humane Society is allowed to do criminal checks on people (they should be if they're not!). It's sick and wrong.


October 13th, 2006, 03:46 PM
OMG,poor,poor little dog,totally defenseless against these sadistic creeps.
If I had my way,they would face life in jail..
I am hoping at least the name of the adult was in the paper,hopefully he'll suffer in some way,from peoples anger...but still the horrendous pain this dog must have suffered:sad: it just makes you crazy to even think about.
:rip: poor little dog:sad:

mama samoan
October 13th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Poor poor dog. I think that even before they go to court they should have their pictures posted all over the place. And if this happened near me I would go to the court for the trial with as many people as possible. It is time to quite being so placid and start making a big stink for big changes to all abusers.

October 13th, 2006, 06:33 PM
That is so sick :sad: I would looove to drag THEM behind my car :mad: The 17 yr old will probably get a slap on the wrist.Criminals have more rights than animals :mad: And I just find out today that some people are sooo unaware about these things.I was telling a coworker about Clara (an abused dog up for adoption) and she said ; OMG ,some people abuse animals,is this true? :eek: And then she ask me if she was stupid or naive.I told her she had way too much faith in humain kind :sad:

October 13th, 2006, 11:41 PM
Frenchy, I totally hear you. I'm totally shocked that people are constantly surprised at the depths to which humans can sink, especially when it comes to animals. I also get very frustrated when people choose their convienience or their furniture over an animal's nature-given "tools" and have their cats declawed without considering what that does to the cat. It's very sad to me how so many people go through the world with blinders on, whether it's about animals, politics, war, health care, etc etc. :(

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wants to drag these kids behind my car. :evil: But at the very least, they should be forced to spend some time *helping* animals. A fine won't make any difference, because their parents will just have to pay it, and the parents aren't the ones who did anything wrong (other than maybe not seeing signs of something like this happening).

To everyone who has pets in their life, or see animals on a regular basis who aren't living in your homes; please give each of them an extra hug &/or kiss in an attempt to make up for all the harm that other humans have done to their species.

:grouphug: :dog: (we should have a smiley of dogs hugging!)

:rip: little doggie (they should have published the dog's name so we could send her our love directly)

PS: on an unrelated topic... what happens when the dog's kid dies? Will she attack him and chase him all the way to hell? She, of course, is safely across the rainbow bridge.

October 14th, 2006, 12:39 AM
Another reason why the youth offender act should be changed. It only protects the guilty and I sure as hell would like to know if a sick twisted piece of human garbage was living next door to me.
Race to the bridge baby.....:rip: :dog: :pawprint: :pawprint: :pawprint:

October 14th, 2006, 02:00 AM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who wants to drag these kids behind my car. :evil:
We would do more damage with 2 cars :evil: good idea.

October 14th, 2006, 02:32 AM
This is soooo sad......a poor defenseless dog. :sad:

The maximum sentence is hardly enough and he won't even get near that. :mad: And, the under-age kid will get even less. :mad:

The SPCA has been trying for a long time to get the penalties for animal abuse changed. We all know that Mr. Harper is an animal lover. One of the few good things about him IMO.

I've said this before....but if anyone (because I'm not any good at organizing) wants to start a lobbying campaign to get the laws changed while Mr. Harper is still our PM, I'll do whatever I can to help.

October 14th, 2006, 01:17 PM
There were threats sent to the family for the kid and the guy who sent them was arrested and is up for a more serious charge then the damn kid.


October 14th, 2006, 02:12 PM
Hi everyone, ya the story made me sick, poor dog! I would really like to drag those guys behind a car for a few miles and see how long they live....I'd B sure to hit everything I could. According to the News, the max penalty is $2,000 for them, disgusting, what's that gonna do? A dog going through that is worth about $2 million (or priceless), and the one who threatened him, gets a serious fine and could get actual jail time. The justice system is so screwed up!So, I'm working on a way to try and improve animal welfare that might work, got a few more kinks to iron out, I'll B advertising ideas very soon, in a week? hopefully, I need everyone to let me know what you think and will need alot of help, so please watch for it in the next week or two, it's a simple solution involving the efforts of all, so gonna need some people power, we gotta do something though, I'm tired of poeple telling me there's nothing we can do.there is. We'll have to find a way also to toughen these laws also, that was probably someone's kid(dog), wonder who the owners are, I haven't heard, hope it wasn't that kid, and maybe the owners can do something more serious!:sick: :ca:

October 15th, 2006, 08:57 PM
It broke my heart when I heard this.
I was so disgusted to hear the pure evilness of this act. These 2 degenerates need to be made accountable for their actions.
What is paying a fine or not allowing them to own animals going to do to them?
I think that it is time that the government puts their dam coffee down & takes a good long look at where this country is going. Young affender act is a bunch if BS..If they can do the crime.....Why should they be protected!!!!
Is that justice for their crime?
I also think that the parent of the so called youth is also to blame . They have raised this cold hearted monster. Can they not see how their kid behaves. What it is ok because it is just an animal?
Please tell me who is the animal?
It sure was not the poor dog. Thank goodness for the " Rainbow Bridge"
:pawprint: :ca: :grouphug:

October 15th, 2006, 09:09 PM
... that was probably someone's kid(dog), wonder who the owners are, I haven't heard, hope it wasn't that kid, and maybe the owners can do something more serious!:sick: :ca:

The dog was the Haskett's "family dog", Haskett was the 19 year old charged.

Dogmelissa posted this link for information on the Guardianship campaign:

October 15th, 2006, 10:30 PM
There are only 2 Haskett's listed in Calagary. I sent them both a letter telling that piece of crap what I thought aabout him. I googled them. @ssholes. I just sent a letter to Daniel Charles Haskett in care of both addresses. I hope he burns in hell.

October 15th, 2006, 11:19 PM

As a result of this, I'm stepping up my fight for Guardianship. I'm certain that the new bill that is scheduled to go to the House of Commons either won't make it, or won't be enough. We *must* fight for the rights of our pets, and do something to protect them.
More information on the Guardianship campaign here:


I really don't want to start a fight or anything - but do you really think that someone who is twisted enough to do something like this would really think twice just because he was the dog's "guardian" instead of it's owner?

How about working on passing some serious animal cruelty laws instead of wasting time on how we refer to ourselves in comparison to our animal companions? I mean - the word "parent" certainly doesn't stop people from abusing or killing their own flesh and blood, why should it change the way these losers look at the family dog?

October 15th, 2006, 11:21 PM
There are only 2 Haskett's listed in Calagary. I sent them both a letter telling that piece of crap what I thought aabout him. I googled them. @ssholes. I just sent a letter to Daniel Charles Haskett in care of both addresses. I hope he burns in hell.

I certainly hope that Daniel Charles Haskett doesn't have an unlisted number. I think that I would be really upset if my mailbox was suddenly filled with hate mail for someone I had never met or no relation too.

October 16th, 2006, 02:13 AM
I really don't want to start a fight or anything - but do you really think that someone who is twisted enough to do something like this would really think twice just because he was the dog's "guardian" instead of it's owner?

How about working on passing some serious animal cruelty laws instead of wasting time on how we refer to ourselves in comparison to our animal companions? I mean - the word "parent" certainly doesn't stop people from abusing or killing their own flesh and blood, why should it change the way these losers look at the family dog?

Excellent post. :thumbs up

October 16th, 2006, 12:35 PM
There are only 2 Haskett's listed in Calagary. I sent them both a letter telling that piece of crap what I thought aabout him. I googled them. @ssholes. I just sent a letter to Daniel Charles Haskett in care of both addresses. I hope he burns in hell.

The Haskett family is from Didsbury, not Calgary. You have just done something for which you can be charged. Please see SarahLynn123's post about the person charged with uttering threats.

For LavenderRott & rainbow:
While I agree with you that some tougher laws are needed, I honestly don't believe that they are going to happen at the federal level anytime soon. The proposed laws have been repeatedely pushed back, made softer and will likely make no effect once they are implemented, which could be years. My goal with the Guardianship campaign is to start locally. If we can get local laws changed first, then move to provincial, then we'll have a better fight federally.
And no, the term "parent" doesn't stop a lot of people killing their kids, but I think you'd agree that most people don't just kill their kids, it's the rare exception who does. All I'm trying to do is get people to protect animals the way children are protected. :shrug: You might not agree, but that's my approach.


October 16th, 2006, 10:33 PM
I did not utter any threats of any kind. I sent 2 cards with the one question of WHY?. If the cards are sent to the wrong address they can do a return to sender as I did use my address. Do not assume I did anything illegal.

Golden Girls
October 17th, 2006, 09:24 AM
This story is really disturbing. I hope people who live close can attend their hearing - if only to give them a disgusting look, or to see what future serial f...'s look like? I don't understand how after what has been proven time and again the distinction between animal abusers and human abusers, the courts don't demand serious intervention & therapy :confused: (who otherwise could do such evil things anyway?

I really don't want to start a fight or anything - but do you really think that someone who is twisted enough to do something like this would really think twice just because he was the dog's "guardian" instead of it's owner?
How about working on passing some serious animal cruelty laws instead of wasting time on how we refer to ourselves in comparison to our animal companions?I don't want to start a fight or anything either - but I doubt DogMellisa meant trying to change these twisted evil turds way of thinking rather try and educate the general public's views - IDA "In Defense of Animals" (The guardian campaign) starting with the word itself:

Their page "What a difference a word makes" (Animal Guardians):

- recognize animals as individuals, not objects
- recognize changing public attitudes toward animals

he/she (as guardians - feelings, rights, and needs) instead of owner (it)

I dont see it as wasting time, I think it's great - no :shrug: ?

like on this page: 12 things you can do to help the animals
And, IMO keeping animals off your plate being the # 1. The government will never make changes in the animal cruelty law - linked directly towards slaugherhouses. As :sad: as it is - it's true. Until people stop supporting them - the only thing is educating and trying to prove why we see dogs and cats differently than farmed animals. After all cruelty is cruelty:o

I just opened an email from Animatch and was pleasantly surprised at their on-line adoption form that read: "PROSPECTIVE GUARDIAN QUESTIONAIRE" :)

October 17th, 2006, 11:59 AM
I did not utter any threats of any kind. I sent 2 cards with the one question of WHY?. If the cards are sent to the wrong address they can do a return to sender as I did use my address. Do not assume I did anything illegal.

Your first post on this topic did not sound like you did anything legal. If you told an @sshole what you thought of them, at the very least, it could be considered assault. Don't forget that what *you* may see as an innocent protest or comment on something could be seen by a police officer as verbal assault or uttering threats.

I just opened an email from Animatch and was pleasantly surprised at their on-line adoption form that read: "PROSPECTIVE GUARDIAN QUESTIONAIRE" :)

There are getting to be more and more places (both online and off) that use the word Guardian in their forms and literature. I'm just as comfortable with "pet parent" on adoption forms, but Guardian to me means not just "companion animals" but also puts the burden of responsibility on anyone who takes care of any animal, be that in a fish farm, a cattle feed lot, or a kitty curled up in a cozy warm house.

While I do agree that *all* animals deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and treated as individuals rather than objects, I also can't deny the fact that I am a meat-eater. I just hope that the laws will eventually change so that animals destined for food (human or pet) are treated with dignity and respect, and any person who fails to do so can be punished.

I frankly don't understand why cruelty to animals in Alberta (each province has it's own laws, and all are harsher than the Canadian federal law) nets a maximum of $20,000 fine, supposedly being unable to own (there's that word again!!!) an animal for X number of years, but does not include any jail time, or any sort of rehabilitation. Frankly, I think if every single person who hurt an animal intentionally was forced to do "community service" with a rescue organization (Humane Society, specific dog or cat breed rescue or something like retired horse-racing), as well as undergoing some serious therapy, that there might be fewer of them who turn into offenders against humans. But again, trying to change the federal laws first? I doubt it. I'm starting a fight in my municipality to create bylaws increasing fines, including jail time, community service, etc for those types of people in town, but I know it'll be a fight. I honestly don't believe that any politician will see this as a priority, which is really :sad:

Anyhow... if anyone has suggestions, feel free! I think that despite our differences here, and our different approaches, the ultimate goal of protection of animals is the same.


Golden Girls
October 20th, 2006, 02:29 PM
While I do agree that *all* animals deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and treated as individuals rather than objects, I also can't deny the fact that I am a meat-eater. I just hope that the laws will eventually change so that animals destined for food (human or pet) are treated with dignity and respect, and any person who fails to do so can be punished. That's the thing - we do know their not treated with respect or dignity and were also aware there isn't one single law that protects animals from the horror and pain their forced to endure so I don't know what else we can do other then not eat them? The food industry kills more animals than laboratories, fur farms, trappers, circuses and hunters combined :shrug:

I'm starting a fight in my municipality to create bylaws increasing fines, including jail time, community service, etc for those types of people in town, but I know it'll be a fight. I honestly don't believe that any politician will see this as a priority, which is really :sad:Good for you, please let us know if we can help in some way.

I think that despite our differences here, and our different approaches, the ultimate goal of protection of animals is the same.I agree, we can't stop all suffering but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop any.

October 27th, 2006, 05:34 PM
what i have read is very sad, I am glad the poor dog is no longer in pain.
with all stories it is important to know, or have information from both sides.
I found this link, see below, and copied an email from the youth telling what happened. I am not sure what is the truth, and I hope the justice system will do what it suppose to do and give these youth a fair and justified judgement. REad below if you like to know the accounts of what happened according to Daniel Haskett.****head/

For all you that want to know the “story” of what was confessed here it is- his confession and his email adress is all here- enjoy.This is a real email Charles Hasket sent me, and I thought I would share it with everyone so that you could make your own decisions about wether he’s lieing or telling the truth- either way, he confessed to killing this poor dog.
And I used his name and his email address because I don’t want anymore to do with this- thankyou.

- please spread this around the best you can- it’s a real email I recieved, and it’s up to you wether or not you would like to believe it

From: “Charles Haskett”
To: **********************
Subject: RE: Big and Strong X3
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:13:16 -0600

well to be honest… ive been charged with Animal Cruelty, both Tim Laurin and I, and its all over the news.

I know you are an animal lover, like I am, and I know that you aren’t quick to judge. Truth be told… Tim ran over my dog, and we tried to put her down… it was terrible and horrifying to say the least. She was in a great deal of pain and it was something I could not stomach. I didnt think that anyone would believe it was an accident, because of the way me and Tim have often joked about killing animals and stuff…

So yea… we tried to suffocate her… and she didnt feel much pain, because her … well her skull had been crushed… she was flailing and yelping and twitching… and it wasnt easy to do… but we had to restrain her, so we taped her legs and her snout…. so that she couldnt struggle… after about 10 minutes, i could bear it no longer, and told tim i couldnt deal with it. I told him I had to do something, i had to call someone… but we decided to just take her out into the country and make it look like she had been run over… I went inside and went to bed…

However, Tim didnt think that my dog was dead… so he hit once on the head with a shovel… just to be certain… then he carried her 3 blocks, with a toe rope around her head, so that he wouldnt get blood on himself… he then went and got his car and loaded her into it… but not after he had gone 50 feet, she fell from the car… in his haste to get her in the car, he hadnt shut the door all the way. She fell out and went under the tire again… when tim came back around the block, someone had pulled over and was on the phone. Tim panicked and went home scared…

We were trying to end her suffering and now the Media is making it sound like we dragged her with that tow rope around Didsbury… Im going through alot of stuff right now… and its not easy. There have already been threats on my life and the like, my brother cant go to school for a while and yea… its bad. But i promse we didnt do what they said, and that it was an accident, and that we were trying to end her pain, not enhance or increase it.

I pray that you belive me, Yours Truly Charles.

P.S. I would be happy to help you and your mom out but… under the present circumstances i cannot, and Im sure she would not want my help… as many people in Didsbury have labled me a dog killer and a sick psychopath. Sorry :(

Left by gniz on October 25th, 2006

October 27th, 2006, 06:17 PM
This is sick,I don't even know what to say. Even if this is the truth (wich I don't believe) there is no excuse.

October 27th, 2006, 06:20 PM
I agree. Even if it's the truth, it still sounds horrible, abusive and disgusting..

October 28th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Still doesn't sound right to me, there's no excuse, they could have found another way to deal w/ it, I would have called 911 or a vet, I wouldn't have kept going that's for sure. Sorry man, still don't think it's right. And you should get at least some jail time to think about how you'll handle it differently next time, and before you joke more about it, at least a $20,000 fine, and counselling.

October 29th, 2006, 04:39 PM
This is sick and I think people like this should be given the same tourture that they imposed on these helpless animals. If they can only do this to animals that cannot defend themselfes, that says alot about them.
I wish the law would really punish these people so they never, never do that to another living thing......
It makes me sick to think I live in a society that still believes they have the right to do this.:yell:

October 30th, 2006, 04:26 PM
I have been busy, and didn't see these new messages until today. My response:

1. The other person in question hadn't been named due to the Young Offenders Act--a set of laws which does not name youths charged with crimes. Whether the other boy in question is this Tim, I don't know and frankly don't want to know. I find it very hard to believe that a young man would write an email with the full name of his friend in it, regardless.

2. Isn't it interesting how a person who had "gone inside and gone to bed" seems to know the details of an animal's demise, including the fact that it had been hit over the head with a shovel, carried a very specific distance, placed in a car, dropped out of a car, etc?

3. I also find it interesting to note that the email says that the other person was attempting to put the dog back in the car when someone saw him, so he left, when the first person on the scene, who police reports confirm was the one who made the call to the vet and the police, found the dog lying on the side of the road, with no other people anywhere to be seen? (and how traumatized must she be, having sat with a dying dog all alone in the middle of the night, waiting for the vet to arrive??)

4. I feel extremely torn about my opinion of the parents. While I feel sorry for them, because their lives have been ripped to shreds, with one son facing jail time, another disowning his brother (true or not), and having their name spread all over the news (it's a small town, so everyone knows them), I also wonder where they were when their son was younger? People generally don't just "all of a sudden" turn into violent people, and even if this one did, if they'd spent any amount of time joking about hurting animals (which he says in the email they did!), how could they have ignored that? I don't want to blame the parents for their son's actions, but I wonder if there was anything they could have done to get him the help he so obviously needed, before it was too late to save both him and Daisy Duke.

Here are more recent articles on the topic, and ways that we all may be able to help: (whether all of this information is true or not, I cannot verify but still...)

For those who are in the area; I am planning on going to the "Pet Walk" with my dog Cube, who was abused, on November 6. Should any of you choose to join me, I'm sure Daisy Duke and those in her life who loved her, would appreciate it.

:rip: Daisy, and I hope to see you over the Rainbow Bridge when I get there.


October 30th, 2006, 04:29 PM
I have a pdf version of the stop animal cruelty petition if anyone wants to collect signatures. The online petitions are of little use legally as they have no actual signatures attached so they can be easily forged. pm me if you want a copy and I can email it to you. They need to be collected and mailed by the last week in November to be given to the local MP.

October 30th, 2006, 09:34 PM
I am sick about this but I wonder what kind of person does this? I am thinking about the music thread (violent music et al) I just wrote about awhile back. (Ive been multitasking - going over charting by med students, dling books et al and reading web sites so i hope I do not sound too confused.)/

Whoever this person is will NOT be helped or punished by the community at large (ie Canada or others or his village) going after him. We are not a vigil ante country. BUT we do need stronger laws that protect animals. If this kid does have a psychiatric illness, that needs to be addressed. If he is using it - and of that email is from him and he came up with that excuse, he could well be a cold psychopath. What was he saying - this was his way to put his dog out of misery? What kind of influences in his community and his family allowed that to happen? Where are the parents in this? Community services and yes, even his doctor? And if the dog was sill - where was the vet?

There is something horribly wrong with this picture and I would very much like to hear and see the entire story. But it must start with stronger legislation for the murder of an animal. even if it involves the family pet. Sending this kid hate mail just enhances his own ego if he indeed did write that email which needs to be verified to say the least.

What kind of community and family promotes killing a dog so cruelly? Clearly, if it is the offender, he feels safe enuf to write it which says as much about his surroundings and how it is being handled as it does about his psychiatric state. None of it is good, sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

I am sure he does not represent his community but is there someone there doing anything CONSTRUCTIVE (as in local legislation which is more easily passed than provincial laws which take time and if this was in Alberta will take longer since the party in power is engaged in a ldrship race). Get those laws changed!!!!

October 31st, 2006, 02:42 PM
Cyber kitten,

I agree, municipal and provincial legislation is easier than federal. Though I'm not from the town this abuse happened in, I am close (1.5 hrs away). I'm trying, but in general, it seems that most people are looking federally, and don't see the benefit of starting small, locally, and making changes such as the guardianship language I'm trying to get going.

It shouldn't take abuse of this kind to get people up in arms about some situations---and I do agree with people who say "why are we making a big deal about a *dog* when there are kids being abused??" but there are already laws in place to protect children, and animals are still considered property, and I think *that* is why some people (myself included) are so upset about this dog case.

The point is that it shouldn't take a bad case of abuse (or alleged abuse/cruelty) to bring this issue to the attention of the public. For those of us who care, why not start a petition locally to change your local bylaws to protect animals? Don't wait until it's too late for animals like Daisy Duke!
If you care, don't just sit there and wait for people to come to you. Get out and DO something!

I am... I'm going to take a day off work, drive up to Didsbury and hope to see Justice served for those charged with the murder of an innocent animal. I don't expect I'll see it, but as long as I have hope, I'll keep trying.


October 31st, 2006, 03:55 PM
Melissa,thank's for caring...although I do not believe these sadists will be punished in any way,maybe at least your voice will be heard.:fingerscr
I do not understand how anyone can treat an animal this way and get away with it:sad:
If this was any of my sons doing this to an innocent dog,he would be my son no more,my sons were taught to love and respect animals,the same way I do and they do.
The pain this poor dog must have suffered,it's just too horrible to even imagine...please keep us updated on any news.

November 7th, 2006, 03:43 PM
I was reading a small caption in the T Star this morning,that 50 people and their dogs,went to this 19yr evil young mans home as a protest.
It did not mention anything about any kind of punishment for his evil deed:frustrated:

November 7th, 2006, 04:52 PM
WOW, if that "confession" isn't total and complete BS, I don't know what is.

November 8th, 2006, 04:51 PM
Update: I went to Didsbury with Cube on Monday to protest/get signatures on my petition, and here is the latest articles on the topic. (yes, me in colour! In the actual newspaper, there was another picture of the lady with the chihuahua --see below--on the front page, but the photographer who took my picture, before the "riot", had wanted to put me front page.) (my picture is the third one in the series, and I've asked them to make a correction to what I said, because I *don't* think that animals need the status of persons, just that they need to *not* be considered property!)

I got an additional 51 signatures for the Guardianship petition, handed out a pile of brochures & bracelets and for those of you in Edmonton; watch for Guardianship campaign coming to you soon, as one young couple (he graduated with the accused) who lives there was *very* interested in getting it going there.

For those of us at the Court House, we got bad/conflicting information. First no one knew what time the accused were going to be there, and so when he (only the older one) showed up, no one really knew that it was him. Most people went in, but the media wasn't allowed to. Those who came out after and *didn't* participate in the riot around his vehicle told me (and a few others who hadn't gone in) that they were there to enter their pleas, and that both had pleaded not-guilty. Media reports that only the older boy was there, and that neither had entered pleas, but the lawyer is saying they will both plead not-guilty. :sick: :sick: :sick: The next court date for both boys is listed in the articles, and I'm not sure if I will be going again or not. I know that the current law isn't going to do anything to punish either of them, nor will it get them the help that they so obviously need, and seeing so many people ... I dunno what the word is ... retaliating, I guess, against a person who is accused of doing something horrible, just made me uncomfortable. I guess what it comes down to is that, yes, I think they should be punished, but what I think is more important is that they get some serious help, or at least be under the supervision of a qualified mental-health professional, who can monitor them and recommend treatment, or that they not be allowed probation if they show signs that they might move on to hurting humans.

And to the lady with the Chihuahua... if you're going to show up at a court house to protest against animal cruelty, it's probably best to *not* wave your dog around and offer it as a "victim" to an accused dog killer, nor is it smart to block a vehicle leaving a court house. Especially considering the weather (it was COLD!), your 5 month old, extremely short-haired Chi puppy probably shouldn't have been there at all, certainly not being waved around in the cold air! And please... don't pretend to care about your dog and then 5 seconds later offer her up for sale to anyone who cares to listen. *sigh* I'm sure that poor puppy will now be even more expensive, as she's been on the front page of the newspaper and will be a "celebrity". Poor puppy, I hope you're ok.

I'll keep you all informed as the trial progresses and more articles are published, etc.


(PS: If the links die, or don't work, please let me know right away)

November 9th, 2006, 06:33 AM
Melissa,you and little Cube look great all bundled up:love:
I am glad this horrifc case is getting much attention,even non animal-lovers have to react to such cruelty.
It says in the article,"there is a different side to this story,every story has two sides"?
There is only one side,no matter how they try to twist it,a living being,a trusting dog,was put through horrific torture before mercifully being put down.
I also strongly feel,this young man should serve time in jail,he can get all the councelling he needs,while incarcerated.
As for the lady with the Chi,when emotions take over,we don't always think,the poor little Chi must have been terrified:sad:
Regarding Bill 50(the number seems to be constantly changing),I've followed any progress or lack thereof every year and often it was the Western Provinces who were adamantly against any improvement against animal-cruelty,mostly because of the changes they would have to make,in the livingconditions of their farmanimals.

November 9th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Chico; Thanks!
Yes you are right, Western provinces have been more against the proposed bills than the other provinces, and this is mostly because of the farming community. Bill C50 is the best of the bunch that has come forth, even though it's not the most recent. However, it too has problems, and yes, farmers are concerned, because possible interpretation of the Bill could result in farmers being fined, jailed or having their stock confiscated because they transport them in an open-sided truck, or because the animals in a stock yard don't have shelter from the snow. It's frustrating from both sides; most people don't want to cause harm to the farming industry, but do want protection for animals that are considered "pets", but how does one distinguish for some animals, such as horses? It's not like we can make a law that says you can treat a cow this way, a horse this way, a dog this way, but if you do the things to a horse that you do to a cow, you'll be punished. It's just impossible.
So I dunno... do I support Bill C50? Mostly, yes.

New article related to Didsbury case (this is a subscription article, so I have included the text):

Animal abuse trial tussle leads to charges

Dan Singleton, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, November 09, 2006

Crime - Police have charged a 34-year-old man with mischief after a near-riot Monday outside the Didsbury provincial courthouse, where about 50 animal rights activists jeered and hurled obscenities at Daniel Charles Haskett.

During the incident, plainclothes police observed the man kicking the van that was carrying Haskett and his mother, said Didsbury RCMP Sgt. Kevin O'Dwyer.

"People are allowed to come to the courthouse to do a peaceful protest, but turning into an angry mob is going to be dealt with," said O'Dwyer.

Haskett, 19, and a 17-year-old youth, both from Didsbury, have been changed with injuring-endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

Daisy Duke, a female collie-Lab cross, was found bound with duct tape and bleeding on a Didsbury street on Oct. 8. The pet's injuries were so severe, it had to be put down.

Denny Stabenow, 34, faces one charge of mischief in connection with Monday's protest. He will be in Didsbury court on Dec. 11 for plea.

On Oct. 16, a 20-year-old Didsbury man pleaded guilty to a charge of uttering a threat to cause serious injury to Haskett.

Evan Austen Sagert admitted leaving a threatening message on Haskett's telephone answering machine. He was sentenced to one day in jail after receiving credit for five days in predisposition custody.
© The Calgary Herald 2006

I am happy to see that though the "uttering threats" charge that Evan Sagert faced, the judge was lenient on him. That could mean that the accused abusers will face the maximum penalty if they are convicted--the judge might be an animal lover as well. :fingerscr :fingerscr


November 9th, 2006, 04:11 PM
Melissa,I heard that they are trying to amend the proposed Bill 50,to the farmers satifaction,not only farmers but big business like factory-farms etc..
IMO,even farm-animals need consideration,we need to follow the times,cruelty is cruelty be it a pig or a dog.
There are ways to ensure the animals destined for our dinnertables,could live their short lives free of pain and torture.:offtopic: sorry
I am elated when I see cows and calves out grazing in the summer,but shudder when I see the long buildings housing pigs,who never see daylight...oh,oh,here I go again,sorry!
Please keep us updated on the situation,if it is anything like the busy courts in Toronto,it will be a long time before we actually hear an outcome.

Golden Girls
November 11th, 2006, 02:30 PM
I'm happy to hear people took a day off and drove to the court house ... I don't support violence but I won't deny that I hope Hasket felt a little fear, shame or remorse when faced with angry protesters that day. :fingerscr he gets a six month jail sentence along with a $2K fine - if for no other reason other then pressure from the public's outcry :pray: :rip: Daisy Duke

Dogmelissa Cube is beautiful :love: Good luck with the Guardianship campain :highfive:

November 12th, 2006, 03:33 PM
Golden: I don't like violence either, and I didn't want to get arrested (even if they didn't do anything to me) for being involved in something that wasn't peaceful, so when he came out of the court house, I made sure that I wasn't anywhere near the crowd. I'll do the same thing if I go to the next court date, when he's actually expected to make a plea (which will probably be not-guilty, the loser).
One thing that the media is consistently getting wrong is that he faces charges under the Canada Criminal Code, but because the crime was committed in Alberta, he faces charges under the Alberta Animal Protection laws, which has a maximum of $20,000 fine (which would be stupid in this case, as I'm sure his parents would have to pay it--especially for the younger boy), and an open-ended (judge-determined) prohibition on not owning any animals. There is no jail term suggested in the APA (Animal Protection Act) of Alberta. What really miffs me about that is that no one in Alberta (not even the Humane Society!!) has the authority to actually do a background check on people, so they can't tell if a person has ever been convicted of a crime for which they are prohibited from owning an animal. Pet stores that sell animals, breeders who don't recognize the name, newspaper ads, etc.... they can still get animals just about anywhere, if they really want to. :(
I'm not sure if the judge has the authority to combine the Canada laws with Alberta laws, and give them jail time as well as that $20k fine, but that would be the true ideal. I guess we'll see as the trial progresses.

Duke? Do you mean Cube? My dog? Daisy Duke was the dog killed, and she was beautiful. I wish I'd had the opportunity to know her personality. Cube is my dog, and beautiful is certainly not a word I'd use to describe him. :P Cute, adorable, hilarious.... beautiful just doesn't seem to apply to him. Thanks, though, I know what you mean. I do love him, he's just such a crazy silly scruffy guy that I'll never be able to call him beautiful. Even when he has a fresh haircut, he just looks cute. :)

Chico; I believe that you're right about that. They've actually introduced a bunch of other alternatives to C-50, and it looks like the latest one, S-213 will actually be accepted; the conservative government has announced it supports this bill and will pass it. The supporters of this bill say that it does the same thing as C-50, but it only toughens penalties for cruelty, and does not take animals out of the "property" class of the Criminal Code. C-50 probably would have passed if S-213 wouldn't have been introduced as a competing bill as it was before the Senate. Now it's just a mess and I honestly don't know what's going on. I know that there's a lot of support for Tamara Chaney's petition from Didsbury which pushes to bring back C-50, but I honestly don't trust the federal government to get it done. I really don't know what is going on, whether S-213 is going to pass, or C-50 is going to come back (new name?) or will be modified to try to make everyone happy, or maybe just have some amendments to make farmers, natives & aboriginals still able to do what they need to do to survive without being punished for it, I dunno.
I guess I'm lucky here that there are very few pig farms in Alberta. Most of the farms that we pass here are big open fields full of fat & happy cows, or horses. I know there are a couple of pork feed lots, but I honestly have never seen the pig farms where the pigs live before they go to the feedlots.

Will keep you all updated.


November 12th, 2006, 03:50 PM
Thank's Melissa please do,as I am really interested in the passing of a new law,that will protect our 4-legged friends to some extent.
I've signed numerous petitions over the years,nothing that will open the eyes of our federal government though.
Here in Ontario,nobody gets fined $20.000 for torturing an animal,more likely $2.000 if that:frustrated:
Heck,even murdering a human being,you'll get less than 10yrs jailtime:yell:

Golden Girls
November 12th, 2006, 06:25 PM
Duke? Do you mean Cube? My dog? Daisy Duke was the dog killed, and she was beautiful. I wish I'd had the opportunity to know her personality. Cube is my dog, and beautiful is certainly not a word I'd use to describe him. :P Cute, adorable, hilarious.... beautiful just doesn't seem to apply to him. Thanks, though, I know what you mean. I do love him, he's just such a crazy silly scruffy guy that I'll never be able to call him beautiful. Even when he has a fresh haircut, he just looks cute:o I sometimes post too fast, I've corrected his name sorry - ok so he's cute, scruffy, crazy, silly and ... beautiful, that's what I see :)

re C-50 I just give up in it's entirely ... AND - I'm so happy I don't live near a farm

November 20th, 2006, 05:44 PM
New article:

Local man arrested in dog protest
Jodi Styner and Stephanie Myles

Actions that landed a 34-year-old Didsbury man on the front page of various newspapers across south-central Alberta last week also landed him in jail.

Denny Stabenow, known locally as Drew Marceton, was arrested and charged with mischief following a protest outside the Didsbury provincial court Nov. 6, where 19-year-old Daniel Charles Haskett was attending a hearing to answer charges of animal cruelty in the death of his family dog.

Marceton admits to kicking and hitting the van that transported Haskett away from the courthouse, but says he doesn't think his actions were any worse than those of other protestors.

He said it was never his intention to cause trouble.

"I was going there for a minute, come back, have breakfast, go to work, that was my intention," said Marceton. "I think what made me snap was the pompous arrogance about (Haskett) when he came out, like he was some kind of rock star. I was very close to him at the time and the way he looked at me just set me off."

Didsbury RCMP Corp. Kevin Fischer said a plainclothes officer did arrest Marceton and he was escorted to the Didsbury detachment by a uniformed officer in a marked police vehicle around 10:30 a.m.

Marceton said he sat in a jail cell until 4 p.m. when he was released.

Marceton said he will meet with a lawyer this week to discuss how to proceed with the case but he expects to enter a guilty plea.

"I'm the type who would take responsibility for my actions and I'm prepared to take whatever's coming to me," he said. "I feel it's so unfair but I'd be prepared to take that for sure."

Marceton is scheduled to make a first appearance Dec. 11 at 10 a.m. in Didsbury provincial court.

Haskett is next scheduled to appear in Didsbury provincial court on Nov. 22 to enter a plea.

And another:

Letter to the Editor
In support of a friend

I recently attended court on Nov. 6 to support my friend, who has been accused of torturing a dog. I want to make it clear that I agree animal cruelty is wrong, but you have not heard the whole story. I do support him as a friend, though. I am not writing this letter to defend anyone, but I simply wish to discuss the manner in which the public is choosing to deal with the situation and how pathetic it really is.

In any news articles I have read, they fail to mention that my two friends and I were chased back to our vehicles by angry protestors with threats like, "You're filthy maggots who deserve to go to hell." And being told that we all deserve to be dragged behind vehicles until we die. If they don't believe animals should be treated this way, why would they wish it upon a human?

I was appalled by the actions of the lady who threw herself and a small dog against my friend's van as he and his mother were trying to leave the courthouse. Is that not endangering the life of an animal?

I understand there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the case and that emotions are running high, but that in no way justifies the extreme actions of the protestors toward people who have committed no crime, but these animal activists are taking it to an extreme. I was actually scared by the way they were behaving and had never been more relieved when the RCMP showed up to tell the protestors to back off so that we could go back to school.

I think the protestors need to remember that they are grown adults, who should know better, threatening 16 and 17-year-old kids. How disgraceful is that?

People also need to remember that, in our law system, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The protestors are jumping to conclusions and are relying on facts coming from the media.

I feel that we, as the accused's friends, are handling ourselves in an appropriate manner and that the activists should control their emotions and act in a civilized manner as well.

A kid wondering when adults will start acting like adults,

And one more:
Letter to the Editor
MP pushes animal bill

Many Albertans were shocked and outraged to learn of the torture of a Labrador-border collie cross named Daisy Duke last month in Didsbury. The poor dog had its legs and mouth bound with duct tape, and she was dragged a kilometre behind a vehicle, leaving a trail of blood. As a result of her injuries, she was euthanized, and her owner and a juvenile have been charged.

Coincidentally, I had been preparing to reintroduce a private member's bill in the House of Commons on animal cruelty. Earlier versions of my bill were put forward by the government in every parliament since 1999, but failed to pass when the House and Senate couldn't agree on amendments.

My bill, C-373, was introduced on Oct. 30, and it is identical to the former Bill C-50. The current Criminal Code provisions on animal cruelty have changed very little since 1892 and are hopelessly outdated.

This is an issue that must cut across party differences, and I hope to work with MPs from all political parties to ensure its passage. The rules for private members' bills make it difficult to pass them, and therefore I am asking Canadians to urge the government to adopt this as a government bill.

In the seven years that this bill has been debated, there has been enormous effort to strike the right balance between the need to protect animals from intentional cruelty, and the need to recognize the legitimate rights of hunters, anglers, farmers and others who use animals responsibly for sport or their livelihoods. This bill achieves that balance.

Those who engage in serious violent crimes such as serial murder often start by abusing animals, which can be an early indicator of crimes against people. Therefore, effective animal cruelty legislation can allow the justice system to intervene early with people who might go on to other serious crimes.

Please encourage your Member of Parliament to work with me on this important initiative.

It's time we stand up for our four-legged friends.

Mark Holland, MP
Ajax-Pickering, ON

Which brings me to my next question....
It's forecasted to be a high of minus six on Wednesday, low of minus eleven (all celcius). I just gave Cube a haircut, but he now has a coat (though no boots). I can take the day off work, or at least a part of it, to go there again, but is there a point to it? Should I go? And if so, should I take Cube?
I'll need opinions/thoughts soon, as it's already Monday afternoon.


November 21st, 2006, 07:57 AM
Melissa,thank you for keeping us updated.
Whether you go to court or not is up to you and I am sure we are all greatful that you did.
However,if it's cold I probably would not,also with the danger of potential violence from an angry crowd(I don't blame them!)it probably would be scary for little Duke.
I don't promote violence in any form,but I can understand the feelings of the crowd,especially if this young man has shown no remorse.
I probably would be capable of giving this"kid"some punishment myself:mad:
Guilty or not guilty?:confused: Of Course he's guilty,this was no prank,this was coldblooded,cruelty to another living beeing.

November 21st, 2006, 11:01 AM
I was happily surprised last time at Cube's behaviour. Despite his previous abuse and his normal fear of people (and other dogs), he was remarkably well behaved, and though I kept a close eye on him, kept him close to me and on-leash, I think he knew that this was important and that he needed to be brave for me. He was fantastic.

They are, however, now predicting it'll be around -14 tomorrow morning, with a high of only -8 in Didsbury. And since I'd actually like to be able to go into the court house to hear the plea, I think I will leave Cube at home.

The "angry mob" from the last court appearance was a little scary, even from where I was (on the other side of the building), but yes, I totally understand people's feelings. I, however, also understand the law, and though I'd really like for these boys to suffer the kind of torture they inflicted on poor Daisy Duke, I can't stomach the idea of either witnessing or being involved in doing it to them. I've believed for a long time that one person can change the world, but going on a rampage and yelling, kicking, or otherwise being beligerent to suspected criminals does nothing but decrease your credibility, and I will have nothing to do with it.

So I guess what I've just said is that I will go, but I will *not* take Cube with me. I will post an update Wednesday afternoon/evening or Thursday morning.


November 21st, 2006, 04:08 PM
I say,I would beat the crap out of this sadistic young man,but it's only a gut-reaction after reading such a horror story.
But still,I can understand peoples fury and bad behaviour.
Unlike you,I have absolutely no faith in our justice-system,at least here in Ontario,where a lifesentence often means 10 yrs.
This young man will not get any punishment,but maybe laws are different in Alberta,I hope so.
Still,be careful tomorrow,don't get too close to any ruckus:D

November 21st, 2006, 07:04 PM
Is the final verdict this week ? I hope they roth in hell

November 23rd, 2006, 11:53 AM
Final verdict? They haven't even entered pleas yet. *sigh* According to the media (many of whom have covered similar cases), this could drag on for months or years... to the point where the public forget about it, at which point they're likely to get off on "time served" (btw, both kids were released and are at home under supervision of their parents).

Latest news:
Haskett to enter plea Wednesday
Jodi Styner, Didsbury Review

Daniel Charles Haskett is scheduled to make his second appearance in Didsbury Provincial Court Wednesday to answer charges of animal cruelty in the death of his family dog last month.

Police say they expect fewer protestors this time around.

"We may get some local people and that's fine," said Didsbury RCMP Sgt. Kevin O'Dwyer. "They can come and have their voices heard."

Over 50 protestors attended Haskett's first court appearance Oct. 6, trying to get a glimpse of the man they had despised from afar, but Haskett entered the courthouse through a side door, evading the crowd.

At the time it was believed that a police escort had led the 19-year-old into the building, sparking criticism from protestors that police were providing protection to an accused not in custody.

But Sgt. O'Dwyer said someone inside the courthouse organized his entry and exit point and police were not involved at all.

What had started out as a peaceful gathering Nov. 6 quickly escalated into a near riot when Haskett exited the courthouse and made his way to a nearby van.

Protestors swarmed the van and began pounding their fists on the vehicle's hood. One man, who kicked the van as it left the parking lot was arrested and charged with mischief.

Animal lovers across the nation, and even as far away as Scotland, have expressed outrage at the way the Hasketts' dog was tortured and are frustrated with lax animal abuse laws. Police say they share the public's frustration, but their hands are tied.

"We can only go by what charges are there, available to us," said Sgt. O'Dwyer. "We have to be able to prove the elements of the charge and we have nothing to do with the penalty sections at all, or even what penalty is given out."

He said he hopes Myron Thompson will be able to bring something before the House and look at having the laws changed.

"We would love that," said O'Dwyer.

Meanwhile, a petition started by local dog groomer Tamara Chaney has been expanded until Dec. 31 due to the high volume response she's received.

Thousands of signatures have been collected to date and more and a link to the petition is now online at

Chaney's Fort McLeod leader Saranna has commissioned a company to design a bracelet to support the cause as well.

It is similar to the rubber Lance Armstrong "LiveStrong" bracelets, but it's black and white in colour, with silver writing that says "Stop Animal Cruelty, In Memory of Daisy Duke".

On the news it said she has 57xx signatures. Not very many considering this has been coast to coast.... there have been that many signatures for Guardianship in Calgary alone.

Also of note, even if the laws change, both boys will be punished based on what the laws were at the time of the crime; ie, they will essentially get zero punishment.

Lawyer calls dog abuse attempt at mercy killing
Teens accidentally ran over animal, he contends

Emma Poole, Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, November 23, 2006

DIDSBURY - It was panic -- not deliberate cruelty -- that prompted two Didsbury teens to inflict near-fatal injuries on a family dog, a defence lawyer representing one of the accused said Wednesday.

The teens were trying to put the pet out of its misery after one of them accidentally ran over it, Mark Takada said outside court after a brief appearance on the matter.

"A lot of people just thought these are sadistic brutes. That's not what happened at all," he said. "It's not as simple as a lot of people make it out to be.

"They weren't trying to be cruel to the animal. They panicked after they hit the animal and then they took a bunch of inept steps to put the animal down."

Takada's client, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, and his then 17-year-old friend, are facing a number of animal cruelty charges, including injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering. The younger teen can't be named due to his age at the time of the incident.

Daisy Duke, a border collie-Lab, had to be euthanized on the street after she was found with horrific injuries Oct. 8.

It's believed she had been beaten and possibly dragged behind a vehicle.

The dog's legs were bound with duct tape, and there was a tow rope around its neck. Its head was wrapped in a bag.

Takada declined to reveal why his client didn't call a veterinarian when the dog was first injured.

"That is a really good question about it. I do know the reason, but I don't want to disclose it at this time. It will come out in court, eventually," he said.

Takada said he advised Haskett to stay away from Didsbury's courthouse Wednesday after protesters at an earlier hearing swarmed his family's van and pounded their fists on the windows and hood.

Several animal-abuse protesters, including Calgarian Melissa Coderre, returned to the courthouse Wednesday, but in smaller numbers. Haskett did not show up in person for the hearing.

Coderre, who rescued an abused dog, said she will continue to show up for the hearings. She is fighting to ensure animals are better protected under the law.

"It's important enough to me to be here," she said following the brief hearing.

Takada and Crown prosecutor Gordon Haight are scheduled to return to Didsbury provincial court Dec. 11, when it's expected Haskett will enter a plea to the charges.

The accused youth is due back in court Dec. 7.

© The Calgary Herald 2006

Note that though I asked her to correct what she printed last time--about me saying I wanted animals to be recognized as persons--and though I talked to her and she said she'd fix it, she didn't. :(
Also to note that Takada will not actually be in court Dec 11, he will be sending his "agent"... and likely the case will be pushed off again because of him not being present. :mad:

Wed, November 22, 2006
Protesters cause concern in dog abuse case, lawyer says
UPDATED: 2006-11-22 15:47:09 MST

Claims public doesn't know whole story in alleged animal abuse


DIDSBURY — Protesters crossed the line by trying to intimidate an alleged dog torturer, his lawyer said today.

And defence counsel Mark Takada said members of the public who are outraged at the allegations against his client haven’t yet got the whole story.

“There are a lot of facts that aren’t known by the public about this case,” said Takada outside Didsbury provincial court, shortly after appearing on his client’s behalf.

Takada confirmed rumours the dog his client is charged with abusing was initially injured accidentally when struck by a car.

“As far as I understand the start of the case was an accident,”he said.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, and a 17-year-old male were charged after Daisy Duke, a Lab-border collie cross, was found barely alive Oct. 8.

The dog had a broken neck, back and pelvis, a bag pulled over her head, a rope around her neck and all four legs bound.

A 100-metre trail of blood showed where the dog had been dragged behind a vehicle.

She was put to sleep at the scene, about 60 km north of Calgary.

Takada, whose client did not appear in court, said because of the protest following his last attendance, he instructed his Haskett to stay home.

“Quite frankly, I was pretty concerned about the security the last time,”said Takada, of his client’s Nov. 6 court date.

“They have a perfect right to be here, it’s a free country,”he said.

“But when they try to intimidate him, and scare him, and rush towards his vehicle they’ve crossed the line.”

Only a handful of animal lovers turned up for the court appearance, but those who did said the punishment for animal abusers has to be toughened.

Pat and Richard Gauvreau drove from Priddis with their two dogs to show their disgust with Daisy Duke’s treatment.

“People that are capable of committing crimes against innocent animals and children, I’d like to see them punished severely,” Pat said.

Haskett’s case was adjourned until Dec. 11, without Takada entering a plea on his behalf.

That's all I've got for today. I've decided that I'm going to follow this case to it's completion, and I will be at every court date, regardless of whether anything actually happens or not. Of course, I won't go if the roads are terrible; it's not worth risking my life for. I will do my best to keep everyone informed and up to date.


November 23rd, 2006, 01:17 PM
Thank's Melissa,although it is outrageous,anyone could even think of this as an accident,the excuse for this horrific torture is sickening.
If Daisy-Duke was accidentally run over,normal people would be distraught and take this poor animal to a vet,or even shoot her:sad:
Anything would have been more mercyful than what they did,there is absolutely no excuse for all the pain they caused this poor animal.:sad:
You are right in that this might become a long drawn out process and in the end,these young men will walk,just like with poor Kensington the cat here in Toronto.

November 24th, 2006, 01:38 PM
Thank's Melissa,although it is outrageous,anyone could even think of this as an accident,the excuse for this horrific torture is sickening.
If Daisy-Duke was accidentally run over,normal people would be distraught and take this poor animal to a vet,or even shoot her:sad:
Anything would have been more mercyful than what they did,there is absolutely no excuse for all the pain they caused this poor animal.:sad:
You are right in that this might become a long drawn out process and in the end,these young men will walk,just like with poor Kensington the cat here in Toronto.

I've bolded one very important thing you've said....

We're operating under the assumption that these boys are "normal", and everything about their behaviour (including what I've been told from other kids who went to school with them and grew up with them) is that the both of them haven't been "normal" for a very long time.

That's what's the worst part about our current animal laws. Even if you are convicted of doing something bad to an animal, and everyone knows the link between abusing animals and abusing people, no one ever gets sent for counselling or some sort of treatment. They have a DISEASE! It maybe isn't something we can cure, but we should at least be monitoring them to make sure it doesn't get worse--and progress to the point where they *are* hurting people.
What's scary for me right now, is that these 2 kids have not only seen my face in the papers, but they've seen my full name... and once the public has forgotten about this case, they might still be mad at me--especially if they actually get convicted!--and then I'm at huge risk for being tracked down and being the first human victim on their list. It's a risk I'm willing to take, but it does scare me, because I agree with you--a normal person would have called the vet, or at least woken up their parents to help.... or worst case, drove the car back over the dog's *head*. People understand that things are accidents.... she was a black dog, it's not that tough to imagine that she could have ran out in front of a car and got hit by it. But to tape her legs together, put a bag over her head and a rope around her neck...? Did they just happen to have this stuff in the car? There is something seriously wrong with anyone who thinks that "panic" is an excuse to not do the right thing. Most people who panic will just stand there in shock and not do *anything*! That would have been better than what happened to the poor dog.

I hope she's aware of the love and support that's coming from people who never even met her... and I hope she can forgive humans for what we've done to her.

I'll update again next time there's news.

November 24th, 2006, 03:53 PM
I saw your name and I sincerely hope there will be no repercussions from these kids.
Most people who do the unspeakable to defensless animals,are cowards to the core,the same as men abusing women.
These kids might have a history of torturing animals,neighborhood cats and others,but we'll never know.
In a perfect world,they would get a year in jail,enough time for them to think about what they have done,with councelling,but very often councelling does not help an evil mind,at 19yrs old,his attitude and personality is probably there to stay.
I too hope Daisy-Duke is in a better place and that she can feel the love,a feeling she probably never knew.
OMG,it makes me cry,just thinking of this poor girl:sad:
Please continue the updates,,Thank's!

Anne M
November 25th, 2006, 04:22 PM
My concern is that serial killers start out by torturing animals. These two, I believe, are budding serial killers. We need to keep their names in mind, so that when young females start disappearing, we know who, to point the cops in their direction. Daniel Haskett is known for being a bully. There is another dog in the home, a beautiful Bichon cross, and they have named her "Diesel" which is a name I would never choose for a regal dog
like a Bichon. I have concerns about how the whole family treat their animals.

November 25th, 2006, 04:32 PM
AnneM,first Welcome to the Forum:thumbs up
IMO,this family should never again have any animals,the mother did not seem too concerned about Daisy-Duke.
Hopefully this will be included in whatever verdict is handed out:fingerscr

November 25th, 2006, 09:01 PM
With Christmas coming perhaps one of Santa's elves could pick up the package and deliver Diesel to a new out of province home...:pawprint: :pawprint: :pawprint:

Mocha's mum
November 26th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Anne, I absolutely agree with you. People like that start out on helpless animals because of that very reason; they are helpless. I just can't imagine that poor dog, wagging her tail, happy to see the very kid that took her life. It makes me sick. And extremely angry.

I hope that the people involved in this case do their homework and realize that they have a pair of dangerous individuals on their hands. And hopefully, when these kids go to jail, they are cellmates with the biggest, meanest murderer in there who has an unusually large soft spot for animals...

Mocha and I are proud of you Melissa, for standing up for your beliefs down at the courthouse. I wouldn't worry about them knowing your name, I think they're going to be preoccupied for quite a while. I wish I could have gone down there too, but I couldn't get the time off of work.

Aren't they heading back to court soon, or was I just dreaming about that?

November 27th, 2006, 06:54 AM
I don't know if the Justice System is the same as here in Ontario,but I have no great hope these kids are going to spend any time in jail.:evil:
The case in Ontario,where 3 young "men"caught a stray cat(Kensington:rip: ),did unspeakable horrible things to him,poking out his eyes,skinning him alive etc...and also were found to have other creatures in their freezer.They even video-tape their horrible deed,said it was done as an"art-project".
They walked out of the courtroom free to prey on other animals,with only a short time kept in a holdingcell before their courtdate.
People were protesting but it made no difference.
It hit me so hard,I cried many nights for Kensington:sad: and I'll never forget him.

November 27th, 2006, 01:39 PM
Chico: according to some of the local residents (and one news story), there are rumors that not long ago, these boys put 2 cats in a gunny sack and beat them to death with hockey sticks. Whether that's true or not, we'll never know. One of the kids at the court house the first day said that his sister had been threatened by the older accused, and that a friend of his had actually been beaten up by both of the accused. Again, true or not, I don't know. But just the rumors are bad enough... and sounds like they've already "moved on" to humans.

Anne: Just because the people picked a "strange" name for a dog, does not mean that they treat it badly. I used to be friends with a guy who had 2 cats, named Jack & Daniels... and that doesn't mean that he fed the cats Jack Daniels, or otherwise mistreated them. I've read lots of things online about how these 2 dogs have been treated, and I have no faith in any of it. I did read (and this seemed to be backed up by some of the people at the court house), that Daisy Duke was actually the older brother's dog, and that he had moved to Calgary, been unable to find a place that would take dogs (it's tough) and so left the dog with his parents. I know not what the parents are like, and I can't imagine how this must be tearing their family apart, whether any of it is true or not. They might be horrible people who taught their son that it's ok to hurt animals, but it still must be horrible to have their son arrested and on trial. I don't know anything about them, or Diesel...
However, according to one online site: "Both the RCMP and the Alberta SPCA have deemed the environment is safe for Diesel so she will not be removed from the Haskett home." (Please note that she is a bichon-cross, not that it means she is less worthy of love, just that she isn't likely to be a 'regal' dog as you expect)

Shaykeija: I'm sure there's lots of homes in-province, if the RCMP & SPCA decide Diesel needs to be re-homed. There's lots of dogs in shelters all across the country, and all of them are just as worthy of a healthy happy home as is Diesel. I'm sure she's being supervised 100% of the time, and being kept away from Daniel at all times, though the chances of him doing something to her (or any other animal) while this trial is on are extremely slim. Can you imagine????

Mocha's Mom: Thanks for the support. The younger boy (who has not had a court appearance yet) is scheduled to be in court Dec 7. Daniel is scheduled to enter his plea December 11. I doubt that there will be any court activity on either of those dates, and I highly doubt that either boy will show up. I'm not sure how it'll work with the younger kid; they can't reveal his name unless his charges are upgraded to "adult" crimes, but I'm not sure if that means that the people who aren't lawyers or court officials will be allowed into the court room at all. I hope so.... I want to see the face of a kid who can "accidentally" drag a dog behind a car... or if you believe any of the supposed email above, let a dog fall out of his car.

Chico: the justice system here isn't much better... I'm hoping because of the public outpouring in this case that something actually happens to these kids, but I suspect that it won't. Sad sad horrible things that "justice" does. It doesn't protect people from criminals.

Found a link from a guy who was taking pictures at the first court date:
All the people with the signs and posters were down from Edmonton's branch of "Voice 4 Animals". None of them were there for the second appearance.


December 7th, 2006, 11:39 AM
Update: Dec 7

I drove all the way out to Didsbury this morning. Got there and found out that the media either lied or made a mistake; the Didsbury court house is not open on Thursday. It was printed in at least 3 places...
...scheduled to next appear in court Dec. 7
The accused youth is due back in court Dec. 7. has a Dec. 7 court date due back in court Dec. 7.

So now I'm a little p!ssed off. I don't have the contact info to get in touch with anyone from Didsbury, not that it would matter, as everything in the media said it was today. And yet I was the only person there. What gives??? There's nothing I hate more than when people do things to mislead the public, so that we forget about crimes like this. Rest assured, I *will* be back on Monday, for the "expected plea entering" of Daniel Haskett. I know he won't be there, nor will a plea be entered, but I still have to go.

Anyhow.... here's more news about the case:

Daisy Duke bracelets selling like hotcakes
Jodi Styner, Didsbury Review, Dec 5

Rubber bracelets created in memory of Daisy Duke will soon be available for purchase in Didsbury.

The black and white wristbands were designed by Saranna Arthur-Erickson, a member of a team handling the Southern Alberta region of the "Stop Cruelty to Animals Petition" started by local dog groomer Tamara Chaney.

"With the volume of emails and phone calls we've all received I wanted to touch the hearts of Canadians becuase this has been very, very hard on them," said Arthur Erickson.

The bands resemble the popular yellow "Livestrong" bracelets and carry two messages: "Stop Animal Cruelty" and "In Memory of Daisy Duke", with paw prints between the two statements.

Arthur-Erickson is donating her next shipment to be split between Chaney and Krebs Vet Clinic, which will serve two purposes.

The 100 bracelets she's giving to Chaney are meant to help offset some of the costs she's incurred in order to keep her petition for stricter animal cruelty laws going.

"We've collected thousands of signatures," said Chaney. "It's just been nuts."

That success has been expensive, so Arthur-Erickson said money left over from the bracelet campaign will go to Alberta animal shelters and to further help Chaney.

Funds raised through the sale of wristbands through Krebs Vet clinic will go back into the community by way of free vet bills.

"The condition was that the money go to someone who maybe doesn't have the means to pay for a vet bill," said Arthur-Erickson.

She's leaving that up to the discretion of Krebs vet clinic staff.

The first shipment of 500 bracelets sold out in Southern Alberta in less than five days.

After Didsbury gets its batch, more will be sent to Quebec, Ontario, B.C. and even Scotland, for distribution.

"A lot of the bigger centres are getting wind of them, it's branching off really fast," said Arthur-Erickson. "The response has been excellent and I am overwhelmed by people's kindness."

If she had the financial means, Arthur-Erickson said she'd give the wristbands away free of charge, to spread the message. But even at $5 a piece, they're going "like hot cakes".

"It's been a little crazier than I thought it would be, but I've been blessed that it's gone this way, honestly," she said. "It's a good thing for Didsbury and a good thing for Canadians because I think it will help them heal."

The bracelets are expected to arrive in Didsbury later this week or early next week.

To order one online, email Arthur-Erickson at <snipped>
(If you want the email address, PM me)

This is an older article, but I just found it:

Calgary Sun Thu, October 26, 2006

Animal protection laws have no teeth


Bill C-17. Bill C-15. Bill C-15B. Bill C-10. Bill C-10B. Bill C-22. Bill C-50. Those are the names of proposed federal laws designed to put some teeth into our animal protection laws in this country just since 1999.

And yet, we're still stuck with a law that defines animals as nothing more than property and that was written back in 1892, about the same time Henry Ford put the finishing touches on his first automobile.

Under that law, the most vicious crimes against animals allows for maximum sentences of only six months in jail or a $2,000 fine.

That means the two monsters who allegedly tortured Daisy Duke, a Lab, border-collie cross on Oct. 8 in Didsbury will likely just pay a minor fine if convicted.

But in a country that just sentenced Calgarian Rudolf Hawker on Tuesday to just 35 months in jail for stabbing his wife, Helga Hawker seven times -- including once in the heart -- perhaps such tickles on the wrist are all citizens should expect.

Well, not Tamara Chaney, a 29-year-old Didsbury dog groomer who has launched a legal petition asking the Conservative government to reintroduce Bill C-50 -- the best of all of the above proposed animal protection laws.

Chaney says when she learned Daisy Duke had all four legs bound, a bag pulled over her head, duct tape across her snout, a rope around her neck and then was dragged behind a vehicle for one kilometre before being left to suffer on a dirt road, she believed something had to be done.

The dog was put to sleep by a local vet called to the grim scene.

It had a broken neck, back and pelvis.

The dog's owner, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, has been charged with animal cruelty. Another 17-year-old male, who can't be named, was also charged.

"The current law is antiquated and needs changing," says Chaney, who urges those interested in the petition to call her at <snipped> or to e-mail her at <snipped>.

Chaney says she's being inundated with calls for the petitions, which Wild Rose Conservative MP Myron Thompson has agreed to present in the House of Commons when it's ready.

"Right now, animals are just defined as property," Thompson said yesterday from Ottawa. "That has to change. People who can be so cruel to an animal, they don't stop there."

Dr. Randall Lockwood, a Washington, D.C., psychologist, a VP with the Humane Society of the U.S. and one of the world's leading experts in the field of animal cruelty, agrees.

"While not everyone who abuses animals will become a serial killer; virtually every serial killer first abused animals," he says.

Thompson says he has brought the incident to the attention of Justice Minister Vic Toews.

"I've already talked to him about it and it just about made him sick. I plan to keep bringing it up until things change," vows Thompson.

A spokesperson for Toews says the minister is introducing bills that correspond with the party's election promises, so he won't be introducing Bill C-50, though he does plan to support Liberal Senator John Bryden's Bill S-213, which will toughen the penalties for animal cruelty.

Cheryl Wallach, spokeswoman for the Calgary Humane Society, says the Canadian Federation of Human Societies opposes this new bill because it is not nearly as good as Bill C-50, which was passed by all parties in the House during the last government, but was held up in the Senate.

For instance, points out Wallach, when two dogs were tied to a tree in Edmonton and beaten to death with baseball bats, the two accused were not convicted.


Because a vet testified the dogs likely died after the first blow, and under the 1892 law, that's not considered cruel. And in 1892, a Model T Ford was considered fast.
(Again, for the contact info, PM me)

I don't know if it's ok for me to post this, but there are some amateur videos on YouTube... search for user DevonV.

Guess I will update again on Monday. I wish I had better news today. At least the weather was nice for the drive.


December 7th, 2006, 12:29 PM
The guardian campaign is a concept of PETA's,

Animal Guardian -- The animal-rights-correct term for what we used to call an animal's "owner." The slippery slope of animal-rights law now favors the term "guardian" in order to reinforce the myth that animals are entitled to the same rights as small children. Chief among these rights, of course, is the right to not be eaten.
and eventually not to be owned it is simply a steeeping stone to say animals are entitled to the same rights a human and not to enslave them under a collar and chain(leash) microchip and tattoo as you property like would with a slave.

We need to make changes to the laws by signing petitions and write your local MP and urge him to support Bill C-373
Here is a sample letter

And here is how you can simply find the contact info for your Minister of Parliament by simply entering your postal code, it will provide with his name email address, phone number, Constituency Address and Parliamentary Address

This is info about the bill and it provides links to animal cruelty laws by province.

The more calls and messages sent to an MP the more serious they will considered it knowing if they do not vote in favor, it is their job on the line. lost votes will not get them re-elected

December 8th, 2006, 08:13 AM
DM,thank's for staying with this horrible case for us,I have a feeling no matter how long they prospone the trial,people will not forget about Daisy Duke any time soon.
Sadly she will become the Poster-Dog for the cruelty humans are capable of.
I've been following the progress or lack thereof of a new Animal-Cruelty law for years and years,after one horrific cruelty case after the other,with no results..
Hopefully Daisy Dukes suffering will not be forgotten:fingerscr
Would you PM me the addy for the bracelets,please..

December 8th, 2006, 02:53 PM
OG: While PETA supports the Guardianship campaign, it was not their idea or concept. It was, and is, the baby of the In Defense of Animals organization.

The Guardian Campaign was created in 1999 as a nationwide platform to reflect growing public support for a redefined public standard of relating to animals.

They do similar work, but IDA isn't as "crazy" or fanatic about what they do as PETA is. While I agree with most of the things that PETA does, I don't agree with *how* they do things, and I can't support them. PETA wants to see the rights of animals changed the way the rights of slaves changed, and the way the rights of women changed. They might as well come out with it and say that they want to see animals treated as persons! Well, frankly, I don't want my dog to vote, I just want him to be protected by law, so that if someone hurts him, they will be punished! I could not find anywhere on the PETA website when they got on board with the Guardianship campaign, and actually, I'm not sure they even understand it or are on board with it.

I 100% support the Guardianship campaign, though I don't 100% support the rest of the work that IDA does. For one, I'm not about to become a vegetarian, which is one of the first things IDA recommends people do to make a difference to animals.
More information on IDA can be found here:

Anyhow.... the petitions and letters are important, and I do support Bill C-373. I don't, however, think that the Federal goverment is going to get it done. What did they do this week? Discussed, AGAIN, the issue of gay marriages! I don't understand why this is getting priority, when the people who kill animals for fun are allowed to walk the streets... the ones who kill animals are the ones who eventually are going to start killing or hurting people. And I don't think a gay person, denied the right to marry their partner, is going to go on a killing spree over it. If they do, it's pretty likely that in their past, they hurt animals! I can't remember a single murder trial in the news where the person said that they did it because they couldn't marry their same-sex partner. I just can't understand why politicians keep ignoring the facts about people who abuse animals and their potential harm to humans in the future.
The federal government isn't going to get it done... which is why I'm fighting locally, first with the Guardianship campaign, then I'm going to work on local bylaws, then I'm going to work on Provincial laws. Then, if there's nothing federal, then I'll fight for federal changes.

I will update again after Monday's court date.


December 11th, 2006, 05:12 PM
I went to the Court house today. Not many people there... seems most people are forgetting about it already. :(

Turns out that I was wrong about last Thursday... drove all the way out there, saw the sign on the door that said the court was only open Monday, Wednesday & 1st, 2nd & 3rd Fridays, and I went home. Turns out there *was* a court date for the younger accused, though he didn't show up. He is now 18 (I guess he was 2 weeks away from his birthday when Daisy Duke died), so there's a small possibility he might be upgraded to "adult" status. He is back in court Jan 18 (also a Thursday) to enter his plea.

I will post articles tomorrow, as there was a lot of media there today. The one thing that the lawyer said which has me totally weirded out is that the 2 boys have different lawyers, and it sounds as if they will each be witnesses in each other's case. He said if the younger boy wasn't a crown witness, he'd be a defense witness--the story they're sharing is that it was the younger boy who did most of the horrific things to the dog. I have no idea how this will work; each boy will say the other did it to get themselves off, so unless the trials are together, I have no idea how it'll make any sense.

Daniel's lawyer entered a plea of "not-guilty" to all charges (including obstructing an officer or whatever that was) and his trial will start May 23, 2007. :yell: Why do they have to drag things out so much??? Urgh. Oh well... they've booked the court house for the full day so we'll see how much of it they get through. I hope it's not too disturbing.

Will repost tomorrow with updated articles.


Mocha's mum
December 11th, 2006, 10:38 PM
MAY???!!! That's ridiculous! :eek:

Thanks for all of your dedication, and keeping us sad as it is. :sad: At least it's warmer for you and little Cube!!

December 12th, 2006, 06:48 AM
Thank's Melissa,there was a side-bar article in the Toronto Star this morning.
It only stated two men have been charge and described the horror.
I am not surprised at the courtdate in May,the same happened in Kensington the cat,case.
I followed it for months only to break down in disbelief at the non-verdicts:D
I am hoping people will not forget:pray:

December 12th, 2006, 11:42 AM
Protester pays heavy price
'Mad moment of passion' costs man shot at RCMP

Gwendolyn Richards, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, December 12, 2006

A man's dream of joining the RCMP has been dashed in a "stupid, mad moment of passion" as he now faces a charge of mischief after blocking a van carrying a teen accused of torturing his family's dog.

Denny Layne Stabenow, known locally as Drew Marceton, was among a group of people protesting outside Didsbury provincial court and blocking a van Nov. 6 after an appearance by Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, who faces animal cruelty charges.

After an appearance at the same court Monday, Stabenow said he also kicked the van as it drove away.

"I'm not a hoodlum; I'm not a troublemaker," he said. "Yes, my emotions did get ahead of me. I did act out. I'm ashamed of it."

But the 34-year-old part-time hairstylist, student and security guard is questioning why he was charged when photos show it was a group of people impeding the van.

"I have a hard time understanding why I was the only one arrested," he said.

Earlier in the day, Haskett, through his lawyer, Mark Takada, pleaded not guilty to various animal cruelty charges -- including injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering.

Daisy Duke, a border collie-Lab, was euthanized on the street after she was found with horrific injuries on Oct. 8.

Her legs were bound with duct tape, there was a tow rope around her neck and her head was wrapped in a bag.

It's believed the dog had been beaten and possibly dragged behind a vehicle.

Outside the courtroom, Takada said Haskett is disappointed the matter is going to trial.

"He's perplexed about the public reaction to the case," he added.

Takada was almost certain Haskett would testify and that his co-accused may be called by either the Crown or the defence. Haskett's case will be back in court on May 23.

His co-accused, who can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, is expected back in court on Jan. 18.

While Stabenow's matter was put over until Dec. 20, he said he has already been penalized for what he did.

He learned last week in a letter from the national police force that he had been dismissed from the RCMP recruitment process. Stabenow said he later learned it was because of the mischief charge.

Stabenow had made it through two of the seven RCMP recruitment stages.

"Any punishment the court could hand down today could not make me feel any worse than I do," he said.

He added the outcome of the court case could also prevent him from volunteering and doing security for the David Thompson Health Region.

Friends of Stabenow are collecting funds to help pay for his defence.

(Almost the same article below)Tue, December 12, 2006
Man's dream lost in protest
UPDATED: 2006-12-12 01:50:26 MST

RCMP hopeful dropped by recruiters after mischief charge at animal abuse case


DIDSBURY -- Joining an animal-rights protest may have cost a Didsbury man his dream of becoming an RCMP officer after he was charged with mischief.

In Didsbury provincial court yesterday, Denny Stabenow said he was informed by the RCMP last Thursday that he had been dismissed from the recruiting process.

"No punishment the court could give me could feel worse," he said.

"This is the worst thing that could happen to me.

"It's been a life-long goal."

Stabenow was charged with public mischief in early November for allegedly kicking the van ferrying Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, who is charged with torturing a dog.

He said the RCMP has a policy that recruit hopefuls can't go through the process while charges are before the court.

He said he applied to work for the Mounties in January.

Stabenow is scheduled to return to court Dec. 20 to answer to his charges.

Meanwhile, Haskett's defence counsel Mark Takada was also in court yesterday and entered a not-guilty plea for his client, who hasn't been back in court since he was met with a horde of angry protesters on his first appearance in November.

Haskett and a 17-year-old male, who can't be named, were charged in October after a collie/lab cross dog was discovered bound, with a bag over her head and bleeding on a Didsbury road.

The dog had numerous broken bones and was in such bad condition, a veterinarian was forced to euthanize her at the scene.

A trail of blood led RCMP officers to an address where the arrests were made.

A trial for Haskett will begin May 23, 2007.

Didsbury dog case continues

POSTED AT 4:43 PM Monday, December 11
Daniel Charles Haskett was to make his third court appearance in Didsbury for animal cruelty charges on Monday, but his lawyer appeared on his behalf.

Back in October a dog was beaten, tied up and dragged behind a truck in the small town.

The dog, named Daisy Duke, was dragged about 100 metres, and had to be put down because of its injuries.

Police charged two local teens.

The case has drawn attention from not only southern Alberta, but also all across Canada.

At Haskett's first court appearance on November 6th, a number of animal rights protesters mobbed the van as he tried to drive away.

Haskett’s lawyer says his client was hoping the crown prosecutor wouldn't take the case to trial, but it's been scheduled for May 23rd.

A petition started by a Didsbury woman for stricter penalties for animal abusers now has over 45 thousand signatures of people from across Canada.
Almost 42,000 Canadians Signed "Daisy Duke" Petition!

As of December 7, 2006, a total of 41,806 signatures have been collected for the "Daisy Duke" Animal Cruelty Petition, which calls for a return of a bill similar to C-50 to update outdated animal cruelty laws.

Signatures are still being collected, and as long as the petitions are mailed in to Tamara the by the first week of January, they will be counted.

That's all I can find for today. The younger boy is back in court Jan 18, possibly to enter his plea. I don't know how it's going to work, as the lawyer for Haskett said that if the crown doesn't call him (younger) as a witness, he will be a witness for the defense. I know what they're going to go with; that the younger boy did most (or all) of the bad things to the dog. I'm assuming he'll plead not-guilty, as did Haskett, so why he'd sit as a witness and say "Haskett didn't hurt the dog, it was all me".... how does that make any sense? I'm hoping that they run the two trials together, so that it'll just be easier to understand. But honestly, the 2 have different defense lawyers, so they're each going to be saying that the other one did it, so I have no idea how it's going to go.

I, too, hope that people don't forget, but based on the turnout at the court house yesterday (which was very few people), I'm thinking that people have either already forgotten, or just don't care anymore--possibly because it's Christmas? My own mother thinks I'm "beating a dead dog" by continuing to go up there. She said "you can't change anything, you're just wasting your time and beating a dead... dog." Right now, I hate my mother. She doesn't support me in this, but at least she could have said "drive safe" or whatever, she didn't have to be such a horrible person about it! :mad:

Despite my mom being a witch, I'm going to stick this one through, and I will be back Jan 18 for the younger one (especially since I missed the first date!), and I will go back for every single trial date, unless I have urgent things, like appointments that I can't reschedule or family emergencies. Hopefully once trial starts, it won't take too long.

Well.... I guess that's about all I have for today. Hope everyone has a wonderful Christmas & New Years, and please, if you can spare any time &/or money, please give to your local animal shelter, rescue or anything that helps animals.

Merry Christmas Daisy Duke, and may the holidays bring you lots of bones, chewies, soft warm blankets and because you truly deserve it, the hugs, thoughts and best wishes from those who knew you and those who didn't but who miss you now.


December 12th, 2006, 12:09 PM
Melissa,your last few lines made me cry,cry for poor Daisy-Duke,cry because there was nobody there to save her from these demons,cry for her pain and hoping she's all healed and happy at the bridge:pray:

Swift Hooves
December 14th, 2006, 05:03 AM
Those kids are really BAD!:yuck:
I know i'm only ten but when i searched the net and found this,i was close to sheding tears!:sad:
Those kids should really be punished.:mad:
I sent this to my friend.

Me:Hey,check this out.Poor dog!
Friend:OMG! This is craazy!Poor thing!
Me:Those kids are impossible.

I did'nt hear anything from my friend after that though..

We should really help dogs:dog: (and cats!:cat: ) to prevent such tortures ever again.

Those kids should be hung.:mad:

:rip: Beloved dog,I pray:pray: that you'll go to heaven..

Anne M
December 30th, 2006, 10:01 AM
I am highly disappointed that a protestor has been charged, after losing it over the Daniel Haskett abuse of Daisy Duke. I am told that the SPCA has been called to the Haskett home several time by neighbors, because of neglect of Diesel and Daisy. I had a neighbour who had a Rottweiller that his son tied up in the back yard, never fed her and never walked her. The SPCA were called several times before they finally showed up. They did nothing except to tell the concerned neighbours DO NOT FEED THIS DOG. We were all shocked as the dog was starving to death, until we fed her. I absolutely will not donate a penny to the SPCA as I believe they are animal abusers themselves. The protestor will probably get a harsher sentence than the criminal themselves which show how sad our judicial system has become.

December 30th, 2006, 12:17 PM
AnneM.unfortunately it's not against the law to chain a dog outside,at least not in Ontario.
However the animals has to have shelter and of course food and water.
In the case of this Rottweiler,if he is starving and neglected,the SPCA should definetly have stepped in and helped the poor dog.
Unlike in some US states,our SPCA cannot just go on to someones property and remove a dog,even with visible signs of neglect,without giving the owners a warning.
The laws are long overdue to change,regarding animal-cruelty...but I am sure,once again the new bill will be put away and forgotten,until the next Daisy-Duke horrorstory.
As for punishing these,to me,evil young men,it wont amount to anything,I've seen it before,time and time again.
There will be no justice for poor Daisy-Dukes suffering:sad:

January 2nd, 2007, 03:20 AM
The sadistic and brutal killing of Daisy Duke by 2 sick and twisted freaks has, once again, brought the issue of animal cruelty to the attention of the general public. It is unfortunate that it takes a case such as this to make people realize the depravity and cruelty that animals continue to suffer. The fact that the maximum amount of time that Charles Haskett could be sentenced to is six months clearly shows that the government and the courts continue to equate the brutal killing of an animal with damaging someone's property. As long as animal cruelty laws remain in the property crimes section of the Criminal Code individuals such as Charles Haskett will continue to recieve minimal or no jail time for brutal offences. It is indicitive of the skewed priorities of the justice system that an individual who tortures and kills an animal faces less serious charges than the person who kicked the van Haskett was riding in.

The fact that the police elected to lay a charge against an individual for kicking the van Haskett was in and then dismissing the same individual from the selection process for the RCMP even before a trial was held clearly shows that the police put a higher priority on potential property damage than they do on an animal. The police did not have to lay a charge against the individual who kicked the van but they chose to lay one in spite of the minor nature of the actions of the individual.

Assuming that the e-mail which has been circulating on the Internet is actually from Charles Haskett it is clear that he has no remorse and sees absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. It is equally clear that he fears the reactions of the public and the possibility of spending time in jail which are the same fears that all animal abusers fear. While there is a place for petitions and polite protest there is also a place for more aggresive tactics such as those used by a number of people at Haskett's court appearance. While the police will be quick to label the surrounding and kicking of the van as "violence" the reality is that it got a very clear message to Haskett and while aggresive it was not violent. Civil disobedience and direct action are legitimate and effective tools in the fight for animal rights or even just for animal welfare.

As the founding member of The Animal Defense League-Edmonton Chapter I believe that there is a place for civil diobedience and direct action alongside the more traditional and less confrontational tactics used by many activists. There is, without question, a higher risk in using unconventional tactics as the police and governments automatically label any challenge as "violence". Dr. Jerry Vlasak, the founder of the first Animal Defense League chapter in Los Angeles, has been labelled as everything you can think of including a "terrorist" in spite of the fact that he has never hurt or injured anyone and is, in fact, a dedicated trauma surgeon! I invite everyone to visit our website ***** for further information on the "radical" side of the animal rights movement.

As for Charles Haskett there is no need for anyone to attack him since he will more than likely be given at least some time in jail where the other inmates will almost certainly knock his arrogant attitude out of him while the guards simply look the other way.

January 3rd, 2007, 01:07 AM
I just wanted to thank you dogmelissa and everyone working to change the laws that are neglecting animals right to a peaceful existance in their short time on this earth. It's difficult for me to keep up with the details of this horrific story, every time I look at a few lines I well up with tears.:sad: I'm sorry to hear your mum doesn't support you in all the good you are doing, I think she should be proud. All the best to you in this new year.:grouphug:

February 26th, 2007, 02:52 PM
I failed to post in January when the younger boy was supposed to appear in court for his plea entering. What happened that day is that his lawyer pushed it off, again. The judge said something to the effect of "this has gone on long enough" and said that he must enter his plea on February 28. Obviously, this is the 26th, so I will update on what his plea was on Wednesday.

The thing that bothers me the most about this is how quickly people have forgotten. The first court date, there was a *huge* group of people, many of them out from the "Voice for Animals" group in Edmonton. Many others were out from the town (friends, acquantances, neighbours, etc). At the January date for the younger boy, there was myself, one lady who has been to every court date, one person from the Calgary Media, and a radio DJ from Olds.

The older boy's trial starts May 23. I wonder how many people will be there for that?

Updates from the news:

Animal rights crusade taken to Ottawa

Photo: Tamara Chaney of Didsbury, with her German Shepard Lee, collected 111,000 names on a petition seeking tougher animal cruelty laws.
Photograph by : Ted Rhodes/Calgary Herald

Emma Poole, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, February 19, 2007

Tamara Chaney of Didsbury will find out today how much her efforts to protect the lives of animals have paid off.

Chaney and her "teammates" have gathered more than 111,000 signatures on a petition calling for much tougher penalties for animal abuse.

Today, Wild Rose Conservative MP Myron Thompson will present the pages of signatures to the House of Commons.

"It's pretty surreal. It blows my mind, really," Chaney said in an interview Sunday. "It was a very insane four months of my life."

The petition was created following the torture and near killing of a border collie-Lab named Daisy Duke, who had to be euthanized Oct. 8.

The dog was found in the middle of a Didsbury street with horrific injuries.

It's alleged she had been beaten and possibly dragged behind a vehicle.

The dog's legs were bound with duct tape, and there was a tow rope around its neck. Its head was wrapped in a bag.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, whose family owned the dog, and his then 17-year-old friend, are facing a number of animal cruelty charges, including injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering. The younger teen can't be named due to his age at the time of the incident.

In November, Haskett's lawyer told the Herald it was panic, not deliberate cruelty, that led the teens to inflict near-fatal injuries on the pet.

Mark Takada said the pair were trying to put the dog out of its misery after one of them accidentally ran over it.

The petition, which supports Bill C-373, was circulated across Canada through veterinary offices and other pet-friendly organizations. The signed pages were then sent back to Chaney in Didsbury where they were collected, counted and handed over to Thompson.

Bill C-373 would introduce a new offence of "killing an animal brutally or viciously, whether or not it dies immediately."

Liberal MP Mark Holland tabled the bill in the Commons in October of last year. It calls for a maximum penalty of five years in prison and unlimited fines for indictable offences, or 18 months in jail and fines of up to $5,000 for summary convictions. The penalties would apply to the offender no matter if he or she owned the animal or not.

Currently, an animal cruelty charge for an adult offender carries a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine or six months in jail, or both.

The petition push by Chaney and dozens of others after Daisey Duke's death originally sought about 10,000 signatures, but national interest in the case drew the response from more than 111,000 people.

Paula James of Medicine Hat is one of the supporters.

"We've done what we could," said James. "Now it's up to the politicians."

Chaney, who owns a dog grooming business in Didsbury, is hoping MPs consider adopting Bill C-373 and not Bill S-213 -- an amendment to current animal cruelty laws -- that critics say lacks teeth.

Bill S-213, introduced by Senator John Bryden in April 2006, had its first reading in the Commons in December.

"My biggest fear is that they'll pick the other bill," said Chaney, adding she'll continue to fight for stronger animal rights. "I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I'll keep writing letters and on and on and on."

Thompson is expected to introduce the petition to the Commons around 1 p.m. MT.

The Herald was unable to reach Thompson on Sunday.

Haskett goes to trial on the charges May 23.

Animal petition delivered
Rights advocate calls journey 'unbelievable'

Emma Poole, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, February 20, 2007

It took four months to collect more than 111,000 signatures on an animal rights petition, and less than one minute for an Alberta politician to introduce the appeal to the House of Commons.

But for Didsbury resident Tamara Chaney -- who spearheaded the petition last October following a high-profile animal abuse case in her town -- the mere mention of it Monday in Ottawa was well worth the struggle.

"It was unbelievable that it was unfolding before my eyes. It really made it to the House of Commons," Chaney said Monday after watching Tory MP Myron Thompson present the petition to his colleagues. "I was kind of in shock. Oh my gosh, it was, wow."

Thompson agreed to take the petition to Ottawa following the case of Daisy Duke, a border collie-Lab allegedly tortured and left for dead in the middle of a Didsbury street.

It's alleged the family pet had been beaten and possibly dragged behind a vehicle.

The female dog's legs were bound with duct tape, and there was a tow rope around its neck. Its head was wrapped in a bag.

The petition, which supports Bill C-373, was circulated across Canada through veterinary offices and other pet-friendly organizations.

The signed pages were then sent back to Chaney in Didsbury, where they were collected, counted and handed over to Thompson.

During a brief speech to the House of Commons Monday, Thompson referred to the proposal as the "Daisy Duke Bill," in memory of a pup killed in my riding." Even before he was finished introducing the petition, other MPs had begun applauding.

The petition of 111,896 signatures has been sent to the Justice Department and will return to the House next Monday.

Thompson said it's imperative for the federal government to amend current animal cruelty laws. "We want to have a Bill that goes after the people who purposely . . . go after animals," Thompson said in an interview Monday.

The key, he added, is to find a balance between protecting animals while allowing farmers and livestock owners to continue being productive.

"How do you come up with a bill that balances what some people want to do with a pet . . . and protect those who have been doing things for centuries? You've gotta search the middle ground."

Bill C-373 would introduce a new offence of "killing an animal brutally or viciously, whether or not it dies immediately," said Thompson.

Liberal MP Mark Holland tabled the bill in the Commons in October of last year. It calls for a maximum penalty of five years in prison and unlimited fines for indictable offences, or 18 months in jail and fines of up to $5,000 for summary convictions. The penalties would apply to the offender whether or not he or she owned the animal.

Currently, an animal cruelty charge for an adult offender carries a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine or six months in jail, or both.

"I don't care what the bill is titled, you do something with an animal, like what is being alleged to have happened in my district, and you need to have the book thrown at you," Thompson said.

"We will not tolerate the treatment of animals in that nature. I want cruelty to animals stopped."

Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, whose family owned Daisy Duke, and his then 17-year-old friend, are facing a number of animal cruelty charges, including injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering.

Haskett's lawyer plans to argue the pair were trying to put the dog out of its misery after one of them accidentally ran over it.

I still think it's amusing how Emma Poole (the journalist assigned to this case) hasn't been to the courthouse since November. I wonder if she'll show up in May.

As soon as I have an update on the House discussion today, I'll post it. And will post an update on what dude pleads on Wednesday (though I'm sure we can guess what it'll be, right?).

- Melissa

February 26th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Melissa,believe me,I have not forgotten about Daisy Duke and her abusers,I've watched every day for an update and thank you for posting.
I never forget such a horror-story and if I lived anywhere near there I would be right beside you in court.
Daisy-Duke needs us to remember the suffering she went through at the hands of these two creatures,but I am afraid,just like with Kensington the cat in Toronto(who was brutally tortured to death)these kids will get off.:sad:
Bill C373 has to pass,it's way passed time to change a 100yr old law,but it's not something that will fill the governments coffers with money,it's just about tortured lives of animals,so,do they really care???

Thank you Melissa,I really appreciate you not giving up on poor Daisy Duke:)

February 26th, 2007, 05:08 PM
That is so sick :sad: I would looove to drag THEM behind my car :mad:

You drag them Frenchy and I"ll drive behind you and run the #@$! over! Do the job properly ay!

PPL like that should be made to endure the same torture, see how they like it!

It makes me sick and tearful that such beautiful creatures are hurt like that:evil:

February 27th, 2007, 07:55 PM
How about we drag them behind our the OPPOSITE directions!:thumbs up :thumbs up
It is things like these, about rapists, child molestors, murderers, animal abusers and the rest of the low-lifes that make me wish there was "An eye for an eye" law again:frustrated: take a life, you lose yours, you torture someone be it a dog or a human - and you get tortured in return...I betcha there would be MUCH less of these things going around, and these bored-out-of-their-minds kids, that find their horrific ways to entertain themselves would be punished and punished hard...I betcha they wouldnt REOFFEND then..:mad: :mad:
:rip: Daisy Duke, see you at the bridge...:pawprint:

February 27th, 2007, 08:10 PM
Thank you Melissa,I really appreciate you not giving up on poor Daisy Duke:)

That goes for me too :grouphug: please keep us posted.

February 28th, 2007, 05:32 PM
Bill C373 has to pass,it's way passed time to change a 100yr old law,but it's not something that will fill the governments coffers with money,it's just about tortured lives of animals,so,do they really care???

Chico & Frenchy,
Thanks for remembering.

Regarding the status of the bills, S-213 & C-373; this is an extremely dry read, but quite informative. This is the official transcript of the House of Commons discussions on Monday, Febraury 26, 2007.

My personal beliefs are that it would be nice to have some federal legislation for the protection of animals, but I find it really hard to have any faith that it'll actually happen. While I'd like them to just protect animals, I want them to understand that by protecting animals, they will be protecting people. The federal government repeatedly has failed to take any notice of the fact that every single serial killer in the 20th century abused animals at one point in their life. Until they realize that by protecting animals, they are ultimately protecting people, no law will ever pass through the federal system, IMO. I would like to support these bills, and I do, but I don't have faith that they will ever become law. It's sad, but that's how I see it. That is why I'm trying to get the Guardian campaign going. I'd love to see laws like they have in New York & Seattle, but I don't even have a clue where to begin with that fight, so I'll start with the Guardianship. I need to get back into that fight, I've been distracted from it for a bit too long now. Dog park, here I come!

Regarding the Tamara Chaney petition, here is the transcript of it being presented to the house (this link should jump to it in the middle of the very long document):

Update on today: Youth was, of course, not present. I'm confused at this time whether the guy who spoke to the judge (again) is the defense lawyer or what his role actually is, but he said something to the extent of "I'm waiting for disclosure from the Crown" and the plea date has again been moved off, this time to March 21. The wonderful woman who has been as dedicated as myself in following this case will be on vacation that week, so I'll be on my own.

So I guess there's not much to do until then, except watch the news for updates on the petition in the House, and wait and hope that justice will happen. And work on the Guardianship campaign.

Thanks for keeping up on this guys, and again, if you want any information on the Guardianship campaign, don't hesitate to ask. :)

:grouphug: *hugs* to everyone and their furry, feathered or scaly friends.
And to Daisy Duke & Kensington; I hope you're having fun playing together up there beyond the Rainbow bridge. We send you both (and all others) all our love. We know that you know that we're fighting in your honor.


February 28th, 2007, 07:10 PM
They sure have a way to drag those things (trials) :mad:

Mocha's mum
February 28th, 2007, 09:29 PM
PPL like that should be made to endure the same torture, see how they like it!

Yup, that was my prediction a few months ago. Some hunter or farmer is going to find that kid dead in a field with a rope around his neck and duct tape around his hands and feet. I can't believe the audacity of people.

Dogmelissa, please don't think we've forgotten. I remind my coworkers every day about the cruel and horrible way people treat animals. I have become somewhat of an unofficial advocate for animal rights at my building, trying to educate pet guardians about how to best care for their pets. It's a challenge, but I feel like if I get through to one person, I've accomplished something.

I am planning to take leave from work when that wretched waste of oxygen goes to court so I can be there and look at the dirt bag that would dare harm a defenseless animal that showed him nothing but love and devotion. It makes me sick to even think about it, but I feel like I have to do something, if only for my piece of mind......

February 28th, 2007, 11:14 PM
I have already written my MP regarding the bill introduced by Myron Thompson - She is not fond of Mr. Thompson but likes his bill - but wants it to go further. I told her I absolutely agree (not re Mr. T but the bill, lol - lest I get into trouble here :laughing: )but we need to start somewhere even if it is with this one.

I have to study the other animal rights bills to see what exactly they say. I actually think this one has a good chance of making it- if that archaic institution known as the Senate does not block it for some esoteric obscure reason that makes no sense - or just plain stupidly aka political loyalty even when a law is good!!!!

Mr. Bryden's bill sounds good as well.

What we need though is an omnibus bill of some kind that overhauls (hate that word but it;s what comes to mind) all the legislation we have at the federal level giving our companion animals - and all animals - better protection and the rights they deserve!!! It is time we actually moved into the 21st century where our furbabies and their cohorts are concerned!!!!!

I am still furious at the Senate for holding up that other bill, Arrrrrrrrghhhhhhhh!!!

March 1st, 2007, 06:59 AM
Melissa,interesting read,although it took me 1/2 hour to find the tiny portion allocated for Animal Cruelty.:sad:
I have no idea who Myron Thompson is,but I too will write my MP,whom I believe to be Bonnie Brown.
I have no great hopes our government will dedicate even 5 minutes to the subject of the treatment of our animals.
Tamara Chaney's 111.000+ petitions is a good start
The media could do so much more,we often read a small shocking caption in our newspapers about horrific abuse,but very seldom is there a followup.
Except Kensington the cats story,which was widely reported,because of the horrific cruelty.
However,when the nonverdict for the 3 demons who tortured him to death,finally came,I cried for the injustice done to Kensington.
It's sad,when all you can do is cry for these poor helpless animals:cat: :dog:
Thank's Melissa:pawprint:

March 1st, 2007, 06:13 PM
Yup, that was my prediction a few months ago. Some hunter or farmer is going to find that kid dead in a field with a rope around his neck and duct tape around his hands and feet. I can't believe the audacity of people.

Dogmelissa, please don't think we've forgotten. I remind my coworkers every day about the cruel and horrible way people treat animals. I have become somewhat of an unofficial advocate for animal rights at my building, trying to educate pet guardians about how to best care for their pets. It's a challenge, but I feel like if I get through to one person, I've accomplished something.

I am planning to take leave from work when that wretched waste of oxygen goes to court so I can be there and look at the dirt bag that would dare harm a defenseless animal that showed him nothing but love and devotion. It makes me sick to even think about it, but I feel like I have to do something, if only for my piece of mind......

I know that a few people still remember, among them some members here, the wonderful lady Ruby, and myself. However, I think the general public has forgotten, and that makes me sad. I'm sure the families of the two accused and close friends have not forgotten either.

Mocha: If the younger boy has a seperate trial, will you be attending that one? Or just the older boy (trial set to start May 23)? Regardless, I can guarantee that I will be there, for every minute of every day that the trial(s) are on. If I have to sacrifice pay to do so, I will do it. So in May, look for me!
I have the same feeling... the whole thing makes me sick, but for my mental health, I have to see this through, though I suspect I already know the verdict. :sad:

Anyhow... I need to get off the computer so I can go home and give my furry ones the hugs they deserve.

Updates later this month... and as they come up in the House.


March 21st, 2007, 02:50 PM
Update on today's court date, where the younger boy was supposed to enter a plea.

Yet again, another wasted trip. No plea, pushed off again. One media person told the other media person that the boy's lawyer told him that the Crown (prosecuter) had been unable to speak to the boy, and that's why it keeps getting pushed off. This seems pretty impossible to me, but I'm no expert, so I have no idea.

Anyhow, the next court date (when we'll hopefully get a plea) is Wednesday April 18.

I haven't heard any updates about the petition in the House... anyone?

Will be back in April for another update.

March 21st, 2007, 03:47 PM
Dogmellisa,it's weird,I was thinking of you today and what is happening and here you are...
One thing I know,I will never forget Daisy Duke and I would be right there beside you in court.
It just seems there is one horror-case after the other,a dog freezing to death,a dog dying of starvation tied to a stairwell,it just goes on and on:sad:
Thank you for keeping us updated,even though it came to nothing this time,again:yell:
I'll watch for another update in April..thank's!

April 4th, 2007, 03:17 PM
Just found out something interesting today... we'd heard at the first court date from some people in town that Daniel may be facing other charges, for attacking a person, but we had no proof. Now we do.

Warrant issued for Haskett
Jodi Styner, Didsbury Review

A warrant for the arrest of Daniel Charles Haskett was issued last week after he failed to appear in Didsbury Provincial Court on an assault matter.

Didsbury RCMP Corporal Kevin Fischer said Haskett has since been located and re-released. Another court date will be set.

Haskett faces charges of assault causing bodily harm, possession of stolen property, and failure to attend court.

Details in the case are not being released at this time.

Meanwhile, Haskett is scheduled to go to trial May 24 on charges of animal cruelty relatied to an incident in October 2006 that led to the death of the Haskett family's dog, Daisy Duke.

Regardless of what happens in THAT case, I hope that the judge at the trial looks at his arrest history and realizes that this kid is not the kind of person who should be trusted out in public! How many times do we have to tell them about the link between cruelty to animals and later abusing people?? When it's happening at the same time, what's going to happen to the next poor person who crosses his path? He'll probably rape, torture and then murder that person, and maybe THEN people will realize the help that this kid needs. I'm SO frustrated with the lack of foresight in the political and judicial system that I just want to throw my hands up in the air and go live in a place where monkeys rule. It can't possibly be as stupid as this. Even meerkats have "laws" and actually follow through on the punishments for breaking those laws. Surely we're smarter than meerkats? (Does anyone else watch Meerkat Manor on Animal Planet?)

So I'll be back in court on the 18th of April for the younger kid's next date... it'll be a small miracle if he actually enters a plea. Then I'll be back on May 24 for the start of Daniel's trial. We'll see if he actually shows up for THAT date!

I'd love to bring my computer to type in things as they happen, but I don't imagine that'd go over too well, so I'll just bring paper and write it down.

Will check in on April 18.


April 4th, 2007, 04:04 PM
Melissa thank's for keeping me(us?)updated..:thumbs up
There is so much violence out there and the"kids"are getting younger and younger,our government definetly need to step up our justice-system and hopefully also include animal-cruelty.

I suppose most people have forgotten about Daisy-Duke and her suffering,even the people in Didsbury,so I am very greatful to you for still caring,I know I do..thank's again!
Hopefully this young man will see some jailtime on the assault-charge:fingerscr
Sorry,if I got a little rough about your spraying kitty:sorry:

April 4th, 2007, 04:12 PM
We would do more damage with 2 cars :evil: good idea.

YEAH :evil: going in opposite directions :evil:

Hang 'em high with their own intestins!

April 4th, 2007, 04:45 PM
Thanks for the update. There surely needs to be tougher laws for animal abuse and the younger offender act is stupid. How much proof do people need when it comes to the link between animal abusers and people abusers, it has been proven time and time again. Jeffery Dahmer for one started out tourching animals and then went on to people...he wasn't the only one.

He needs to be tied behind a car and dragged, then maybe he will finaly understand what he did. It just drives me nutts that cops can't touch you until you are of age...they don't even repsond to shoplifting calls anymore. Not that I want to see kids get beatten but they have no fear and think they are untouchable....sadly for the most part they are.

:fingerscr that justice will be served for DaisyDuke, and that he will be banned for life from every owning an animal.

Furbaby Momma
April 5th, 2007, 11:24 AM
A Eulogy to a Dog

We all know that dogs have special qualities which make them unique
among all creatures on this earth. Their devotion and loyalty to man,
have set them apart. One of the most enduring eulogies to this affect
was presented by a Sedalia, Mo. lawyer by name of George Graham Vest,
who was later to become a US Senator.. His speech was in response to a
lawsuit on behalf of "Old Drum", a foxhound who was viciously killed by
a human neighbor. His owner brought suit for damages. Senator Vest
concluded his case with the following speech:

"Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in the world many turn
against him and become his worst enemy. His son or daughter that he has
reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and
dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name,
may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may
lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it the most. A man's
reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The
people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success
is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure
settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend
that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts
him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.
Gentleman of the jury, a man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in
poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground,
where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may
be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to
offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with
the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as
if he were a prince. When all other friends desert he remains. When
riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in
his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune
drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and
homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of
accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies
and when the last scene of all come, and death takes the master in its
embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all
other friends pursue their way, there by his grave side will the noble
dog be found. his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert
watchfulness, faithful and true even to death."

Old Drum's master won his suit, amidst a courtroom filled with tears,
and Senator Vest's statement has been preserved as a classic statement
as presented above.

Thank You Dog Melissa, for keeping Daisy Duke's spirit alive with your updates.
It means so much to us that you take your time to update this thread.
God bless you, :angel:
Cruelty towards animals happens everywhere, hopefully one day the laws will be there to protect animals from abuse...all over the world.
Furbaby Momma, trying to help make a difference one paw print at a time. :pawprint: :love:

April 18th, 2007, 02:25 PM
Today's drive to Didsbury was NOT a waste. Today I got to see the younger accused, who I cannot name due to the Alberta Youth Justice Act, but who I will refer to as "T."

Tomorrow I may have some articles or something to post, though since the Global News van passed me on my way AWAY from Didsbury, I'm not sure that there will be anything in the news. I did not see anyone from any media there at all. So I'm going to guess that I am going to give the only update on this case.

First, T. is facing 2 charges. One under section 445(a) of the Canada Criminal Code, and one under section 446(1)(a) of the Canada Criminal Code. As you probably know, Alberta Law doesn't have much teeth for animal protection, but it has more teeth than the CCC which he is charged under. I have yet to understand why he is charged under a weaker law than the one in place in Alberta. Regardless, these laws are as follows:

Injuring or endangering other animals

445. Every one who wilfully and without lawful excuse

(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose, or

(b) <snipped>,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 401.

Cruelty to Animals

Causing unnecessary suffering

446. (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;

(b) - (g) <snipped>

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a) or (b), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering, damage or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering, damage or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully or was caused by wilful neglect, as the case may be.

Presence at baiting as evidence
(4) <snipped>

Order of prohibition
(5) Where an accused is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to any other sentence that may be imposed for the offence, make an order prohibiting the accused from owning or having the custody or control of an animal or a bird during any period not exceeding two years.

Breach of order
(6) Every one who owns or has the custody or control of an animal or a bird while he is prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made under subsection (5) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 402; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 35.

Now, to describe T.
I would say he was probably around 5'11", overweight (280 lbs?), with shaggy, sandy blond hair. I have no idea what colour his eyes were, I couldn't look. He presented himself to the court wearing a button-up short-sleeved "dress" shirt, black jeans, and black running shoes. His ears were pierced, with those black rings that stretch the hole open (do you know what I mean?).
He did not speak.
There were 3 other people with him, 2 who I would guess were his parents, and though I didn't spend a lot of time looking at them, they didn't have a much "nicer" appearance than T. did. I have no idea who the third person was and didn't get much of a look at him to determine if he could be a friend or other family member or I dunno what. Daniel was not there.

Now, to the actual information...
Defense attorney entered a plea of Guilty on 446(1)(a), and did not enter a plea on 445(a). The judge asked if they would like to proceed to sentencing today, and the Crown said that they would not. First they would like to send T. for a psychiatric & psychological assessment (I'm not sure how this would affect sentencing), and would like the professionals to focus on the areas of "possibility of re-offending, possibility of harm to others and possibility of harm to self". Defense was asked if there are any other areas he wished to have them look at and he declined, saying it was better to keep it broad.
Analysis & reports are being expedited, Crown will submit suggested professionals, and sentencing (with reports) will occur on Thursday May 10. The Crown & Defense both asked for this judge to do the sentencing (he has seen this case before him 3 times now), though he'd just committed to another case in Okotoks. Judge said he would re-schedule Okotoks.
Pending the results of the analysis & reports, then the terms on the first charge 445(a)--plea was not entered--will be decided at that time. They are all doing everything in their power to make sure this happens BEFORE the trial starts for Daniel. It'll be much easier now for his defense lawyer, as T. has pleaded guilty, so now they can say that Daniel *tried* to stop him and could not. So that email (where he claims he went in the house to bed and it was T. who dragged the dog through town), and the fact that T. has now pleaded guilty, is likely going to get Daniel clean off the hook. I hope the judge takes into account his assault charges and the fact that he did not call for a vet or someone to help, even if he didn't hurt the dog, and punishes him regardless, but I think I'm dreaming if I really think that'll happen.

In related news... the Crown said something about a "gateway".. "if the gateway was open, we'd be looking at a request for incarceration, but since it wasn't, we'll accept non-custodial sentence" or something like that. What I understood from that is that *something* happened (or didn't happen) or maybe because he plead guilty, or because there's a concern about his mental health, that they are not seeking a jail term as punishment. He's either going to end up with house arrest or probation. And even if they mandate him to have treatment should he end up to have a mental problem, I'm sure we all know that no amount of treatment is going to help if a person doesn't WANT to change, and what are the chances of that??

*sigh* I'm tired of this, sick of having to listen to this and know that neither of these boys will be punished or helped in an way, but I can't stop. I have to know... I have to go, for Daisy Duke, for other animals in the world, for all humans. I have to have HOPE, and I find myself rapidly losing my grip on my hope. At least seeing him, and NOT seeing him look like a respectable, nice guy makes me feel a little better. No matter what the judicial outcome, I feel comfortable in knowing that this guy is not just a person who "lost it" one day and killed a dog. This is in his genetics, in his very being. He is, and probably was from birth, a true monster. He will NOT stop with Daisy Duke, and no animal or human is safe around him, IMO.

And now I need to go and think about something else for a little while. Should this show up in any of the media, I will post links/quotes again tomorrow. If not, I will be back on May 10 with another update.

Please give kisses and an extra hug to all of your furry, feathered & scaled loved ones, and your human ones too, from me. I will be thinking about Daisy Duke today and sending her all my love and I know that she is sending back her strength, that she knows I am doing this for her and all the other animals who died at the cruel hands of humans. I hope that you all will do the same, and feel the love and strength that comes from them.

Thanks for reading.

April 18th, 2007, 03:54 PM
Thank you very,very much for doing this for Daisy-Duke,just thinking about her suffering brings tears to my eyes.:sad:
Thank you too for going through the trouble of reporting to us,there probably will be no justice for D-D,but at least T has to go through the courts and will have a record.
It takes an evil mind to do evil things to another living beeing and I am certain,for this young man,it will not stop with the torture of Daisy-Duke,one day he will get the punishment he deserves,whether it be jail-time or any other bad time.
Melissa,please continue to keep us updated,I appreciate it very much:dog:

April 19th, 2007, 07:46 AM
Melissa,we just read about this on Canoe News,at least some newspeople are interested:thumbs up Youth guilty in dog cruelty case

DIDSBURY, Alta. (CP) - A 17-year-old Alberta youth pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of animal cruelty in a horrific case of abuse that made national headlines.

A Lab-border collie cross named Daisy Duke was found barely alive and had to be euthanized by a veterinarian in October 2006 after it was dragged behind a car with a rope around her neck, a bag over her head and all four legs bound.

She suffered injuries including a broken neck, back and pelvis.

Tamara Chaney, an outraged animal lover in Didsbury, collected 110,000 signatures from across Canada on a petition calling for new legislation on animal abuse. The petition was later presented to Parliament.

Sentencing arguments for the youth's conviction on the animal cruelty charge will be heard May 10, the same day that a second charge against the youth of causing death or injury to an animal will be dealt with.

Another male accused, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial May 23. The dog had been a family pet in Haskett's home.

Current laws allow for a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine for a conviction under animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code.

Earlier this year the Conservative government announced it would support a bill introduced by Liberal Senator John Bryden, known as Bill S-213, which would raise the maximum jail term to five years and the maximum fine to $10,000.

However, many animal-welfare groups oppose that bill, complaining that it continues to treat animals as property and doesn't address cruelty to wild or unowned animals.

Many such groups have put their support behind Bill C-373, a private member's bill introduced last fall by Ontario Liberal MP Mark Holland, who has complained the animal cruelty laws haven't been modernized for 100 years and are "woefully inadequate."

The final hour of second reading debate on Bill S-213 has been tentatively scheduled for April 24.

CANOE home |Terms of Service | Need assistance? Visit our Help Desk.
Copyright © 2007, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved.

April 19th, 2007, 11:37 AM
I truly believe how a human treats an animal is a reflection of what is in their heart! It is scary to think what is in these two hearts.

April 19th, 2007, 03:58 PM
It is SO truly horrifying (sp?) that in these 'modern & enlightened' times that evil is still allowed to go unpunished.
It has been proven time and again that animal abusers do not stop; they almost always escalate, up to include people too.:sad:
So very sad that we will undoubtably be reading about T in years to come because of a messed up law/judicial system.
Eventually the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it??
I don't care how old a person is, my 5 year old knows that dragging a living being behind a moving vehicle is cruel!:2cents:
That poor DD is in a better place now, I have to believe that.:pray: :rip:

April 19th, 2007, 07:17 PM
First they would like to send T. for a psychiatric & psychological assessment (I'm not sure how this would affect sentencing)

I think it will, they could say,; he's too young, didn't know what he was doing...stuff like that :mad:

I do hope they get the maximum sentence. :pray: Thanks for keeping us updated.:grouphug:

April 19th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Frenchy, I think you are right. Despite it being a crown request, I expect that any psychiatrist/psychologist will decide that he's too young to know what he was doing was wrong, or find that he had "temporary insanity" or some other lame excuse and let him off. Sad sad sad. Maybe they'll decide that he's sick and twisted and shouldn't be allowed around humans at all... I highly doubt it, but who knows.

There is a tiny light in this very dark tunnel, and I'm sure you'll all be able to find it in this article from the Calgary Herald (I'm going to add that this was on the first page of the city section; previous articles about Daniel were put on like page 5 or 6 of that section):

Man pleads guilty in Didsbury animal abuse case
Dan Singleton, For the Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, April 19, 2007

An 18-year-old man charged in a dog abuse case in Didsbury will be sentenced next month after he pleaded guilty Wednesday to one of the two charges against him.

The Didsbury man, who was 17 at the time of the offence and therefore cannot be named, pleaded guilty in Didsbury provincial youth court to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

Police discovered an injured female collie-Lab cross named Daisy Duke lying severely injured on a Didsbury street on Oct. 8.

The dog had its legs bound with duct tape, a plastic bag over its head and a tow rope tied around its neck. Its back, pelvis and neck had been broken.

The attending veterinarian put the dog down.

At the request of Crown prosecutor Richelle Freiheit, Judge Peter Barley ordered pre-sentence, psychiatric and psychological reports prepared on the accused.

Freiheit told the judge the prosecution will be seeking a non-custodial sentence for the man.

"If the gateway to custody had been open, the Crown would have been seeking incarceration," she said.

Following court, Freiheit said she may be asking the judge to impose a so-called intensive support and supervision order for two years.

"That is essentially a ramped-up probation order. A lot of that will depend on what the reports say," she said.

Except to enter his plea, the man did not speak during Wednesday's court session.

The man will be sentenced on May 10. A second charge of injuring or endangering an animal against him will be spoken to on that day.

A second person, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, also of Didsbury, faces charges of injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal in the same case.

Haskett has pleaded not guilty to the charges and goes to trial in Didsbury provincial court on May 23.

Didsbury is 75 kilometres north of Calgary.

Note that he said the man spoke to enter his plea? Funny; I was there, and I never heard him say a word. And I don't recall seeing Dan Singleton there either. :P Does that make me a better reporter than him?

Anyhow... despite the crappy weather, and the wealth of confusing and frustrating family issues I'm dealing with right now, and having a cat recently diagnosed with anxiety and urinary crystals, I'm still fighting for Daisy Duke. She may never see justice, but I'm going to continue to believe that her death was NOT for nothing.

We love you, Daisy Duke!!! :lovestruck: :lovestruck: :dog: :dog:
Hope the weather is nicer over the bridge!

More updates in May (and I'm very glad that Canoe picked it up as well, I'm sure in the next few days it'll come back up in the news in a few places, but not in the majority of places until the trial starts for Daniel).


April 19th, 2007, 07:52 PM
dogmelissa, at least this trial looks like it's being very publicised. And this is good. We (in Quebec) barely hear about what happens to these people, they do talk about it, when it happens, but you never hear what happens after, probably because nothing actually happens to these *&?%*& people.

April 20th, 2007, 06:48 AM
I believe the non-sentencing of people torturing animals is often reduced to a small by-line in the media,is due to the fact,often by the time it goes to trial most people have forgotten and don't really care anymore:sad:
As with Kensington the cat,Daisy-Duke will never be forgotten in my heart.
To me anybody who tortures and kills any living beeing,is CRAZY but not mentally ill,no medication or treatment will make an evil person care.
I don't think evil is anything that can be cured,but a jailsentence might make them think twice before hurting any other animal or human.

May 11th, 2007, 09:48 PM
for your information....i live in the town, didsbury where this happened...i was there and i saw it. if any of you have ever been to a small town in alberta, its plain and simple. Court dates for either hasket or the minor: students at the local high school are not allowed to leave for lunch hour. Haskett just recieved 3 months house arrest and 2 years probation for this act. But if he ever does decide to leave his house...someone in our town will probably shoot him

May 12th, 2007, 02:21 AM
Shooting to kill would be too kind, I'd knee cap him so he'd be in pain for the rest of his days. I hope he is shunned. Another advantage of small towns: everybody knows.

May 12th, 2007, 07:07 AM
UpInThisTown,Yes,I've been to small-town Alberta,Pincher Creek,not too far from Calgary.
Everybody knows everything about everybody:laughing:
I also noticed many dogs were working animals and when no longer useful,the mode of euthanasia(sp?),was shooting,a totally different feel for dogs,unlike many petowners.
I am glad that the people of Didsbury will not let Daisy Dukes horrible death be forgotten,hopefully people will keep an eye on these monsters so that no animal will suffer this way again:fingerscr
Thank's for posting!

May 12th, 2007, 11:17 PM
people in small towns arent exactly that cruel to their dogs, cause most of the time they are farmers best friend. But they will go out and shoot cows, turkeys and gophers along with other farm animals. I am yet to hear of a care where a dog has been shot when no longer usefull. Talk is a big thing, not their actions.

(edited by Marko ADMIN - This is a passionate thread but please tone down the "we will kill you" and "don't mess with us" vengence talk as it can taken the wrong way. - Thanks in advance)

May 15th, 2007, 12:08 AM
Ok, sorry for the delay in posting this. I was there, and took notes on the whole thing, but I had a crazy busy weekend, just started a new job today, and have been dealing with other things, so I'm just getting here now.

First, in response to "UpInThisTown".. I appreciate your passion, but I'm afraid I don't believe your "i was there and i saw it" statement. If you are referring to the abuse, then you are either just as sick as both these boys are (despite the psychiatric assessment), or you're lying about being there. If you were there, watching the abuse and didn't call for help, you're just as guilty as the ones who did it. That's all I have to say about that.

Now, to the trial. In order to keep this post from spilling onto multiple screens, and to try to keep keyboards dry (from crying eyes), I'm going to only post a few things, a combination of my notes and articles.

Apologies if these all seem like repeats; the media that was there were all hearing the same things, and will just report it in slightly different words.

The Calgary Herald/

Didsbury teenager gets probation for dog abuse
Dan Singleton, Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, May 10, 2007
DIDSBURY -- An 18-year-old man charged in a horrific case of animal abuse in the town of Didsbury has been given two years probation, ordered to complete 240 hours community service, placed under house arrest for three months, and ordered to stay away from animals.
The man, who was 17 at the time of the offence and therefore cannot be named, pleaded guilty on April 18 to a charge of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.
He was sentenced before Judge Peter Barley on Thursday.
A Lab-collie cross named Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street on Oct. 7.
The animal was put down at the scene.
Reading from an agreed statement of facts, Crown prosecutor Richelle Freiheit told Barley that the accused ran over the 25-kilogram dog after visiting the dog's owner's home late on the night in question.
Finding the dog under his vehicle "conscious, whimpering and cowering" the accused got a 10-foot tow rope from the garage and tied it around the animal's neck.
The accused then dragged the animal into the garage where he decided to kill it by asphyxiation.
"He decided to kill the dog because he didn't want to lose his driver's licence," said Freiheit.
She said the accused then duct taped the animal's legs and mouth, before placing a plastic garbage bag over its head.
The accused then struck the animal on the head with a shovel, before dragging it a short distance down the back alley by the tow rope.
The accused then attached the rope to the bumper of his car and dragged the animal a few blocks before running over it a second time.
He then fled the scene, leaving the dog to be found by a passerby who called a veterinarian.
The vet recorded numerous injuries on the still living dog, including a fractured skull, pelvis, vertebrae, lumbar spine, a prolapsed right eye, profuse bleeding and choking on blood in the mouth.
Police followed a blood trail back to the residence where they found the accused with the dog's blood on his shoes.
Freiheit said the animal was "repeatedly and systematically attacked" by the accused.
"He was worried about getting in trouble with his friend's mother (the dog's owner) and with losing his licence," she said.
"What (the accused) did was anything but humane. This animal suffered as no living animal should ever have to.
"He committed an act that is beyond the comprehension of most people in the country."
Defence lawyer Brian Forestell called the killing an isolated incident by an individual with no criminal history.
"The steps he took were wrong. He should have contacted a vet," said Forestell.
The accused thought the dog was dead when he dragged it down the alley, he said.
In passing sentence, Judge Barley said, "The suffering of Daisy is unimaginable. He (accused) could have recognized her spirit."
The accused, dressed in blue jeans and a collared shirt, did not speak during the proceedings.
About half a dozen animal activists from Calgary and Edmonton attended the court appearance.
A second individual charged in the case, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, faces a charge of injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. He goes to trial in Didsbury May 23.
Didsbury is 75 kilometres north of Calgary.

House arrest in Didsbury animal cruelty case
Last Updated: Thursday, May 10, 2007
The Canadian Press
A central Alberta man who pleaded guilty in a horrific case of animal abuse involving a pet dog has been sentenced to three months of house arrest followed by two years of probation.
The young man from Didsbury, Alta., was less than three weeks away from his 18th birthday when he became involved in what his defence lawyer told court was a "poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt."
Court heard the accused accidentally backed over a lab-border collie cross belonging to his best friend's mother. The teen helped try to kill the dog, named Daisy Duke, by taping a plastic bag over its head, dragging it behind a car and hitting it over the head with a shovel.
The dog was found still alive in the middle of an intersection, but had to be put down by a veterinarian.
The young man will also have to abide by a curfew for nine months after his house arrest is up and do 240 hours of community service.
Another male accused, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial May 23.

The Calgary Sun:

Pet lovers outraged
UPDATED: 2007-05-11 01:48:46 MST

Probation for animal torture called lenient

DIDSBURY -- Animal rights activists expressed their outrage yesterday over the probationary sentence handed to a young Didsbury man who clubbed a dog and then dragged it behind a car.
The man, who was 17 at the time of the Oct. 8, 2006 offence -- and who can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) -- was given two years probation, three months' house arrest and ordered to perform 240 hours of community service.
He pleaded guilty to a charge of animal cruelty in striking Lab-border collie cross Daisy Duke with a shovel, trying to asphyxiate it with a plastic bag then dragging the pet behind a car in the town, 60 km north of Calgary.
The gravely injured Daisy Duke was then found in the middle of a street by a passerby and euthanized by a veterinarian.
Calgary dog owner Heather Anderson, who showed up to protest what she calls lenient sentences given animal abusers, said the sentence and comments given by provincial court Judge Peter Barley were unacceptable.
"I'm just sick about it because the judge made it sound like an accident," said Anderson.
"How is this town going to forgive that dog killing? I hope they don't because he'll do it again."
Earlier, Barley concluded the accused inadvertently ran over the dog at his friend Daniel Haskett's home and then crudely attempted to dispose of the dog to hide the original accident.
"It can't be said the young person dragged Daisy behind the vehicle to torture her but that, of course, doesn't justify the callousness of his actions," he said.
Barley said it's possible the man believed the dog was already dead before they tied her to a tow rope.
But Crown Prosecutor Richelle Freiheit argued "there was an intentional infliction of pain in which there is no lawful or reasonable excuse," noting the YCJA rules out a jail sentence.
"If custody were a legal option, the Crown would seek it ... I could not find one case in Alberta close to matching this."
She'd argued for a more stringent two-year probation.
Defence lawyer Brian Forestell accused the press of blowing the case out of proportion and that his client was guilty only of a clumsy mercy killing.
"It was a poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt," he said.
The accused's friend, Daniel Haskett, 19, has pleaded not guilty in the case.
Haskett is expected to go on trial May 23.

From Q107 News (a local radio station)

Alberta man gets house arrest for inflicting 'unimaginable suffering' on dog
at 20:48 on May 10, 2007, EST.
DIDSBURY, Alta. (CP) - Outrage quickly followed an Alberta teenager's sentence of three months house arrest and two years probation Thursday for his "extreme callousness" on a pet dog that was run over, beaten, dragged and left to die.
Provincial court Judge Peter Barley said he accepted the teen's explanation that he accidentally backed over Daisy Duke, a Lab-border collie cross belonging to a friend's mother, last October. But then he panicked and tried to avoid responsibility.
"It's not the case of a deliberate torture of an animal," Barley said while sentencing the teen in the central Alberta farming community of Didsbury.
"It was a case of stupidity ... in the extreme."
A small group of animal rights activists who had travelled from across Alberta for the sentencing were furious at the result.
"I'm appalled that they would actually believe that these kids hit this dog unintentionally and then didn't get it medical treatment," said Calgarian Heather Anderson.
And in Ottawa, Liberal MP Mark Holland, who's put forward a private members' bill to modernize Canada's animal cruelty laws for the first time in a century, said it was disappointing.
"That doesn't sound like much of a sentence for such a horrendous crime."
In an agreed statement of facts in the case, the teen - who was just weeks away from his 18th birthday at the time of the crime and therefore can't be named - admitted that he was afraid of losing his drivers' licence because he had backed up and hit Daisy.
The statement said he and the friend then decided that to avoid getting caught, they would kill Daisy and pretend she had run away.
He said they taped a plastic bag over the dog's head to asphyxiate it and when that didn't work, they duct-taped the dog's muzzle and legs, the statement said.
When that didn't kill the dog, the teen said he hit it over the head with a shovel.
Trying to take the dog out of town, the teen tied dragged it three blocks behind a car before running over it again and snapping the tow-rope.
The animal was later found still alive in the middle of an intersection and had to be destroyed by a veterinarian.
Defence lawyer Brian Forestell told court it was a "poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt."
The youth "realized that the most important thing was to put this dog out of its misery," said Forestell.
"His steps were wrong and he realizes this," adding that his client did plead guilty to the crime of animal cruelty.
Crown lawyer Richelle Freiheit argued that it was a premeditated case of "horrific gratuitous violence."
"This is not a one-punch, thin-skulled situation," Freiheit told court. "These boys discussed it and deliberated on how to get away with it."
Outside of court. Freiheit said she had not seen any similar animal abuse cases, and said it had provoked an unprecedented amount of community outrage.
"We've had a number of e-mails and a number of letters that were sent in, more than any murder case I've ever seen. I think it's an interesting comment."
An adult convicted of animal cruelty under the Criminal Code can face a maximum sentence of six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine.
Asked if she thought Thursday's conditional sentence was fair, Freiheit said: "Well, he's not going to jail."
Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, is also charged in the case. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. The charges have yet to be proven in court. His trial is set to start on May 23.
In delivering his sentence, the judge ruled the youth thought the dog was already dead when he dragged it. But that did not excuse the "extreme callousness" of his act.
"The suffering of Daisy is unimaginable, but it must be noted that the Crown cannot prove if the young person knew she was dead," Barley said.
The man, who lives with his parents in Didsbury, can't be identified under provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. He will have to abide by a curfew for nine months after his house arrest is up and also do 240 hours of community service.
The case triggered a national petition with more than 110,000 signatures calling for stronger federal legislation against animal abuse.
Earlier this year, the Conservative government said it would support a bill introduced by Liberal Senator John Bryden, known as Bill S-213, which would raise the maximum jail term to five years and the maximum fine to $10,000.
However, many animal rights groups support Holland's private member's bill that he says would give the judiciary "the tools they need to get convictions." Currently he says only one quarter of one per cent of all animal rights cases end in a conviction.
Holland says the Bryden bill would only be used as an excuse by the ruling Tories for not doing anything more to stop animal abuse.

There's tons more stories if you search.. and even a forum where someone posted his name (which is ILLEGAL and though I agree that 18 days should not protect him, I will not argue with the law).

(Continued next post; too long)

May 15th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Part 2.

First thing of note; he was again wearing one of those short-sleeved "big & tall" dress shirts. Black jeans this time, and again, running shoes. His mother was wearing a hawaiian shirt, his father a suit. He sat right in front of me at the beginning, before he was called to sit beside his lawyer, and I wanted to crawl out of my skin. I couldn't get far enough away in my chair, and felt really creeped out.

Points from the "trial" (it was actually just sentencing):
-Crown contrasted his behaviour with the behaviour of the woman & man who found Daisy Duke at the side of the road:
Everything T did increased her suffering. He caused her more pain by dragging her up the driveway by a towrope around her neck (the driveway is gravelled, not paved). He taped her legs & muzzle shut, and put a bag over her head. He hit her with a shovel. Then he dragged her down a gravel alley by hand, and then further with his car, and then dragged her across paved streets until he finally ran over her again.
The lady that found Daisy Duke... she called the police and her boyfriend (male companion?) called the veterinarian. As they waited for help, she took the bag off Daisy's head, took off her own jacket (it was about +4 degrees C that night, so not overly warm), placed it over the dog to try to keep her warm and cradled the dog as best she could to try to comfort her.
The Crown said that the behaviour of the lady was what any "reasonably compassionate" human should do if faced with an injured animal.
She defined "euthanasia"--the big thing that the defense was saying they were trying to do to Daisy--as a humane way to end suffering; and yet everything they did INCREASED her suffering.

I know many of you feel that the punishment did not fit the crime, and I agree, but she was very good about going through all the ways that it could have been moved into "adult" court, and how absolutely nothing she could find would allow that to happen. As it was, the terms she was seeking for punishment were the maximums set out by the Youth Justice Act (or whatever it's called), including:
- 2 years probation
- Prohibition on owning or living with an animal for the duration of probation (she literally said if there is a family pet "sorry for the inconvienence" but that pet must go)
- 240 hours of community service (she suggested something like a Humane Society but expressed concern that no organization like that would accept him)
- counselling/treatment to include "Moral Reasoning Programming" which is a guided form of group or individual therapy which helps a person to have compassion and empathy for others
- suggested curfew as follows: First 3 months 24 hr curfew (house arrest), exceptions work/school, community service, professional appointments, 1 hr grocery shopping each week and travel time to all of the above. 3-9 months, 8pm curfew with the same exceptions 9-18 months, 11 pm curfew with same exceptions, and 18-24 months, no curfew.

The scariest thing for me was the details in the pre-sentencing report & psychiatric report; it showed that T has a supportive family, good social bonds (as in, he's not a recluse), that he has never been in trouble (school, law, at home), and has been making efforts to better himself. They showed no sign of any mental illness, nor was he intoxicated or under the influence of any drugs at the time of the "incident". He was in a clear, normal mental state. There does not appear to be any explanation for his behaviour.
The defense in talking about these reports had a few things to say: the reports showed that T did not have an understanding of what his behaviour did to his family--his parents disagreed with that. And also the defense stressed that T did not want to have this "incident" change him, that he wanted to return to his normal life and "put it behind him".
Anyone else find this frightening?

His excuse for panicking and trying to "euthanize" the dog? He didn't want to lose his license for hitting her. I still can't figure out how pulling away from a curb and hitting a dog can cause the dog so much injury that it can't walk on it's own and has severe head injuries (the statement of facts didn't say, or it was omitted about whether or not the eye prolapse--bugging out--was there after she was hit the first time, but the defense said that this was the case)... nor can I figure out how a kid who has only been licensed a little more than a year wouldn't know that hitting a dog accidentally (or even a human for that matter!!) is usually not cause for losing your license. I keep wondering to myself what would he do if he hit a pedestrian? A child? What if a child darted out into the road in front of his car? You can't expect a person to be able to stop every time... kids get hit, dogs get hit, all sorts of things get hit... they're called accidents! But if you run over a person, and drive away (or worse, run over them a couple more times to make sure they're dead), THEN you will lose your license. Stay, be there when the cops come, tell them it was an accident, that the person (dog) jumped out in front of you, and show that you actually CARE, and you *might* get a fine, worst case scenario. And it's sad, but in the eyes of the law, Daisy is "just a dog"... and until the laws take them out of the property category, no dog getting hit would be grounds for having a license suspended. Grrr.

I really can't say anything bad about the Crown Prosecuter. She really did everything she could, and fought for the toughest sentence the law would allow her to go for. She read through the statement of facts with compassion, with feeling... and when there was a sob from the people there (not me, though I was openly crying most of the day), she paused and waited for that person to compose themselves before continuing.

The defense lawyer... well, as a person, I think he's a nice guy. As a lawyer, he is only doing his job.
One thing he said twisted my guts into a total knot... these boys were sure the dog would die even if they called for help, and they didn't want to get into trouble. He said the eye was prolapsed after Daisy was run over the first time, and that she was "surely going to be put under" . The italicized words made me just feel sick... especially when I think about my little dog. He was kicked in the head. His eye was bugging out... he may have had a fractured skull (was never x-rayed)... no he didn't have any broken bones, his neck wasn't broken, his back wasn't broken, nor was his pelvis... but his eye was removed and he's ALIVE! I have personally seen dogs get hit by semi trucks going a good speed and get up and run away! I've seen dogs with pelvises so smashed the vets couldn't tell where the bones came from--they survived. I've seen dogs with broken backs... they just get a little wheelchair and they survive. Maybe it's not the best quality of life, but it's probably better than being dead. So her eye was bugging out, does that automatically mean she's dead? If that was going to kill her, she would have been dead long before the veterinarian showed up to end her suffering.

The defense said that T didn't cooperate with the RCMP the date of the incident because he was resentful of the way they treated him... isn't this something that should be taken seriously? As a citizen, we have a responsibility to cooperate with the police, or they have the right to pretty much do whatever they want... he lies to the police and nothing happens? Because he confessed later???

The Judge's Sentence; in explaining his reasons, the Judge said the following:
he was more worried about his clothing than the life of a dog (this is why he dragged her up the driveway rather than carrying her). That he didn't believe it was deliberate torture, but rather a tragic accident followed by stupidity. That it was callousness and lack of empathy for another living being which brought him to this situation.
He said that he hoped that this incident would at the very least teach T that when you make a mistake, owning up to it rather than trying to hide it may get you in trouble, but it's nothing compared to what having the hiding discovered will result in.
The judge ordered a 2 year probation period. He said, as with all probation sentences, you are expected to have good behaviour, to appear in court when requested and appear when directed by the probation officer ("if they want to see you every day, you will go!"). T will reside with his parents, if they will allow him to, and provide him with the care and supervision that he needs. If the parents will not allow him to, he will reside where directed by the PO. He will maintain full time work or school. He will go for assessments, counselling, treatment as directed, when directed and to whom he is directed to by the PO. He will be "enrolled" in the Moral Reasoning Program, run on an out-patient basis, and he will provide proof of this treatment as a term of his probation.
T is required to complete 240 hours of community service. The judge originally said to be done no later than April 10, 2008 (11 months). When the defense complained that this is 3 full days a month and it would be very difficult to set up something quickly enough to get it done on time, the judge extended the date to the maximum allowed time, 12 months, so to be completed by May 10, 2008. He also recommended that the PO try to find an organization working with animals to teach him that animals have feelings and can feel pain, as well as to teach him that part of being a human is that we have a responsibility to treat animals with respect and compassion and not inflict pain and suffering on them. He did not suggest where this might happen, or with what organization, nor if it was even possible, but recommended the PO could try. (My personal opinion is that any Humane Society or shelter could probably work something out, if he was under constant supervision. I would never trust this guy alone around animals, but they have lots of mentally handicapped people around animals, constantly supervised, so maybe they could do the same for T.)
The judge imposed a curfew as follows: for the first 3 months, 24 hr curfew/house arrest (same exceptions as Crown laid out), with an additional 2 hours allowed out with his parents on either Saturday or Sunday, depending on his work/school schedule. For the next 9 months, he will have a 9pm-6am curfew (same exceptions), and after 1 year, no curfew will be imposed.
The judge said that he is NOT to have ownership or care of any animal of any kind for the duration of his probation. However, he did not make this a "condition" of the probation, so that it would not be the responsibility of the PO to enforce this rule. But if the PO did find out about it, he would be considered in breach of his probation, and would face severe punishments.

When the judge asked him to stand, and addressed him, asking "do you understand the terms of your sentence?", T replied "yuh" (hard to type that... but basically, it was more of a yup than a yes, and showed no respect for the judge's position). He also reminded him that breaching the terms of his probation would result in reprimands which could exceed those of the original sentence. Suggested he be on his best behaviour and do as he was told.

Anyhow... that's about all I have for that. Daniel is in court on May 23, and I do not believe (though I could be wrong) that he was sent for any pre-trial reports or psychiatric assessments. He does, however, have a previous record, stemming from his assault charges & failure to show in court. I don't know if there are things prior to that, but those have got to work against his plea for freedom.

As soon as I can dry my eyes and compose myself (and after the articles hit the 'net), I will post the results of Daniel's trial. If it is going to go more than a day, I will update after the first day with the next date and what happened so far.

Thanks all for your continued support in this case... but as the judge said, though there was obviously a breach in the law, for which T is being punished, there are some who have the opinion that the punishment is not enough. He said that he hoped that no one would take the matter into their own hands and further breach the law; he wished for those who were against his opinion to at least respect his power of authority and accept his judgement.

Thanks again, folks, and sorry for the length of this.

May 15th, 2007, 06:58 AM
Melissa,I did not read the description of what Daisy Duke suffered,I know it would make me ill again:sad:
For the judge to say this horror was not intentional and the following sentence says it all,no regard for the suffering of an animal in our courts:evil:
There will be many more Daisy Dukes,whatever a sick,twisted mind can think of to inflict on an innocent animal,be it for kicks or sadistic pleasure,will always go unpunished.

As for UpInThisTown,I did not understand he/she witness this,I know,if I had,these two"innocent,not knowing they did something wrong"monsters,would have felt my fury!!
I am hoping there is something like the Rainbow Bridge and that Daisy Duke can forgive the injustice done to her,by not punishing the evil-doers.
Thank's Melissa,good luck in your new job!!

May 25th, 2007, 09:02 AM

Any news on how the trial is going for Dan Haskett?

May 25th, 2007, 03:34 PM
It's strange,as I was putting away the dishes,I too was thinking of Melissa and if she had any news:confused:
Unfortunately,we all know,there will be no jail-term for these two monsters:yell:

June 7th, 2007, 12:42 PM
omg... I can't believe I forgot to update!!!!!! I'm SO sorry!!!!!!

Ok, here's what happened, briefly (I promise I'll post more later).
Daniel Haskett changed his plea to guilty (on both animal cruelty charges & failure to comply with police), and they read the same statement of facts (almost word for word) into the record. It was horrible to hear it again. Tamara Chaney (the lady who started the petition) was in attendance, and had not heard this before, and she was sobbing. The rest of us who had heard it before were crying but it wasn't as shocking to hear it again (still hard, but not as shocking).

The long and short of it is that he is also going to be sent for psychiatric evaluation and a pre-sentence report, and due to lawyer vacations, will not be back in court until August 1 to face sentencing.

His brother was there (older? younger? the one who owned Daisy Duke??) and the same group of protesters from Edmonton were there (someone had made a "display" of a black stuffed animal dog with duct tape around it's feet & muzzle and a rope around it's neck and covered it in red paint and it was truly horrible; completely over the line, IMO), media was all over it and there's lots of stuff on the 'net about it (I'll link some articles tonight).

Daniel was also in court on his un-related assault charges, but he did not have a lawyer on that matter. They weren't sure if he would be eligible for "legal aid" so pushed those off until June 18 to give him time to find a lawyer for those charges. I will also be at that court date, as I think it'll make a difference if he gets a conviction for that charge before the sentencing for animal cruelty, then it might change his sentence. I don't know if they'll have decided by then or if the judge who sentences him will see that and looks at the date of it will even take it into consideration, but I still want to go.

Again, I am terribly sorry that I didn't update sooner... things have been chaotic in my life the last few weeks. I will get online tonight and link some more articles as well as add more of my notes.

The good news is that he's an adult, and he plead guilty, so he *will* almost certainly get jail time. The question is whether or not they will give him the maximum (6 months) or not, and even if they do, he'll likely serve no more than 3 months of it. But at least that's something worse than probation.

More later (and HUGE apologies again!),

June 7th, 2007, 01:47 PM
Thank you Dogmelissa.

In Ontario, my MPP tried to amend the penalty for cruelty to animals (harsher punishments), but the bill did not make it through legislation prior to summer break:sad:.

June 7th, 2007, 03:37 PM
Oh please Melissa don't apologize,you are the only source we have for info and i am greatful for whenever you have the time to update us.
I am glad people from Edmonton still care,even though it might have been a gory display,but so was Daisy-Dukes last hours:sad:
I hope at least on of those monsters will go to jail:fingerscr
Looking forward to your links,thank's again,Melissa!

July 6th, 2007, 01:02 AM
I'm amazed to discover how oblivious I am, as compared to people who don't live in Didsbury. I was greatly shocked when I heard about what happened to Daisy Duke, along with the rest of the folks who live here. It impacted our town in a bad way, and we're still trying to recover from it.

I didn't know Charles Haskett personally, but I attend(ed) school with his younger brother. From what the teachers at DHS have told us, I have found out that Charles was a very demented young man. He once nearly assaulted the Language Arts teacher, in front of some students in my grade (this was in 2005, when he was still in school). After the incident, his family did show how the were affected, but not Charles. I work at the AG Foods grocery store, so I hear a lot of gossip, and see a lot of people. A while ago, Charles came in, smiling and laughing with his friends. He is actually good friends with some of the stock boys I work with. I was shocked at how he could be at ease when he had done such a thing.
Haskett has some serious problems. He is a sick individual, who should be on medication, and should be punished moreso for what he has done. I just hope that you all don't judge the other people of Didsbury for one sick kid...

July 6th, 2007, 06:46 AM
Thank your for your comments DA, I would never judge a whole town based upon a couple of individuals. I used to live in Alberta (St Albert) and I know Albertans love their dogs.

July 6th, 2007, 06:51 AM
Adrian,there are crazies everywhere,capable of doing horrific deeds,so of course we don't judge Didsbury.
It's unfortunate Disbury was put on the map because of Daisy-Dukes suffering:sad:
Thank's for taking the time to post.:)

July 6th, 2007, 08:38 AM
I just need to voice how sick to my stomach I am over this awful story. The tears that are pouring down my face, while I'm at work, cannot express my despair and heartache for Daisy. These two monsters need to rot in hell with gasoline shorts on. :evil:
:rip: Sweet Daisy:candle: (My heart bleeds for you)

July 6th, 2007, 07:27 PM
Thank you for the quick reply, and, for understanding. People in small towns - especially farming towns- are often misunderstood. Thank you - because you're right; sick people live everywhere, just as good people do.

I would also like to point out some flaws in one of UpInThisTown's posts (I don't mean to sound rude, I just want to post the truth). It is true that many people are angry with what the two boys did, and that one received a death threat, but I have seen one of the boys at least three times this week, and people treat him with indifference (I don't believe they actually really recognize him). They wouldn't harm the boys physically; Didsbury people are so sweet, I think the extent they would go to is verbal harm.
And, for your comment on the high school students lunch hours; we are free to do whatever we want at lunch. I and my friends travel to Grandma's Bakery every Wednesday at lunch (while school is in), without violating any school rules. If you were a student, or even lived here, wouldn't you have known?
I don't mean to be offensive.

August 27th, 2007, 12:42 PM
Geez... I know that things are way too busy and crazy when I'm like 3.5 weeks late posting updates on this.

Ok, so August 1st... the long and the short of it is that Daniel failed to show up at the doctor's appointment and so when he did finally get there, there wasn't enough time to prepare the reports before the sentencing. He claimed "job interviews" for missing his appointment, but when asked, said he's unemployed.
The judge (same one has seen the case once before and got mad at them for delaying it) imposed a $1000 bond (fine) for essentially delaying the court's time and requested to be the judge when it returns to court. As a result, the next available date for all parties is October 17.

It was annoying and frustrating to sit there and listen to him being allowed to walk away again. It's going to be over a year from the day Daisy Duke died by the time they decide if the only adult that was involved will actually be punished for what he did. That part makes me feel quite sick.

Ok, sorry again for the delay in posting. Here is an article talking about it:

Judge lectures dog abuser
Daryl Slade, Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, August 02, 2007

The leash has been shortened on a Didsbury man who pleaded guilty to animal cruelty in May, then failed to show up for an appointment with a psychologist, which had been ordered for Wednesday's sentencing hearing.

Provincial court Judge Ian Kirkpatrick lectured Daniel Charles Hassett, ordered a $1,000 bond as part of his tightened bail conditions and threatened to put him in jail pending his next sentencing hearing on Oct. 17, if he does not comply.

"He missed one appointment with a psychologist and went to another psychologist," said defence lawyer Mark Takada.

"Then, he didn't go to an appointment with probation and went to a job interview instead."

Hassett, 19, admitted to being involved in cruelty to a Labrador-border collie cross dog, Daisy Duke, which had to be euthanized because of her injuries and suffering caused by being dragged with a bag over her head behind a vehicle last October.

A youth was given probation after pleading guilty last spring to a similar charge in connection with the same incident.

When it goes back to court, I'll be married. So I won't have as many things going on and will be able to update right away.

Thanks again folks for following along and for sending your love and support along with me when I go to Didsbury.


August 27th, 2007, 01:11 PM
Thanks for the update!!

Can't believe this person can be so irresponsible and the court just lets him walk away and puts up with his excuses. He is probably laughing everytime he leaves court.:mad:

Jim Hall
August 27th, 2007, 02:51 PM
Justice is slow but will prevail >

August 27th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Thank you Dogmelissa,even if it was not the news I wanted to hear,thank you for keping us updated.
I have no doubt this young man will get away with this scotfree,no jailtime,I can only hope Daisy-Duke,wherever she is,know how many people cared and cried for her suffering:sad:

October 18th, 2007, 05:41 PM
*sigh* I was hoping that this would have been the last update on this case, but alas, that is not to be.

I showed up at the Didsbury Court house yesterday at 9:45am. There were the same group of protesters from Edmonton who have showed up at the "big" dates, and the same media that has been there every time, wonderful, dependable Ruby, and myself.

Thankfully, the docket was not full, so we were treated to getting to Daniel's case quite quickly. It turns out that Daniel has 2 younger brothers (we had thought originally he only had one younger one), and they were both there, and though I don't know for sure, I heard someone say his mom was there, too.
And for the first time EVER, Daniel was actually wearing nice pants, a dress shirt and a TIE!! It was quite shocking to see him actually showing some respect for the court.

So then the lawyer, Takada, gets up. And he says basically "judge, I want your permission to step off this case"... apparently the story that Daniel told the psychologist in his pre-sentence appointment (the one that took him like a month to get to) was significantly different than the agreed statement of facts, which he had signed in August (and the lawyer had signed). And it being different means that if the lawyer continues, he is either saying that he lied to the court with the first statement of facts, or that he is lying to the court now, which he obviously isn't going to do. So, the judge gave him permission to step down.

Then they set a new date for Daniel to have a new lawyer and find out how to proceed--either the new lawyer will decide he has to stand by what he signed on the statement of facts, or they will have to do an investigative trial with witnesses, and evidence and the whole thing, so the judge can figure out which version of the story is the truth. Realistically, it probably won't make any difference, but if it does go to a "trial", having the discrepancy will probably influence the judge's decision for sentence--as he has already plead guilty. There's a chance that even this discrepancy, even if the new lawyer forces Daniel to be bound by it (I'm sure he told the doctor he wasn't as involved as he had previously said he was), may influence the judge's decision somewhat.

The other thing that happened was that the crown (and another lawyer who was there, I have no idea who he was or where he came from) agreed to a new set of release conditions; Daniel can have NO contact, direct or indirect, with T. (no email, phone, letters, no "messengers" relaying conversations), and he is now allowed to check in with the PO officer by phone, rather than in person. He must abide by these rules until the case is settled. Sounds nice, but who is going to stop him from calling or emailing or text messaging... he can't be watched 24/7!! Nice idea, but quite lame. I'm sure that all the things he changed were to put blame on T for more things, since he has already been sentenced & was a youth at the time, so he can't get in any further trouble--Daniel is facing jail time.

So... I'm sorry to report that I have no final update on this. He is back in court Monday November 5th--with a new lawyer if there is any justice in the world, and then a further date will be set after that. *sigh*

I also just found out that the Calgary Humane Society sends cats & dogs (mostly dogs) out to the youth penitentiary in what is called a Paws for Hope program--the kids in jail work with the animals and train them and it teaches them compassion and responsibility. It also helps the animals learn things that makes them more adoptable for when they get back.
Not that I think Daniel should be lucky enough to get into this program, but it's nice to see that the animals that need help are actually helping others, too. :)

A couple of links:

Lawyer In Didsbury Dog Case Quits, Delaying Sentencing
Oct, 17 2007 - 11:30 AM

CALGARY/AM770CHQR - Sentencing has been put off again for an Alberta man who admitted to fatally torturing his mother's dog.
Daniel Charles Haskett of Didsbury pleaded guilty last spring to animal cruelty and obstruction of justice for initially lying to police about his role in the death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross.
He was due to be sentenced in August, but that was put off due to incomplete psychological and pre-sentencing reports.
Now, it's been delayed again - this time to November 5th -- because his lawyer abruptly quit Wednesday over a discrepancy between facts giving in court and a statement made to a doctor.
(please note the picture here is one from last fall, not the most recent court date)

Sentencing in dog torture case delayed again
By James Stevenson, THE CANADIAN PRESS

The sentencing of the 20-yera old Didsbury man in an horrific animal abuse case came to an abrupt halt Wednesday when the man's lawyer withdrew from the case, saying his client had changed his story. (JIM WELLS/SUN MEDIA)

(Picture caption: Daniel Charles Haskett, 20, of Didsbury pleaded guilty last spring to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice for initially lying to police about his role in the death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross.)

DIDSBURY, Alta. - Sentencing for an Alberta man who admitted to torturing his mother's dog has been delayed again after his lawyer quit abruptly Wednesday over ethical and professional concerns.

He originally was to be sentenced in August, but that was delayed due to incomplete psychological tests and pre-sentencing reports.

His lawyer, Mark Takada, told provincial court Wednesday that Haskett's version of events to a psychologist "differed significantly" from the agreed statement of facts he signed back in May.

As a result, Takada withdrew from the case. He said outside the courthouse that he feared he may have been "a party to misleading the court" as to what happened.

"I've either misled the court unwittingly by signing the agreed statement of facts or I'd be misleading the court by saying that what he told (the psychologist) was correct. So that's the problem it puts me in," said Takada.

"Mr. Haskett's never said he's not guilty. It's just the facts around his involvement in the case that are contentious at this point."

Takada would not say specifically how Haskett's version of events changed in the psychologist's report.

But he said if more blame was being put upon Haskett's 17-year-old friend and accomplice, who also pleaded guilty to one count of animal cruelty, "that would make a big difference in what the sentence would be."

The 17-year-old was sentenced in May to three months of house arrest, two years of probation and 240 hours of community service.

An adult convicted of animal cruelty under the Criminal Code faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. Takada said he was planning to ask for a conditional sentence for Haskett - basically house arrest - before he read the psychologist's report.

Haskett has until Nov. 5 to find a new lawyer and decide how to proceed.

Crown prosecutor Gord Haight said Haskett and his lawyer might apply to change his plea back to not guilty or change the facts that he had earlier agreed to. But he plans to fight it.

"My position is the accused ought to be sentenced on the facts that he earlier admitted to," Haight said outside of court.

"The accused has admitted to the facts as alleged by the Crown in the agreed statement of facts. He wasn't unrepresented - he was represented by competent counsel at the time those facts were agreed and admitted to."

According to those agreed facts, the chain of events that led to Daisy Duke's death last October began when Haskett's friend accidentally drove over the dog after a visit to Haskett's home.

Fearing that he would lose his driver's licence and get in trouble with Haskett's mother, the teen and Haskett, 19 at the time, devised a plan to kill the dog and pretend that she had run away.

After various attempts to kill Daisy failed, the two decided to drag the dog out of town to dispose of the body.

Both confessed to not seeking help or checking to see if the dog was still alive.

The teen's attempt to drag Daisy out of town failed when he ran over the dog a second time and snapped the tow rope.

A couple who found Daisy, bound and barely alive in the middle of an intersection, called police. A veterinarian had to destroy the badly injured dog.

Didsbury resident Tamara Chaney collected more than 112,000 signatures from across Canada calling for Ottawa to strengthen federal legislation against animal abuse.

Chaney and other protesters from across Alberta once again travelled to Didsbury on Wednesday for Haskett's court appearance. And once again they left the court disappointed.

"I'm disgusted," said Chaney. "It just brings back all the anger that I had when this first happened."

I will return after November 5th with another update.


October 18th, 2007, 07:19 PM
One can only hope that the trial judge sees this ploy as an obvious mockery of the justice system and sentences this sociopath accordingly.

October 18th, 2007, 08:13 PM
OMG I can't believe how long this is taking ! :mad: I hope people don't forget ... thank you so much for the update !

October 19th, 2007, 10:58 AM
Thank you for keeping us updated! I can't believe what a mockery he is making of the justice system. Some people know how to play the game to their advantage. Wonder how different the two statement of facts are.

October 30th, 2007, 04:13 PM
Melissa,thank you for still keeping us updated,the case with Daisy-Duke is one of those horror-stories I will never forget and I am :pray:ing there will be some kind of justice for this poor girl.
Also thank you to all those people who are not giving up,including you..
I am hoping he will get jailtime,but I doubt it..
I have never met a person who has comitted such an unspeakable act,I know I would have a difficult time with it,how do you feel when you look at this monster?
The nice pants,dressshirt thing,is just to show the judge what a"good boy"he is,but I am sure the judge can still see what lies beneath the good clothes.

October 30th, 2007, 07:20 PM
Oh that poor dog!! I don't believe in capital punishment because of a variety of reasons but do think in this situation, the perpetrator should have the maximum thrown at him - and I wish it was more than the paltry jail time, if that even happens, that he would get now, sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! He should also be made - under supervision of course - to learn to care for dogs and pick up after them. House arrest would be a joke!!!!

If it is juvenile, maybe there could be more rehab done for him, not tgat hs is that younger than the 20 year old tho they are both on their way to hurting many animals and probably humans. You know all those studies indicating a strong correlation between animal abuse and psychopathic behaviour, incl murder - which is what this is of course.

There was a program at a women's prison near Louisiana that I heard about when I was helping out at the Baton Rouge , La St.Jude's after Hurricane Katrina. These women inmates each received a kitten or cat who lost a home or place in a shelter due to the storm and became responsible for his or her care. They all loved those cats so much that they socialized ferals, gave others a loving and caring place and it did wonders for the women as well.

Someone who does this kind of crime would never qualify for that kind of program though - he is already on his way to becoming a sociopath, sigh!

I'll say a prayer that dog finds his friends at the Bridge some day!

November 19th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Melissa,thank you for still keeping us updated,the case with Daisy-Duke is one of those horror-stories I will never forget and I am :pray:ing there will be some kind of justice for this poor girl.
Also thank you to all those people who are not giving up,including you..
I am hoping he will get jailtime,but I doubt it..
I have never met a person who has comitted such an unspeakable act,I know I would have a difficult time with it,how do you feel when you look at this monster?
The nice pants,dressshirt thing,is just to show the judge what a"good boy"he is,but I am sure the judge can still see what lies beneath the good clothes.

Chico & everyone else... you are all welcome. I know that many of you heard about this on your local news, and though the media here are following it, they aren't nearly as interested as most of you. Thankfully I have now started my own business, so I set my own hours, and I make *sure* that I have time for this. Hopefully it'll all be over soon and I won't have to do a round-trip 2 hour drive anymore; I know that Didsbury is no longer a place I can drive past/through without feeling anger, resentment, horror and a horrible amount of sadness, all because of a dog I never even met.

To answer your question chico, I have massive mixed feelings towards Daniel & T. The one day in court, when T. was sitting directly in front of me, I felt as if someone had placed a container of the creepiest-crawliest-nastiest slimy creatures you could find, and I simply could not get my chair far enough away. Unfortunately for me, I was *not* in the back row, but I could not move my chair, because the row behind me always contains RCMP officers, and they need access in case of an emergency. Now that T. isn't there, I'm better able to get a little more space in the court room, but it still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. It's really strange because a good portion of me has nothing but pure hatred for both of them; hatred, anger, frustration, rage, and an incredible desire to inflict pain upon them. But then this other part of me feels incredibly sorry for them both; that they obviously grew up in homes lacking in love to such an extent that they could not even understand the unconditional love in an animal's eyes. I feel incredibly sad that their parents could have abandoned them in such a way that they both seem to think that it's ok to harm another living creature. Don't get me wrong, if I met either of them all alone in the middle of nowhere, I would not be throwing my arms around them and telling them "it's ok, someone will love you" (I'd be beating the living crap out of them, and then hitting them some more!!), but I do feel very sorry for them because they don't understand love.

I've had animals in my home since I was 7, but before that I always managed to find animals; on relative's farms, collecting bugs at the park, stray cats that mysteriously found their way to our back door... I volunteered at the local Humane Society for 3 years, and have recently gone back to them again... I took a Zoology degree and tried to become a vet (that didn't work out for me), and most people who know me refer to my house as "the zoo". My parents are still married; which is strange when I look at most of the people I grew up with, and I've always been surrounded by love. I honestly can't imagine what it would have been like to grow up in a home where the people cared so little for each other that these boys don't know what love is.
That makes me very sad. Especially because Daisy-Duke suffered in such a horrible way for their lack.
I try to look on the bright side. I do not believe that Daisy-Duke died in vain. Because of her death, a petition was brought to the house of commons. Because of her death, people like you--everyone here at and the public at large--are more aware of how pathetic the laws are when it comes to protecting animals. Because of her death, hopefully something will change, and in the future, no other animal will have to die the way she did.

I know that Daisy-Duke has already crossed the Rainbow Bridge. I hope that she comes back to the edge, or looks out the window or whatever they have up there, so that she can see the love and support that we have for her, and know that even though in her life she may not have affected many, in death, she has affected tons of people. A dog I never met has changed my life.

Ok, yeah... ummm.... I think I got a little :offtopic: there. Oops.

So I'm back in court on Nov 26, and that should be quick and will just set a date for the new lawyer to decide whether or not to force Daniel to accept what he already signed in the statement of facts, or it should set a "trial" date to bring forth witnesses in an attempt to figure out which set of facts (the statement or the things he told the doctor) is really the truth.
I will update that afternoon or the following day.

Thanks for your continued support.

November 20th, 2007, 07:56 AM
Melissa,once again,thank you,also for your "off topic"bit,although I don't consider it off topic,very well written:thumbs up
In many instances however,maybe not with these monsters,I know of kids growing up with love,spoiled to the ninth,who never learned to love and respect animals,because the parents did not.
Then there are others who are just evil for no other reason,than to inflict pain and suffering on another living beeing.
If,like you said,nothing else comes out of Daisy-Dukes suffering,hopefully it will set changes in motion,changes that will vindicate another Daisy-Duke,unfortunately there will be others in the future:sad:

November 20th, 2007, 11:46 AM
So nothing will happen on the 26 ? Just set a date ? This thing is dragging on , can't wait to hear the verdict. :pray: GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY !

November 20th, 2007, 09:28 PM

Just to clarify, both T. & Daniel changed their plea to guilty some time ago. What we are waiting on now is sentencing for Daniel. They were unable to proceed with the sentencing before as he went in for a psychiatric/psychological assessment to determine whether or not he was mentally healthy (terrifyingly, T.'s report showed no mental illness whatsoever, nor any drugs or alcohol!), and it was at that assessment when he told the doctor a different story of what happened. We don't know yet what was different, but the lawyer (at the time) said that it was different in his/T.'s roles at certain points of the evening, which we can all probably safely assume means that now that T.'s sentencing is done (slap on the wrist), Daniel tried to put much more blame on him as he knew he could go to jail for doing those things.

So now we have to wait and see which version of the facts the court will hold Daniel to, and *then* he can be sentenced.

So yes, the Nov 26 date is simply just another trip to Didsbury to find out when to go back again. *sigh* The only thing I hope for at this stage in the game is decent weather so the highway is in good condition, as more than half of the trip is on a very nasty section of highway prone to ice up really badly in the winter. If the weather is too horrible, I can call Ruby who only lives 10 minutes away, and I will still get you an update.


November 21st, 2007, 07:40 AM
Melissa,please don't risk having an accident over this,I am sure the date for sentecing will be months away.
Nov 26th will only be a 10min thing and since you have Ruby to update you,please don't take any chances,ok..

November 26th, 2007, 10:35 PM
Update again...

Chico, no worries about the road. Today the road was actually in really good shape, just visibility was down with fog & some snow falling. The worst part was the number of drivers who don't turn on their headlights; some have running lights (the little annoying corner orange lights), some had none, but there were a bunch of them. Not too bad on the divided part of the highway, but the undivided part made me go with more caution (though by the time I got to that part, the fog was lifting). I agree, though, this guy is *not* worth risking my life over, and should the conditions be truly bad (we're still getting used to snow so ppl are driving like retards), I won't go.

So yeah, today was the waste I thought it would be, and remarkably, more of a waste than normal as we'd barely got sat down, judge in & they did his case first, so then we stood up and left again.

Long story short, the new lawyer (I didn't catch his name, will find it in the paper tomorrow) said the disclosure package was returned to the Crown when the other lawyer left and he has not received it yet because he just came onto the case recently. So he asked for the case to be pushed off again until the next time he is in Didsbury so that he can have a chance to get it and review it. The next date is December 10.

So... pending road conditions (it is a well-travelled highway so it does get sanded & plowed, but blowing snow slicks it up really bad), I will be back in Didsbury Dec 10. It will not be the last date, as it's not even a trial date.

The one and only thing about this "extra" delay in this case is that way back in spring (May??), when I went up to see about the assault case, they set it for trial for January 3. That seemed like forever away and I was sure at the time that this animal abuse case would be done. Now that it's not, I might as well go up there for that day and see how that case plays out. They technically can't influence each other, but as he has already plead guilty to the animal abuse case, perhaps they will take that into account in dealing with the assault case, even if he hasn't had sentencing yet. And if not, then perhaps the assault case will wrap up quickly (ha ha ha, I must be dreaming!) and then he will have a criminal record by the time he gets sentenced for the animal abuse. Perhaps. I'm not sure how it's all going to work out time-wise, but here's hoping that one finishes before the other or someone realizes that he's got the 2 pending charges and the connection between them and DOES something.
:shrug: We can hope, right?

Anyhow, that's really all I have for now. I'm starting a 2nd part-time job tomorrow (doggy day care, totally awesome!) so I will be very busy for the next few weeks, but I will update for sure on or near Dec 10 and will try to find any articles on this one tomorrow or soon.


November 27th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Melissa, thanks for the update on this case. I have not heard/read much about it for some time now.

I appreciate the time you took to get this info to us. lets hope that JUSTICE and the law will prevail and that we can have new laws brought into Alberta that will give more protection to our animals and harsher sentences to the CRIMINALS.

Your new job should remind you that not all are bad in this world of ours, there are still people who love and care for the :cat::dog::clown:s of our lives.


November 27th, 2007, 06:10 AM
Thank you for the update, I so appreciate you doing all this for us to be kept informed.

Hopefully justice will prevail, this guy is obviously an abuser to both man and animal and should not be loose in our society.

November 27th, 2007, 07:49 AM
Melissa thank you again for sticking to this horrible case,even if it takes 5 years:yell:Daisy-Dukes suffering will not be forgotten:sad:

November 27th, 2007, 07:19 PM
Thank you so much for the update Melissa! I have been going nuts trying to find out what happened. The press seems to have lost interest (ADD at it’s finest - outrage one moment then they can't complete the article)…:shrug:

December 14th, 2007, 11:00 PM




This is what I feel like right now.

Monday December 10 (sorry for the delay in posting), after an over-night snow of about 3 inches in Calgary, I carefully make my way the almost-hour drive to Didsbury. As expected, someone was late. This time it was the Crown Prosecutor and nothing can happen without them. So we wait. And wait. And finally, the guy gets there--turns out he got confused and went to Okotoks (south of Calgary) and then realized he was supposed to be in Didsbury (north of Calgary) so by the time he got there he was 1.5 hrs late. And since I had to work, and Daniel's lawyer obviously had something else to do, his case didn't get handled (lawyer left before Prosecutor got there and I had to leave at noon). Ruby called the Prosecutor's office on Tuesday (11th) and was told they would be back in Didsbury on Wednesday (12th). On such short notice, and since I'm currently working 2 jobs, I was unable to make it, but Ruby did. I love this lady, I really do.

So, Dec 12... basically what happened was what was expected, they pushed it off for another date. This time (don't hold your breath), the next date is April 21, 2008. Check your calendar; this is a Monday. Know what happens on Mondays in Didsbury court?? NOTHING! It's a docket day, not a trial day. *sigh* So it'll probably get pushed off AGAIN. Probably is the key word. There is a tiny (very very) possibility that they will actually do something that day, but my personal opinion is that possibility is about as likely as Elvis coming back from the dead. *sigh*

I will report back after the assault trial Jan 3, but then I will have nothing to report until April. At that point, it will have been essentially 18 months since the day Daisy Duke died, and T's "sentence" will be pretty much up... and Daniel will have been free and untouched the entire time. Oh and that court order preventing T & Daniel from communicating? Anyone remember that? Wonder who's going to continue enforcing that for the next 4 months? Yea, probably the same person who's done so since May; no one! So stupid.

And as nice as it would be to have new laws in place, people cannot be tried/charged/sentenced under laws that didn't exist when they did their crime, so even if they passed a law tomorrow that called for 40 years in jail for this abuse, Daniel could only get the sentence that existed at the time of the crime.

I need to go to bed; I've had a headache all day and my dog isn't feeling well, and I have to work tomorrow all day.
Here's the article from the local paper:

Animal abuse case delayed until spring
Dan Singleton, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, December 13, 2007

There has been yet another delay in the sentencing of a 20-year-old man at the centre of a high-profile animal abuse case in Didsbury, this time until spring.

Daniel Charles Haskett pleaded guilty in May to a charge of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of justice.

Haskett was charged after a Lab-collie cross named Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street in October 2006. The dog's injuries were so severe it had to be put down.

Haskett was originally scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 17, but his lawyer withdrew on the day of sentencing.

The case was adjourned to allow his new lawyer, Alan Pearce, time to obtain documents.

Haskett was to be sentenced on Wednesday, but Judge Gerald Meagher granted a further adjournment, until April 21, the earliest date available for the judge and the lawyers involved.

"Something will happen on that day, for sure," said Pearce.

Animal rights activists attending court Wednesday expressed outrage at the further delay.

"This is totally ridiculous," said Lori Wiess.


December 14th, 2007, 11:09 PM
Melissa thank you for the update.

I too believe that nothing will happen to the abusers, no to light a word, murderers is better. Hopefully we can get some laws to be able to lock away these ( i don't know what to call them).:evil::evil:


December 15th, 2007, 07:39 AM
Melissa,how incredibly frustrating:wall::wall:
Why don't they just skip it alltogether,it's not like the"kid"will go to jail and save the tax-payers some money,our justice-system really stinks:yell:
I can only hope,Daisy-Duke knows how sorry we all are,we were not there to help her against these monsters and that one day karma will catch up with them:fingerscr
We love you Daisy-Duke..:sad:

December 16th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Thank you again Melissa for posting this update. I’m going to have to hone my searching skills as I searched the Calgary Herald!

They can’t stop prosecuting these young people as they need help and pose a danger to society until they get that help – not that they will through our court system but it’s the best we have. These boys lack empathy (a learned skill) or any concept of responsibility never mind any understanding of goodness as outlined in any philosophy. I think that’s what is happening as families break off from any religious practice (you don't even have to pick one - study them all!). As we go longer not teaching any faith or formal value structure each generation will feel less responsible to, and for, those around them. This can’t feel good for those boys. It must be quite lonely and scary. What kind of hostile world do they live in? You don't have to wait very long or look very far to see the Karma.

On that note … why aren’t his parents being charged with him (both of them!)? Wasn’t that being talked about for a while regarding underage criminals (while this boy is over 18yrs he is, in my opinion, a juvenile as he is living with, and therefore dependent on, his family)?? If that’s not where the problem is then it’s certainly part of the equation.

I believe that you can’t have a healthy society unless you have healthy children and animals because they interact the most, and the most intimately (bum sniffing, spit, pee, poo, sneezing, licking, eye/nose rubbing... :eeew:), among themselves and others therefore that’s how disease is most easily spread (I think pet vaccines should be covered by healthcare or, at the very least, tax exempt- nobody needs anybody’s animal running around unvaccinated without medical reason). Unfortunately, here, we have neither healthy children or healthy animals and we, as a society, suffer.

December 18th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Patti... I agree with you, I have no idea what to call these "people". Monster doesn't seem fitting (and lumps things like Shrek into bad places!), yet nothing else comes to mind.

Chico... I think you're right, or at least I hope you are. Karma had better catch up to these two, or I'll have to stop believing in that, too. Something nasty like being attacked by a coyote (preferably an animal that they can't find to kill after), or maybe they'll go to the zoo, fall into the elephant enclosure and get trampled to death as the elephants try to run away. That sounds fitting. Of course, I hope in that situation, the elephants step on every part of them except their heads so that they can suffer for awhile. Yeah, ok, maybe I'm a little bit bitter. :frustrated:

Maria/Samuel... The Calgary Herald isn't that hard to search. Just go to, from the pull down "Jump To" pick Calgary Herald and then in the search part, I simply use "Didsbury dog" or "Didsbury Haskett" or some combination like that. The only problem is if you're not a subscriber (online or in print), you may not be able to read the articles in the archive. Some of them you can but not all of them. Hope that helps... if it doesn't work for you, you can just check on my posts as the Herald is actually following the case fairly well (even if it is being sent to page 5 or 6 now and the reporter doesn't show up, just gets the info from the Crown Prosecutor's office). I'm not sure if there is other coverage in other papers; I think the Didsbury paper has also been covering it, but they don't keep an archive online and their paper only comes out once a week so if you miss it, you're SOL.

To answer your other questions/ponderings... Daniel's parents (I believe that T's are still together) are divorced. His mom apparently has dated many many men, and most of them are young enough to be Daniel's brother (her latest one is 22 or so I've heard). To make it even better, she apparently lets/encourages these men to move in with her (& her family) pretty much as soon as they start dating. Not that it's an excuse (and I have no idea how long it's been going on), but it's fairly obvious to me that Daniel has never had the experience of a loving family. He doesn't have a male role model, so has likely never learned what is a proper way to deal with anger and frustration (which is why he's up on assault charges), and he apparently never learned love from his mother--or if he did, she managed to undo it all with a never-ending string of men. The whole thing makes me quite ill; I can't really imagine the situation being good for anyone, and I refuse to feel sorry for Daniel, but it does make me sad that a mother can think it's ok to focus so entirely on her own selfish indulgences and spend so little time paying attention to her children. I don't know anything about her, but there's a reason why I think people ought to require licenses before they can have children--I think many people would fail the test, including Daniel's parents. Do I blame her? Yes, partially. But a parent apparently is never held accountable for their children's actions; which I've never understood. Ok, some are forgiveable, like when a child eats a candy out of a jar at the candy store (when they're like 4 years old), but I've never really understood the whole thing about kids like 10+ who do some pretty nasty things and nothing happens to them or their parents. At the very least, you'd think they'd send the parents to some parenting classes or something! :shrug:

Anyhow... I guess it's not for us to decide on. The justice system says that every person is responsible for their own actions, whether they are 4, 14, or 40, living with their parents or not (my uncle-in-law is in his mid-50s and has lived with/depended on his parents for nearly 20 years; if he did something bad, would we hold his parents accountable?? Where do you draw the line?). So all I can do is continue to find the time to drive to Didsbury whenever Daniel is in court, and hope that eventually he'll get the treatment he needs and ideally spend some time in jail. And every chance I get, and everytime I hug or kiss one of my furry ones or look into the deep brown eyes of a dog, I send my love to Daisy Duke and all other animals who have died needlessly at the hands of cruel humans. It's a horrible world we live in where we kill everything around us needlessly.

Here's wishing everyone, all the furry creatures in your life and friends & family, a safe, warm and enjoyable Christmas. All the best in 2008 as well, though I will be around very early in January to update.

Take care,

December 19th, 2007, 07:48 AM
Melissa,very well said:dog:
I do not agree with MariaandSamuel that beeing brought up with religion always makes a person a compassionate human beeing,there is plenty of evidence in the world to the contrary.
Melissa,I hope you have a wonderful Christmas and thank you again for beeing who you are:grouphug:

December 19th, 2007, 11:28 AM
Thanks Chico.. and I agree, religion does not necessarily spawn compassion. I myself was raised in an atheist family, and I'm pretty sure that I would be considered a compassionate person.
One thing I have always wondered about all religions, especially Christianity... God is supposed to love all people, yet so many children suffer with terrible diseases and injuries. Passionately religious people have told me this is to "test" the parents, to "ensure" their faith. Ok, fine... but isn't there ways to do it other than torturing a child????

One interesting thing, though.... I'm going to get blasted for this, I'm sure.... have you ever noticed what the word god spells backwards? Capitalize it differently, and I can get on board: goD. :) :dog:

Anyhow... Merry Christmas, thanks for the hugs & support Chico!


December 21st, 2007, 12:10 AM
It was never my intent to suggest that the practice of religion indicates anything positive or negative about a person. I was referring to the deconstruction of social values. I’m sorry if that was confusing for you.

Point of fact, my parents’ neighbor is the pastor of a church in rural Alberta (about 45 minutes south of Edmonton). He seems to think that his sh** comes out blessed by god himself. He has five children – all home schooled (scary) and is the worst neighbor we have ever had (and we’ve had druggies)! One family has had to leave the area because of him (he shot their goD - dead). Most recently, this past fall, he hit (with his truck) our 12 yr old Australian Cattle dog and left him to die in a field. When my mom called to ask if he had seen him she was told no. I went out to look for him and found him unable to move but still alive in the field. We crawled through the mud to get him out and to the vet who “euthanized” him the next day. We know it was him because they, my parents and that family, live at the end of a dead end road. There is nobody else down that far.

I would never intentionally suggest that the practice of religion indicates anything about a person. What religion did do, and should do, was give the individual a consistent concept about what is appropriate behavior.

I would also never suggest that this kid is to be pitied. He is my worst nightmare. I don’t want him living on my block. I don’t want him near my kids (my theoretical kids as I don’t actually have any) or my animals. He watched this and did this to that dog. He is not a good person. I don’t even think he is a salvageable person.

What I do think is that his parents, both of them no matter their relationship or circumstances, as well as any of the men who have lived with the mother and may have had care, control and influence at any time of this boy need to be standing trial with him as they are just as guilty, no matter his age. People are responsible for how their dogs turn out why not their children? Grownups also need to consider whether or not they are fit and able to move into a situation with children. I don’t give free passes because these men didn’t contribute the specific sperm.

Elected officials who represent us decide on legislation. If it’s not our place to decide these things, it is our responsibility.

Again, Melissa, thank you so much for the information and for taking the time to go out and report back. Without you, I would not have been able to find out anything! Very frustrating and I am extremely grateful.

A little off topic but…I think that people are born into bad circumstances due to past life Karma and personal testing. What do you think will happen to this Haskett kid in his next life? Besides the obvious torture of daisy, he has divided and terrorized an entire community…and then some.


December 21st, 2007, 06:24 AM
Maria,thank you,sorry for missunderstanding.
I could give you many examples of religion gone wrong,but I won't since this is about Daisy-Duke and her killers.
Too many people believe going to church on Sunday forgives all their dastardly deeds.
I too am very greatful to Melissa for beeing vigilant and keeping us updated,here in Ontario I would not have heard anything about Daisy-Duke.

January 8th, 2008, 09:58 PM
I'm sorry for the delay on this one, the post-new year's week has been completely filled and then I woke up on my birthday (yesterday) with a headcold so today, having worked (2 jobs) from 8am to 6:30pm and then an hour agility with Cube, I feel pretty much like a truck ran over my head and got lodged in my sinuses.

On January 3rd, I drove to Didsbury for Daniel's assault trial. Thankfully, there were only 3 matters on the docket, so I anticipated a fairly brief day. My expectations were greatly exceeded, though, when Daniel was the first matter they called. When he and his lawyer were the only ones that walked into the court room, I thought something seemed a bit strange. Then, realizing that Daniel was wearing jeans, I thought "oh no" and expected a change of date.

What we got was much much worse than a change of date. The crown prosecutor stood up and said essentially (I can't remember exact words), "we didn't subpoena Robert William Haskett therefore we request that the charges be withdrawn". I saw in shocked silence as the judge agreed and the assault charges were dropped. Now, I have no idea who Robert is, though I'm guessing this is one of his brothers.

I don't even know what to say at this point. I'm not surprised in the least, though I'm incredibly disappointed as I so wanted him to be convicted of assault and at the very least have a criminal record when it came time for sentencing on the animal abuse. I wanted someone to make the connection between abusing animals and abusing people and get him the help he so obviously needs--or at the very least, lock him up for a long time!

So, I guess that isn't going to happen, and due to my cold, I'm not going to think about it anymore tonight. My plans for the rest of the night include a hot bath and hopefully bed before 10 (it's 9:00 now).

I will update again in April after the next court date for Daisy.

Wish I had better news.

January 9th, 2008, 08:29 AM
OMG does this piece of $hit have a horseshoe up his a$$? Sorry for my language, but I can't believe it. What about justice for his victim?

Thank you again, dogmelissa for the update, really appreciate what you are doing.

January 9th, 2008, 09:26 AM
Unfu***ng believable. If it was the reverse and the dog killed a human, we all know how that would have ended don't we. Kinda freaky i was reading all of the posts and noticed the show on tv is about jeffrey dahmer. Maybe the laws would be changed if they realized that most sociopaths start out killing and abusing animals. Keep your fingers crossed and believe what goes around comes around.

January 9th, 2008, 09:28 AM
Melissa,as do I,thank's!
The news was not good,but expected:wall:,this is exactly why we have dangerous,cruel people walking our streets.
I don't expect anything to happen to these"kids"regarding Daisy-Duke either,I only hope wherever she is,she knows there are people who care and want justice for her suffering.

Hope you are feeling better:goodvibes:

January 9th, 2008, 11:41 AM
I've read this thread on a nd off, not getting in before, but right now I feel that the old practice of mob-lynching would have it's place in that town!

What I can't understand, is that this judge, is a human too, no? Unless it's somone as cold and cruel as this Daniel fellow, how can he keep dragging this out for so long? It makes no sense at all!

Have faith in the judicial system ... sure :wall:

January 9th, 2008, 11:45 AM
the fine and jail time are the least of our problems. Clearly, however did this is ****ed in the head and is capable of killing a person in the same manner.

January 9th, 2008, 11:45 AM
:censored: :wall: :censored: :wall:

Un :censored: believable. :sad:

January 9th, 2008, 11:53 AM
:censored: :wall: :censored: :wall:

Un :censored: believable. :sad:

That just about sums it up :mad:

January 9th, 2008, 12:57 PM
I've read this thread on a nd off, not getting in before, but right now I feel that the old practice of mob-lynching would have it's place in that town!

What I can't understand, is that this judge, is a human too, no? Unless it's somone as cold and cruel as this Daniel fellow, how can he keep dragging this out for so long? It makes no sense at all!

Have faith in the judicial system ... sure :wall:

It seems like this guy is getting away with murder and our justice system is an absolute joke!

January 9th, 2008, 01:03 PM
the truth is, in ny a child molester only gets a max of 7 years. what would an animal killer get? nothing or close to it.


January 9th, 2008, 01:19 PM
Amatazes,we had a father here who sexually abused his little toddler and put it on the Internet,he was sentenced to 4 yrs,that's CANADIAN justice:yell:
It's a free-for-all on animals,they don't seem to matter:sad:

January 9th, 2008, 01:26 PM
you can really judge a society by the way they treat their youth, elderly and animals. so sad that we're not really up to par.:sad:

January 10th, 2008, 01:08 AM
wholesaler your post has been reported to the mods :loser:

March 2nd, 2008, 04:47 PM
Sorry I've been away so long... I've been stupid busy with my 2 jobs.

I agree with all of you.... :wall::wall::censored::censored::wall::censored::w all::censored:

To answer a question about the judge: the biggest problem is that almost every single time I've been up there (omg, how many trips has that been??) it's been a different judge. The one judge way back last summer charged him a $1000 "bond" basically for delaying the court, as he'd seen Daniel 3 times with some lame excuse for why he hadn't shown up for something. Every other judge has only seen this case once, so really, it's not their fault. However, I would like to believe that the entire file gets handed to them for review before they hear the day's events and that any reasonable judge can see excuse after excuse after delay after delay and it'd be really nice if they'd just force something to happen faster. It's incredibly frustrating!

I was really hoping that Daniel would be convicted of assault and someone, somewhere in the justice system would realize that he's already taken that step from hurting animals to hurting people, and DO something! I honestly don't care if he goes to jail or not, but he needs to have some serious help--or something!

I don't even know what to say at this point. It's pretty much already been said.

It's so weird to think about how things have changed in my life since this all began. I wasn't even engaged when Daisy Duke was killed, and now I'm married. Ruby's son is getting married in March, and he also wasn't engaged when this started. I'll probably have given birth to my first child, that we're not even planning to try to conceive until September, before this is all over. And what has changed in Daniel's life? What about in T's? They can't meet each other in public (in Didsbury), and can't mail each other letters. That's about the only thing that has changed for them, I'm sure.

April still seems so far away, but I will update again with the next court date after that.

On a related topic, but a case I will not be following personally, here is another disgusting example of how horribly people can treat animals:

Dog's throat slit after neighbour loses patience
Pet had been seen loose on Sherwood Park property
Jeff Holubitsky and Trish Audette, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, February 21

STRATHCONA COUNTY - The death of a friendly neighbourhood dog named Sammy whose throat was slit has horrified people living in an acreage subdivision south of Sherwood Park.
"I was just shocked to hear somebody could do this to a dog," a tearful homeowner said Wednesday. "He was such a beautiful friendly dog."
She said residents of the Camelot Square neighbourhood have been talking about the medium-sized white dog's death since it happened on the weekend.
"It gets to me because I am an animal lover. It is disgusting," said the woman, who did not want to be identified.
She said the Sammy used to wander the neighbourhood and would play with the other dogs, including her own.
"Everybody is just really upset," she said.
A small memorial to Sammy, with a picture of him gently lying beside a calf, has been set up at the entrance of one homes. Most of the people questioned about the dog's death, including a woman who said she was his owner, said the matter was under investigation by the Strathcona County RCMP and refused to comment.
Another neighbour was in disbelief over what he had heard, because the person people suspect killed the dog is "an easy-going guy."
"I don't really know what is behind this," he said. "I find it hard to believe. ... It's scary."
Strathcona County RCMP said the dog was found with its throat slit behind its owners' shed Saturday night.
Cpl. Darren Anderson said the dog had been running loose in the subdivision, near Range Road 233 and Township Road 520, on Saturday afternoon when it ran onto another property and got into a fight with a smaller dog. Both dogs received minor injuries, the RCMP said.
The fight was broken up, and children playing nearby were not injured.
Hours later, at about 6:30 p.m., a man came after Sammy, police said.
The man tied a rope around his neck, saying he was tired of the Sammy coming onto his property, police said.
The neighbour who was caring for the dog followed the man until she heard a loud cry of an animal in distress, Anderson said. "It sounded like the dog was being slaughtered, (in) her words."
The dog was found dead soon after and the RCMP were contacted.
No charges have been laid, but the investigation continues. The RCMP has the power to charge a person under both the Animal Protection Act of Alberta and with animal cruelty under the Criminal Code.
"That is pretty shocking," said Edmonton SPCA spokeswoman Diane Shannon.
"The fact that the RCMP are involved is really positive."
The Alberta SPCA is not involved in the investigation.
"Obviously, somebody thought they were taking matters into their own hands and made a bad choice," Anderson said.

Continuation of this story here:

Charges laid in dog slaying
The Edmonton Sun

The dogsitter of a pooch whose throat was fatally slashed south of Sherwood Park earlier this month said she's relieved police have laid charges.
"I was very happy to hear that justice is going to be served," said Patricia, who declined to give her last name.
"I did have fears that nothing would be done and wondering what it would do to ... people who want to stand up against something wrong."
Sammy, a white mixed-breed dog, was found with its throat slit behind its owner's shed on the evening of Feb. 16 in the Camelot Square subdivision near Range Road 233 and Township Road 520.
Strathcona County RCMP said the dog was running loose around 1:30 p.m. that day, when it ran onto a neighbouring property and got into a fight with a dog.
About five hours later, the neighbour came home and allegedly showed up at Patricia's house and led Sammy away.
"He said he's going to see the owner and left," Patricia told Sun Media.
Patricia said she immediately tried to contact Sammy's owner by phone. And when she couldn't reach her, Patricia ran out of her house in search of Sammy.
"I heard a horrific sound, like something was being slaughtered. I came running home and I said to my husband, 'I think she was killed.'"
Strathcona County RCMP later found the dog with its throat slit behind its owner's shed.
"I'm sad and very angry at the same time. This should not have happened," Patricia said.
Patricia said she has known the accused dog killer for about 10 years and has never thought of him as a violent man.
She hasn't spoken to him since Sammy was killed and added she probably won't ever talk to him again.
Yesterday afternoon, the neighbourhood was quiet. But Patricia said everyone is still reeling and talking about the horrific death of an innocent dog.
"I think this is going to be a lesson for everybody."
Edmonton's Voice for Animals is also pleased police have laid charges.
"It's a good first step and I hope the authorities prosecute him to the full extent of the law because he's an adult," said spokesman Tove Reece.
Shawn Eugene Rankin, 42, has been charged with one count of unlawfully killing an animal.
He is slated to appear in Sherwood Park Provincial Court on April 9.
Patricia said she's going to follow the case because Sammy was a part of her family.
"We have to fight for her; somebody has to fight for her."

*sigh* There really is nothing else to say. I try to keep my nose out of the news because I keep finding things like this (or the case of the cat that was microwaved to death by 2 teens in Camrose, AB) that make me throw up.


March 2nd, 2008, 05:01 PM
Melissa , I understand your frustration ! It seems even judges don't give a flying f :censored: , they have more compassion for the accused than for the animals (victims) .... same here in Quebec. :mad:

March 2nd, 2008, 07:10 PM
While I certainly don't think that the man above should get away with slitting Sammy's throat - I certainly hope that the owner is charged with something for letting her dog continously roam loose in the neighborhood.

Sorry - but the only thing I find MORE disgusting then animal abuse is owners who don't supervise their animals properly and then cry foul when something happens to them.

March 3rd, 2008, 06:24 AM
Thank's Melissa,for still hanging in there for Daisy-Duke and reporting to us,hopefully she somehow knows people care about her.
I really have nothing but sadness to add about Sammy,yet another horrorstory:cry:
Whether the owner allowed her to run around or not,a terrible crime was comitted against this poor dog.:rip:Sammy

May 17th, 2008, 12:26 PM
I'm so sorry I didn't get here to update sooner but I've had too many things going on in my real life to think about this site too much. First my grandmother went to the hospital, then I got a call from Ruby that Daniels date had been moved, then my grandmother died, and I'm just now getting my life back together.

So the long and the short of it is that Daniel's sentencing has been moved AGAIN!!!! The new date is June 27, apparently due to a scheduling conflict with the judge (at least they're going to have the same judge!).

Here's the most recent article about it:

Dog abuse sentencing postponed until June
Dan Singleton, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, March 14, 2008

Sentencing of a man charged in a high-profile animal abuse case in Didsbury has been delayed yet again.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 20, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of justice.

Haskett was charged after a Lab-collie named Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street in October 2006. The dog's injuries were so severe, it had to be put down.

Haskett was originally set to be sentenced on Oct. 17, 2007, but his lawyer withdrew on the day of sentencing. The case was then adjourned to April 21 for sentencing.

That date has now been pushed back to June 27 due to a scheduling conflict with Judge Ian Kirkpatrick, officials said Thursday.

The Airdrie and District Humane Society has been monitoring the case since October 2006. The latest delay is "very troubling and a constant reminder of a horrible situation," said society president Renae Warne.

Lucky for me (I guess) is that I'm currently working only about 9-12 hours a week and otherwise concentrating on being a housewife and building my business, so I have the time and ability to go to Didsbury yet again. Here's hoping this is the last time I have to go there - especially since gas is so expensive!!!!

I wish I had a better update - with an actual outcome - but unfortunately I do not.
Hope everyone is enjoying their spring (my garden is getting planted this week!), and talk to you later,

May 17th, 2008, 01:44 PM
Thank you soooo much for keeping us updated. I think of Daisy often and this should not be forgotten.

May 17th, 2008, 03:42 PM
Melissa thank you for not forgetting about Daisy-Duke:dog:
Sorry about your grandmother:grouphug:

I have no great expectations that these evil young men will get punished,I am only hoping this long drawn out process is causing them some difficulty.
I will never forget Daisy-Duke or Kensington the cat in Toronto,who's tragic lives ended at the hands of evil people.

May 17th, 2008, 03:45 PM
Thanks for the update. Every time I read and think about this , my heart turns upside down , thinking about this poor girl. :sad: I really wish this guy could go through the same suffering.

I'm sorry about your grandmother :grouphug:

May 22nd, 2008, 10:54 AM
I myself beleive in corperal(not sure how to spell it) punishment. nough' said.

June 17th, 2008, 11:23 AM
I just wanted to post this article that was in the paper a few weeks ago, on an unrelated case.

Calgary man who beat puppy spared jail time
4-month-old beagle had to be euthanized
Daryl Slade, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, June 05

CALGARY - A man who severely beat a four-month-old beagle puppy after it urinated on him said Thursday he would "do anything to take it back."

"Nobody has punished me more than I have punished myself," said Christopher John Piasentin, referring to the beating he gave Levi the puppy on Nov. 1, 2006, which left the animal so badly injured it had to be euthanized.

Piasentin, 26, was spared jail time Thursday, receiving a five-month conditional jail sentence.

"I can understand why everyone is so upset," he said. "This is something that has changed me completely."

Provincial court Judge Anne Brown ordered Piasentin to remain under house arrest for the entire sentence and placed him on probation for another two years.

Piasentin must also continue taking counselling for alcohol and drug abuse and anger management, perform 100 hours of community service, not have any pets and donate $1,000 to the Calgary Humane Society.

As Piasentin walked down the hallway outside court after being sentenced, members of DAISY, an animal rights group, asked him if he ever thought about the puppy.

"I think about him every day," said Piasentin.

The court heard Piasentin had been drinking heavily and was at home with the dog while his then-girlfriend was out.

After Levi urinated and defecated in the basement, Piasentin sent a text message to his girlfriend saying he was going to kill the puppy.

Later, the puppy urinated on Piasentin on the bed. The man repeatedly hit Levi, rendering the dog unconscious. He then called his girlfriend and left a message saying the thought he'd killed the animal.

The dog had extensive fractures, a damaged liver, bruising and lung and brain hemorrhaging, according to the veterinarian's report.

The judge said it was a difficult case to sentence, because of the expressions of public outrage that come with animal abuse.

"While it speaks well of our society that we are angered by the mistreatment of the vulnerable - animals, children, the elderly or the frail - it speaks less well of us if we turn our anger into vengeful treatment of the offender."

This makes me sick to my stomach - as all animal abuse does - but this one is a little different. This is a man who obviously has drug and alcohol problems, shows a massive amount of remorse, and was sentenced in less time than was Daniel (though not much). He will not go to jail, but note that he has to pay a fine, get counselling, do community service & has house arrest/probation. All of this for a man who actually feels BAD for what he did.

My point here is that this is a man who lost control in a moment when he was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and feels terrible for it. He is getting a fair, but not harsh sentence, IMO. Obviously I don't know the details, but I would think that in such a case, the judge would mandate that his community service be something that would give back to animals, perhaps at the Humane Society or with another organization. I think his risk to re-offend or progress to abuse on humans is very low.
Daniel on the other hand... shows no remorse, shows no respect for the court or the judicial system, and will probably walk away with probation only. He deserves to go to jail, have a huge fine, do a ridiculous number of hours of community service (though I wouldn't trust him around kids or animals, perhaps he could be assigned clean-up duties at a horse facility or at the zoo - he is perfect for poop-scooping duties), and never ever ever be allowed to have an animal. Not like that "not owning an animal" thing makes any difference anyhow - all that means is that you can't get an animal from the Humane Society or the City. Places like Petland and probably every single breeder in North America (I include BYB in this) don't even question it - if you have money they'll give you an animal.

Anyhow... that's my rant for the day. I am going to go to Didsbury next week and in the mean time I hope that this case will be on the judge's mind when he decides how harsh Daniel's punishment should be. I know there's limitations based on the law, but I think that a couple of years (even a few months) in jail might be beneficial for this man. Give him a taste of where he can expect to spend a good portion of his life, because his next step will be hurting people.

I will update again on/after June 27.

Thanks for your continued support!

:dog: Melissa

June 17th, 2008, 12:30 PM
I guess I am not as forgiving as you are and don't have sympathy for those who inflict pain and suffering on another life, maybe I am just a pessimist. I do, however, like that he is seeking counselling, I hope they can help him with his anger. That puppy could easily have been a baby.

Thank you for keeping us informed!

June 17th, 2008, 03:54 PM
OMG Melissa,the pain and agony that poor little puppy must have gone through:cry:
I too am not very forgiving,people get away with murder,because they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol,nobody forced them to do neither.
Actually his sentence compared to what he would get in Ontario,is harsh.
Those young men who tortured Daisy-Duke,should definetly see jail-time,but it won't happen,I am sure and they don't even show remorse.
In all honesty,if one of my sons were capable of this kind of horror to another living beeing,I don't think I would want to see him again.
Thank's Melissa,for making sure we do not forget about Daisy-Duke,not that I ever would.

June 27th, 2008, 05:56 PM



Will this ever end???!?!?!??!
I can not believe I have to report this (I will have to post links to articles next week as we are going out of town for the weekend as of tonight).
If you're not already sitting, do it now.

WARNING: Descriptive text below may be too graphic for some readers. Please use caution.

Daniel Haskett filed an application to Vacate his Guilty Plea. As in he asked the court to pretend like he'd never plead guilty in the first place - remember way back when that he originally pled not guilty?

That is how the day started.... 2 hours later, the judge broke for lunch & to try to consider the evidence and make his decision. Brief synopsis of those 2 hours:

Daniel was called to testify, and first his lawyer questioned him then he was questioned by the Crown prosecutor.
First his lawyer basically suggested that there were problems with his original lawyer's consultation of Daniel, that Daniel didn't fully understand that signing the agreed statement of facts meant he was saying that he had done everything that was written there. They claim that Daniel changed his plea to guilty on the original date for his trial because he had been harassed repeatedly, had death threats against him and even been shot at - his logic was that he thought if he plead guilty people would see he was trying to "take responsibility for his actions and accept his punishiment" and would stop harassing him. He said that he thought it would make everything go away faster. He said he knows it's illegal to hurt an animal but that was not his intent.

The Crown prosecutor got up and asked him a lot of questions about when he decided to plead guilty - obviously the agreed statement of facts would take some time to draw up and though it was signed the day of the trial, it wouldn't have been written that morning. Daniel didn't really answer.
Then he asked if Daniel could tell him which parts of the statement of facts he disagreed with - which parts were untrue - and Daniel pointed out only 3 areas: A paragraph that talked about putting Daisy's head in a garbage bag and tying it with a rope to try to suffocate her. He said "rope was not used" when the bag was put over her head.
He claims that he wasn't present when T. (the young offender) hit Daisy over the head with a shovel, though it implied in the facts that he was. (He also said that the order of the events is not correct and that they had discussed where to dispose of her body before she was dragged into the garage, not while they were waiting for her to suffocate in the bag as the facts say.)
The facts also say that T. reported that Daniel had told him and encouraged him to drag the dog behind his car. Daniel said he would never encourage anyone to drag a dog because "it's grotesque" (his words!).

The Crown asked him to read the lines above his signature - the gist of which is that "all of which is admitted", and asked him to verify that it was indeed his signature there. Did Daniel understand this? Yes.

More questions:
Daniel somehow seemed to think that pleading guilty would take less time that a trial. He thought that if he pointed out the areas in the facts that were incorrect, he would have to PROVE that he was innocent in those areas and didn't know how to do that. But he never asked his lawyer, even though his lawyer went through this document with him in detail.
He said that what he understood from his lawyer was that he either had to accept ALL of the statement of facts or deny ALL of it - that there was no "negotiating" on what parts of it he pled guilty to.

The Crown then brought out the pre-sentence report issued by his Parole Officer. Daniel said he didn't remember this document and was unsure if he'd had this report discussed with him.
Crown attempted to refresh his memory of conversations with the PO that led to this report - and magically Daniel can remember conversations he had.
He agreed that he'd told the PO that the statement of facts was "a reasonable description of what had happened", but he says that "reasonable" doesn't mean "100% accurate" (he didn't mention this to the PO). Further, when the PO asked him why he'd changed his plea, Daniel had told him that he'd "lied lied and lied some more" and that he was done lying and wanted to come clean on what had really happened. But even at this point in time, according to the PO's interview with him, he was still in agreement with the statement of facts.

So, onto the psychiatric assessment, where the "truth" originally came out - if you remember it was the difference in the report that Daniel told the doctor and what the statement of facts said that was why his original lawyer stepped off the case.
Daniel (in his infinite wisdom) says that he told the doctor the truth because he didn't want the doctor to think he was a "lunatic" who could do the things the statement of facts said he did. He claims that he believed the doctor (who was ordered by the Crown as part of his pre-sentencing assesment) would not TELL the details of their conversation to the court. He thought it was for his mental health. (The Crown got really excited at this - it was actually hard not to laugh at Daniel's stupidity - especially when the Crown was asking things like "did you think you were ordered to visit this doctor out of concern for your mental status?")

Daniel further admitted he only saw his lawyer at the courthouse, so the reason he didn't ask many questions (like how long with a trial take?) was because he was distracted and had too many things on his mind. (At which point I was reminded of how few times Daniel actually showed up for court dates because of supposed job interviews.)

Daniel's lawyer got back up and presented some case references where a guilty plea had been reversed by the court - because of "some other motive or cause that led to the guilty plea" - his strongest case that of a police officer who pled guilty in an attempt to reconcile with his mother. When he later asked to vacate his plea, the court eventually let him.
He said that the courts have a duty for efficiency but also have a duty to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Efficiency???? This coming from a person who is representing a man who was previously fined by the court for failure to appear at 3 consecutive court dates? I actually had a full time job at the beginning of all this and *I* managed to get out there to all the dates!

Back to the Crown:
Crown argued that Daniel should not be believed when he said that he pled guilty because he thought it would get people to stop harassing him - because what he was "admitting" was worse than what people had originally thought he did, and no one could really think that he would believe agreeing to a worse crime would LESSEN the harassment.

He said regardless of the reason behind him pleading guilty, he is not saying that he had no fault in this crime. The charge was causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, and by his own admission today, he still accepts the portion of the facts that say he dragged the dog by a rope around her neck to the garage and attempted to suffocate her, and never called a vet or other person for help.

His examples of case references were very interesting. One of them said that "both the state and the accused BENEFIT from a guilty plea, as it usually results in much faster sentencing, no trials (which cost lots of money and time), and very rarely end in appeals".

He talked about how in most cases where a person applies to be vacated of a guilty plea, their original plea was entered without the guidance of counsel, even in the case of the police officer, and as such, it could be argued that they didn't really know what the consequences were - what it really MEANT to plead guilty. Daniel, however, pled guilty very late in the game - at the trial date - and under the guidance of competent counsel (they had previously spent about 10 minutes basically making the point that everyone agreed original lawyer had done nothing wrong).

He contined with another case that said when a guilty plea was entered when the accused believes it is "advantageous to do so" and for "reasons he or she deemed appropriate" should be viewed by the court as having a lot of weight - regardless of what the accused's perceived advantages were. He noted that if Daniel really didn't agree with the entire statement of facts, he had had ample opportunity to question the facts!! (He also noted at the beginning that he was only informed of the intent to apply to vacate the guilty plea Thursday morning this week)

They were both done at this point and the judge looked troubled. He said he wasn't sure he could reach a decision today, but he would like to break for a few minutes to see what kind of progress he could make. This was 12:15 (we started at 10), and he said he would return at 12:30.

At 1:00 the judge came back. He said that even if he could make a decision on the application to vacate today, and if he decided to deny it, another date would then need to be made for sentencing. He asked the lawyers if they would be agreeable to selecting another date at which he would present his decision, and if he denied the application then sentencing could happen right away. (Daniel's lawyer tried to move the case to Calgary at this point claiming that both the Crown and the judge were there more so it might be easier to find a date - the Crown vehemently opposed that based on community impact/involvement). They agreed to moving the application decision date and stepped out for a few minutes to find an agreeable date.

A few minutes later they returned and announced the date that was agreeable to both lawyers and the judge's schedule: October 21, 2008.

I kid you not. Daisy Duke was tortured and died on October 8, 2006 and assuming the application for vacating the plea is denied, Daniel will not be sentenced until October 21, 2008. If the application is approved, there will be at least one further date, for a trial (as his plea will be reverted back to not-guilty).

We left the court room and I seriously had to bend down with my face in my hands. I didn't know whether I was going to cry or puke. I simply cannot believe how long this is going on, or the fact that so many people are being forced to relive this over and over again with no closure for so much time.
Since Daisy Duke's death, I have gotten engaged, gotten married, suffered through my 92 year old grandmother's extremely painful and long illness and ultimately her death, and had to cope with the loss of my first childhood pet (Patchie was a 21 year old cat with multiple health problems. My parents made the difficult decision to have him euthanized). Before the next court date, my husband and I will be trying to conceive a baby - I could be pregnant by the time this goes back to court. And in this time, Daniel has been walking the streets, showing no remorse for the death of a young animal, having "job interviews", moving out of Didsbury (supposedly because he was too afraid to leave his house because of the threats and assaults he received), and the probation sentence on T. is at the point where he no longer has a curfew and can basically do whatever he wants again. Regardless of whether I believe that T. got the appropriate punishment (I don't), his time is nearly done - and Daniel hasn't even started his!

I am sick.

I don't know if it's because of the recent events in my family or just because going back there today brought all the horror of that day rushing back to me, but I just feel physically ill.

Thank you all for reading this. I will post links to the articles that come out over the weekend (there was quite a bit of media there again, thankfully) on Monday or Tuesday.

Thank you also for your continued support - whether that's in virtual hugs to me or in whatever way you are supporting things in real life. It is much appreciated.

I know that Daisy Duke has been resting peacefully, but I also know that these dates bring her pain back to her, and I can't stand for her to suffer anymore. I just want this to be over.

Thanks again, and don't worry, I will update again in October. *sigh*


June 28th, 2008, 07:00 AM
Melissa,I know this must be incredibly difficult for you and I would understand if you could not go on about this lunacy anymore.
Especially trying to get pregnant,you don't need the stress.
Thank you for the warning,I skipped that horrific part,I am tearing up as it is:sad:
I cannot believe this is stretched out like this,probably thousands and thousands of $$$ wasted on this young killer,for what???
We all know,in the end he will not be punished for the hell he put poor Daisy Duke through.
We can only hope that having had threats against him by angry citizens,having to relocate,going to repeated courtdates ,the media keeping the anger alive,is making him suffer somewhat for what he did.
Why the judge is dithering I don't understand,could the torturing of Daisy-Duke be any clearer???
Maybe the judge is hoping everyone will forget about her:shrug:
Thank's Melissa:grouphug:

July 1st, 2008, 02:58 PM
Chico - thank you for your continued support. No, I certainly don't need the stress of this continued situation, but I really feel like I need the closure and that if I just tried to go on with my life, I wouldn't be able to get it out of my mind. I have my doubts that justice will be done, but we are dealing with the same judge who made Daniel pay a $1000 fine for "delaying the court" many months ago when he'd missed a few dates due to a "job interview", so there's a tiny amount of hope that he will not be allowed to reverse his plea (especially since he only had issues with 3 paragraphs out of 40+ and admitted the rest), and that he will get sentenced properly.
Fortunately, I don't think the judge is the problem. I think the entire problem is Daniel himself and more specifically, his lawyers. I never had a lot of respect for defense lawyers (I do appreciate they're there for the few people who actually are innocent of what they're accused of), and the fact that he can stand there and suggest that Daniel's entire plea should be reversed when he clearly admits he did many of the things that hurt Daisy Duke just makes me sick. I am fairly confident he is going to deny the application to change the plea, based on what he was saying when he came back and asked them to book another date, but of course I can't be certain.

Here are the articles related to this recent date:

Accused in dog-beating case changes plea amid death threats
Stephane Massinon, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008

A man charged in a high-profile animal case now says he pleaded guilty to escape the harassment and threats aimed at him by animal lovers.

Minutes after the case was adjourned, Haskett found himself in a clash with one of the dozen protesters waiting for him. RCMP officers had to restrain Haskett after he swore at and charged at an animal rights protester who insulted his mother in front of rolling TV cameras.

Didsbury resident Drew Marceton said he wasn't trying to incite Haskett, and added he was frustrated police were protecting Haskett.

"We've been here countless days, week after week, court date after court date, and nothing seems to happen so maybe it's time the vigilantes of Mountain View County get after him," Marceton told reporters.

Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a street in Didsbury, 75 kilometres north of Calgary, early on Oct. 8, 2006. A veterinarian was forced to put it down.

The dog's mouth and legs had been duct-taped, a tow rope was wrapped around its neck, and it was suffering from a fractured skull, pelvis, lumbar spine, severe "road rash" abrasions and profuse bleeding.

In the agreed statement of facts, the accused admitted trying to kill the dog after it was accidentally run over by a 17-year-old friend outside the Haskett home.

The statement says that after finding the dog "whimpering and cowering" under the vehicle, Haskett and the youth put a tow rope around the dog's neck and dragged it into the garage "as they did not want to get blood on their clothing."

The pair then placed a plastic bag over the animal's head in an attempt to asphyxiate the animal. When it resisted, Haskett duct taped its mouth and legs.

In the courtroom, Haskett testified that tensions have run high in the small Alberta town since his arrest. He maintains he has received death threats -- and a mystery sniper even fired a shot through a window in his house.

Haskett has since moved out of Didsbury and has gotten a job. He has told a psychiatrist that not all statements in the court's agreed statement of facts document were correct, and that led him to apply to reverse his guilty plea on charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of police.

"I believe I made a really big mistake by just agreeing to the statement of facts just to move things along so that I don't get shouted at or receive nasty letters in the mail," Haskett testified.

Crown prosecutor Gord Haight said the guilty plea should stand, arguing that if Haskett hadn't done all he'd pleaded guilty to doing, he should have had gone through with his one-day trial.

In a surprise twist Friday, Daniel Charles Haskett, 20 -- charged with savagely beating a Lab-collie named Daisy Duke -- tried to take back his guilty plea in provincial court, frustrating a group of animal rights protesters who had gathered outside the courthouse to confront him.

My note: I had already left when Daniel left the court house, but I saw the confrontation on TV - he is obviously very unstable and not at all concerned about people uttering threats at him - he didn't even hesitate to turn around, push through the police (yelling swears the whole time) and try to take a swing at the guy who was talking. I didn't hear what was said to set him off, but I truly doubt that it was worth freaking out about, not to mention it doesn't seem very likely that a guy who had been arrested for assault (charges later dropped) and who reacted as physically violently as he did - with cops right behind him no less - was actually scared about the supposed death threats against him. Besides, there hasn't been a peep about him pressing charges against any of the people who supposedly threatened him, so I have my doubts that they even happened.
ETA: A different article had this listed as what was said to prompt Daniel's reaction: "At one point protester Drew Marceton suggested the woman was a "crack whore mother (who) raised a psychopathic killer," prompting Haskett to run at him before being restrained by police." Which I have to admit, while probably true, was pretty over-the-top. But most adults would choose to ignore things if they weren't true - his reaction suggests that it is true!

Another article:
Man charged with killing dog tries to change plea to not guilty
Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, June 27, 2008
DIDSBURY - A high-profile case of animal abuse case took a new twist Friday, with the man charged in a dog’s death trying to change his plea to not guilty.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 20, originally plead guilty in May 2007 to charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of justice.

But he changed his mind in Didsbury on Friday, saying he only signed an agreed statement of facts because he wanted to get the matter over with.

“I believe I made a really big mistake by just agreeing to the statement of facts just to move things along so that I don’t get shouted at or receive nasty letters in the mail,” Haskett told Judge Ian Kirkpatrick.

The judge will consider Haskett’s request and make a decision in October.
There was more drama outside court as well. About a dozen animal rights advocates protested outside of the court building, with RCMP intervening to keep apart Haskett and another man, who was taunting him.

Haskett was charged after a Lab-collie named Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street in October 2006. The dog's injuries were so severe, it had to be put down.

And one more:

Dog-torture case delayed again


The Canadian Press

June 28, 2008

DIDSBURY, ALTA. -- Frustration over another delay in the sentencing of a man who pleaded guilty to killing a family pet 20 months ago boiled over into the parking lot of a Provincial Court in central Alberta yesterday.

Daniel Haskett, 20, had previously pleaded guilty to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice in the torturous death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross who was bound and dragged behind a car.

But his lawyer surprised Provincial Court in Didsbury by announcing his client wants to change his mind and plead not guilty. The case was set over to Oct. 21 for a judge to rule on the request - a date more than two years after the dog's death.

As Mr. Haskett, his mother, brother and sister were escorted out of the court by two burly RCMP officers, he turned and lunged at a protester who was yelling obscenities at him and his mother.

"Never say anything about my mother!" Mr. Haskett shouted at Didsbury resident Drew Marceton.

The incident continued with Mr. Marceton yelling more insults, as Mr. Haskett and his family were helped into a waiting white truck.

"Why are you guys protecting him?" Mr. Marceton then yelled at one of the officers.

Mr. Haskett had originally pleaded not guilty in the case, and then on the day of the trial changed his plea to guilty. He was to be sentenced in August, but that was delayed due to incomplete psychological tests and pre-sentencing reports.

His lawyer, Mark Takada, withdrew from the case last fall after Mr. Haskett's version of events to a psychologist "differed significantly" from the agreed statement of facts he signed in May.

Yesterday, Mr. Haskett testified he lied when he pleaded guilty in order to speed up the case so he could get on with his life.

"I wanted to receive my punishment," he said. "I wanted closure.

"There has been a considerable amount of harassment against me and my family, including death threats and demands to leave the community. I was assaulted and had a bullet fired through my window."

Crown prosecutor Gord Haight scoffed at Mr. Haskett's remarks and suggested he was only interested in making himself look better in the eyes of the community.

"It makes you look pretty bad, doesn't it?" Mr. Haight asked. "You thought the community thought you were a monster?"

"Yes," Mr. Haskett replied. "I am aware this would enrage people, but that doesn't give anyone the right to harass or abuse me. I was trapped in this town because no one would hire me, I was living in my mother's house, but now I am no longer living in Didsbury."

Mr. Haskett said he has a job and freedoms and co-workers who don't know about his situation and who don't judge him.

He said there were some parts of the agreed statement of fact that were accurate, but other parts that were not. He denied he had encouraged a 17-year-old co-accused to drag the dog behind a car or to hit it with a shovel.

"I would never encourage anyone to do that. It's grotesque," he said. "I would never cause suffering to an animal."

Mr. Haskett's lawyer said a guilty plea would be "a miscarriage of justice."

"We have an entire community venting its frustration on a 20-year-old boy," Allan Pearse said.

Yesterday's events angered animal-rights activists - each carrying a long-stemmed Daisy in memory of Daisy Duke - who have attended virtually every court appearance connected to the case.

"Do you have a dog, sir?" Heather Anderson asked Mr. Pearse as he left the courthouse. "How would you feel if that was your dog?"

Mr. Pearse replied he did have a dog, but he was confident that the justice system would prevail. "I wasn't there and neither were you," he told Ms. Anderson.

"As passionate as people get, as upset as people get - and it is understandable - it is unfortunate when people take the law into their own hands. Remember, Mr. Haskett has had a bullet put through his window."

Mr. Haskett's 17-year-old co-accused had previously been sentenced to three months of house arrest, two years of probation and 240 hours of community service.

Recently, the House of Commons passed a law that makes the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. However, the maximum under the old law, which was in effect when Mr. Haskett was convicted, was six months in prison and/or a $2,000 fine.

(And now I am off to research this new law - this is the first I have heard of it!)

ETA: I just found another article I thought I should post:
Haskett vacates guilty plea
Dan Singleton, For the Didsbury Review

A 20-year-old man charged in a high-profile animal abuse case in Didsbury was restrained by an RCMP officer during a scuffle with a protester outside the Didsbury provincial court on Friday.

Daniel Charles Haskett was in court for sentencing after pleading guilty to charges of animal cruelty and obstruction of justice relating to injuries caused to a Lab-collie cross named Daisy Duke in Oct. 2006.

As Haskett left the courthouse in the company of his mother, self-described animal rights activist Drew Marceton shouted disparaging remarks about Haskett’s mother at the accused.

Haskett then turned and charged towards Marceton, his hand in a fist, before being restrained by Didsbury RCMP Const. Lee Hammond.

As Haskett then tried to get into a waiting vehicle, Marceton continued to hurl abuse at him and then at police.

"Why are you protecting him?" Marceton said to police.

Const. Hammond then told Marceton to move away or he would be arrested for obstruction.

(Marceton was convicted of obstruction and mischief and fined $200 for blocking a van carrying Haskett away from the courthouse following his first appearance in Oct. 2006).

Haskett and a 17-year-old male youth were charged after Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street on Oct. 7, 2006. The animal had to be put down due to the severity of its injuries.

Haskett pleaded guilty to two charges in the case in May 2007, signing an agreed statement of facts at the same time.

In the statement of facts, Haskett agreed that he and the young offender attempted to kill the dog by asphyxiation after the animal was accidentally run over with the youth’s vehicle.

Haskett was expected to be sentenced on Friday before Judge Ian Kirkpatrick. However, when court opened, Haskett’s lawyer, Alan Pearce, made an application to have the guilty pleas vacated because Haskett disputes some of the facts in the statement.

Haskett then took the stand and testified that he signed the statement of facts in hope of bringing the case to a speedy end.

"I entered a guilty plea because I wanted to get on with my life," said Haskett. "There has been a continuing amount of harassment, including death threats and hate mail. I’ve been assaulted. I was trapped in this town. I couldn’t go outside my home."

He said some unknown person also shot at his house.

"I didn’t want to deal with that anymore," he said. "I believed the guilty plea would stop the harassment."

Haskett testified that he denies a number of specific sections of the statement of facts.

"I do not agree with everything the agreed statement of facts says is true. I know it is not legal to inflict unnecessary injury or pain on an animal. That was not my intent. There are parts of the statement of facts that I would say are not true," he said.

One section of the statement reads: "Daisy was alive, so (young offender) picked up a shovel and struck Daisy once over the head with the scoop end of the shovel."

Haskett says that did not happen.

"I didn’t participate in anything of that nature," he said.

One section reads: "Neither (Haskett or youth) felt to see if she still had a pulse, or if she was breathing."

Haskett said that wasn’t true.

"I did check to see if Daisy did have a pulse and was breathing," he said.

One section reads that Haskett encouraged the youth to drag the dog from the property using a tow rope wrapped around her neck.

"That is entirely inaccurate," he said. "I would never encourage anyone to do that. It’s grotesque."

Haskett also denied a section that said he encouraged the youth to lie to police about the killing.

During cross-examination by prosecutor Gordon Haight, Haskett admitted that he read the entire statement of facts before signing it.

"It never occurred to me to ask him (Haskett’s previous lawyer) to have things taken off the agreed statement of facts," Haskett said. "I thought it was black and white. I never thought to ask my lawyer that. It wasn’t really on my mind when I signed that.

"I believe I made a really big mistake in agreeing to the statement of facts."

In closing arguments on the application to vacate the pleas, prosecutor Haight called on the judge to uphold the guilty pleas and sentence Haskett accordingly.

"The accused ought not to be believed," said Haight. "This wasn't a quick and dirty reading of the facts. There was an agreed statement of facts."

Haight said allowing the pleas to be vacated would be prejudicial to the Crown’s case because of the lengthy time since the dog’s death.

Defence lawyer Pearse said the accused pleaded guilty to the charges to end community harassment, and the pleas should therefore be quashed.

Judge Kirkpatrick adjourned the case until Oct. 21 when he will make a ruling on the application to vacate the pleas. If he finds the pleas should not be vacated, he will then pass sentence.

Outside court Haight told reporters he will be seeking a period of incarceration for Haskett. The charge carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $2,000 fine.

"I will be asking for substantial jail time," said Haight.

He called the latest delay "frustrating".

About a dozen animal rights activists were at the court, holding placards calling for penalties for animal cruelty to be increased.

Didsbury resident Tamara Chaney, who collected more than 100,000 signatures on a petition calling for tougher animal cruelty laws that eventually went before Parliament, was one of the protesters.

"This latest delay is disappointing, but I’m not surprised," said Chaney.

Heather Anderson, a Calgary animal rights activist who formed a group called ‘Delegates Against Inhumane Suffering Y? (DAISY), has attended every court appearance Haskett has made in the case.

"It’s disgusting," Anderson said about the delay until October. "I didn’t think he could come up with any other delays. We’ll be back in October."
(There are more articles but they're all pretty much the same. I noticed that this is making news as far away as Winnipeg & may have even been published in the National Post across Canada - yay for that at least.)

Thanks again for the continued support and I will be back in court on October 21 - where we had better get some closure or... I don't know what.


July 1st, 2008, 04:06 PM
I read about this somewhere yesterday and I only look at the national papers, so the word is definitely out there. I wouldn't be surprised if his lawyer is behind this last-minute effort to get out from under, hopefully the judge will see through it.
I don't care if his IQ is 50, he deserves to be punished. And people harrassing and threatening him, well gee that comes with the territory, buddy. Sounds as if he could use a period of incarceration anyway, get some counselling (I can dream, can't I?).
Dogmelissa, you know that expression, 'revenge is best eaten cold' — meaning that the longer you wait, the sweeter it is. May Daisy get hers, and we will enjoy it on her behalf.

July 1st, 2008, 04:13 PM
Melissa,thank you for all those articles and the picture,so that's what he looks like:yell:
As for supporting you,I would be in court with you every time,if I could,this sort of horror has to stop.
Daisy-Dukes suffering is not easily forgotten and I:pray:Haskett will get at least the 6 month jailtime and $2.000 fine,which is disgustingly the most he can get.
Thank's Melissa:grouphug:

July 2nd, 2008, 08:19 AM

she is CLEARLY a HER!!! thats been bothering me in a very deep deep way.

Melissa... i dont even know what to say to you. you are stunningly beautiful. just remember through all of this, you are a beauty most people dont even dream of achieving. even when she is tired, the wind still blows.


July 2nd, 2008, 08:33 AM
Thank you so much for keeping us updated on this, Melissa, you are an angel.

If Daisy Duke were here she would give you a big slobbery kiss to thank you for your support.


July 2nd, 2008, 02:15 PM
Another thing that bothers me if a youth kills someone,it's always" he's a child did not know"to me,in this day and age,even a 17yr old is no more a child.
I see the lawyer is calling Haskett a 20yr old BOY,he is not a BOY he's now a man:wall:

July 3rd, 2008, 11:49 AM
Another thing that bothers me if a youth kills someone,it's always" he's a child did not know"to me,in this day and age,even a 17yr old is no more a child.
I see the lawyer is calling Haskett a 20yr old BOY,he is not a BOY he's now a man:wall:

You are right, chico, as a society we are coddling our young adults and as a result they are not expected to take responsibility for their actions. Mind you, even adults seem to blame somebody or something for their actions.

I think this guy knows the system and is playing it for all it's worth and the judge is allowing it to happen.

I knew right from wrong, even at 10 years old.

October 21st, 2008, 09:11 PM
Wow... it truly feels like a very very long time since I posted the original start of this thread. It has been just over 2 years since the day that Daisy Duke died, and today I drove up to Didsbury to find out whether the judge would hand down justice or let a murderer recant his guilty plea.

Today Daniel showed up in a suit & tie (first time he's ever worn anything other than jeans!), and his mom was also dressed nicer. His younger brother was there (not dressed nice) as well as some friends (all girls except 1). A man I can only assume is his mom's newest boyfriend was also there (I say this only because he had his arm around her in a "boyfriend" kind of way, but looked to be younger than Daniel). All of them were laughing and joking around and having a great time before court started. They seemed totally unconcerned.
When we were outside waiting for the start of court, one of the TV camera men was asking if Daniel was already there, and when we said yes he was, he was sad he'd missed him. I said, don't worry, you'll catch him coming out because we know he won't go straight to jail. I didn't see it but one of the girls with Daniel was apparently giving me some pretty dirty/rude looks, and apparently wasn't at all worried about the possibility that he could get prison time.

Ok, so to the case...

Judge comes in and says he's first going to deal with the application to change the plea (from guilty to not-guilty). He says there was a signed statement of facts, testimony from Daniel, pre-sentence report...
These are all what he said:
- Daniel seemed capable, intelligent and not at all confused about what he had signed/agreed to.
- testified he'd plead guilty to "get it over with", but that doesn't change what he did (his actions).
- he failed to attend meetings with the probation officer and the psychologist.
- he had stated he'd "lied, lied, lied" though he had then said that he was regretful and remorseful and felt shamed for what he had done.
- he appeared to have a "realistic attitude" toward court (I would disagree, especially since this judge was the one who ordered him to pay $1000 for wasting the courts time when he missed 3 sessions due to "job interviews", but whatever)
- the pre-sentence report was one of the most extensive he'd ever seen:
it included discussions with 8 ppl who knew Daniel, including former teachers, former employers, his mother... teacher said he'd been "hampered by his peers in reaching his potential", employer said he was "reliable" and had no problems with drugs or alcohol. Nothing in the report suggested that he was incapable of making or understanding the decision to plead guilty. It said that he *clearly* accepted responsibility for his parts of the incident and included a quote from Daniel where he said that his behaviour had caused Daisy to suffer probably twice as much as she would have if he hadn't done it and "all we did was unintentionally torture her".
- Judge determined that he was fully capable of knowing what he did (his actions that day) as well as knowing what a guilty plea meant and that his attempt to change his plea was only motivated by a desire to appear better in the public's eyes.
Therefore, he DENIED the change of plea.

As in, the guilty plea was accepted, and Daniel now has a criminal record. :laughing: **Happy Dance** :highfive:

They broke for a few minutes for the lawyers to figure out what they were going to say for the sentencing part of it and then we were back at it. (This was a long day.)

Crown Prosecutor: I won't get into the details of any of this, because he literally talked for an hour. Basically the long and the short of it is that the maximum term for this offense is 6 months incarceration. He would like to see a term in jail anywhere from 3-5 months, followed by a 2 year order against owning/possessing/caring for animals of any kind. He also would recommend a probation term, but would leave that to the judge's discretion.

At this point Daniel & his family were looking quite concerned. His little brother was crying.

The Crown spent the next 50 minutes or so going through specific cases (some of them were really horrific and I won't post the details here - it was bad enough I had to hear them) to make his point about jail time.
At one point he talked about the new maximums for animal cruelty are 5 years in jail or 18 months in jail (depending on the classification). He said it was the public outcry that led to the new maximums being established and it would be the "height of irony" if anything LESS than "real time" was given in this case.

Then we broke for 10 minutes (I grabbed lunch) and the defense came up.
This lawyer is quite the piece of work. First, he paces when he talks, is almost always "playing" with his chin (and therefore partially covering his mouth) and keeps his head down, like he's talking to the floor. He talks down to the judge (at one point he said to the judge "you've probably forgotten more about law than I'll ever know" - yes the judge is older, but seriously, I'd be PO'ed if I was the judge!), and even made sarcastic comments when reading some of the "death threats" given to Daniel - "you have raised an evil son", "you do not deserve to be free", "many people would love to see you suffer the way Daisy suffered".... yeah, they're not nice things to say, but those aren't death threats. He was all like "god bless these people" (in a sarcastic tone), I wanted to smack him. He also got a few drinks of water... this is hard in text, but picture a 4 year old boy who is "playing" while he's drinking: sip, "ah". Can you picture that? Now picture a GROWN MAN doing that - and a lawyer to boot! Yeah, he did that. omg, I tried so hard not to laugh.
Before he got into what he wanted, he said that the one argument the Crown had, which was "breech of trusts against the victim" was invalid, because in the section of the code the charges are in, everything in there is property, and property cannot be a victim. He said to argue such would be ILLEGAL. (Ok, we know that animals are classified as property, but wtf!)
He also spoke about Daisy's torture and death as if it was nothing... "the dog died painfully, the dog died in a way dogs don't want to die"... ummmm.... seriously, I felt at least 5 times with this guy that he was smoking something.
He spoke about Daniel:
- he's a young man, only 19 at the time of the incident
- good character
- good work history (though recently lost his most recent job)
- he has an ambition to join the Armed Forces because he LOVES the Queen's Country (aka Canada). (How terrifying is this thought??)
- he has the support of his family; mother, brothers and other people (he read off a list of names, there were 6 people in total)
- he made a "really massive mistake"
- "he was detained for 23 hours; that usually buys you 2 for 1 in this province and I'm asking for that" (more insulting the court & the justice system)
He also spent a great deal of time emphasizing that in the Criminal Code this is one of the LOWEST crimes in the book. He said you don't go to jail for a 129 (resisting a peace officer), and this is LOWER, so he should not go to jail.
He talked about how Spyhill (the nearest prison; Daniel would be sent here if given jail time) is a "finishing school for criminals" and that no rehabilitation occurs there. He laughed a few times when he was reading stuff about jail (generally, not specifically this one).
He also went back through all the cases that the Crown had presented and tried to persuade the judge to see things his way. One of the cases was of a man with a known mental illness who's 10 yr old daughter had given him a kitten - he did something unspeakable to the kitten (both lawyers talked about it, but I won't, it's just too horrible), and the little girl actually phoned the police on him. This man was granted a conditional sentence (aka community service, no jail time), and the defense lawyer spent a lot of time on this one, trying to make it seem like it was comparable. That man had diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - he obviously didn't have a clue what he was doing!
He said that the media coverage these types of cases get is equal to a "public shaming" and that should be considered as part of the punishment.

Then Daniel spoke to the judge:
- apologized to community and peers
- apologized for waste/misuse of Crown's/Court's resources
- says he deeply regrets his decisions of that day
and now knows he had no excuse or no reason for them.

Then his mother spoke:
- last 2 years have been pure hell
- people say we're bad people; "we're not"
- we don't support what he did, but we support HIM
- people want justice but won't let the system deal with it, they are taking it into their own hands

Then some guy spoke (friend of family? I dunno)
- Daniel lived with them from Dec '06 to July '07 (with his wife and family)
- they were coaching him, working with him
- "he is not a malicious person, he truly cares!"
- the stress of the events of that day have "built character"

Crown got back up to speak again:
- if he gets a conditional sentence, what does that mean, that he'll be on house arrest and get to sit at home all evening, watching TV? He does not condone the actions of the public, they are illegal and he condemns, them, but he stressed that if the public feels that justice is not served, they will lose faith in the system and be less willing to follow the laws.

Defense gets up once more, and actually turns to the ppl in the crowd (namely myself and others like me who are grouped as "animal rights activists") and says "if the public wants something else done, they should take it up with parliament".

So we're nearing the end of our day at this point. But we all thought we'd actually get the sentence today. That's what the judge told us last time!
But I forgive him, because both lawyers bombarded him with paper galore, like 10+ cases each.... so he said, I need some time to think about this, can we book a special sitting in this court room?
(I wanted to cry - another date!?!?!?! But then I remembered that this is the judge who fined him, who made him eat his guilt, and I'm ok with one more date, because I think he's going to send Daniel to jail.)

While we were waiting I heard Daniel say to his friends that he had tried really hard to get a job so that he could have a job for this court date (probably so that he could whine and say he can't go to jail cause he's working and they need him). But he didn't get hired anywhere. (Oh boo hoo)

So we go back December 17, 2008. Special date - they're even starting early!

I'm sorry that I don't have a complete happy ending for you, but we're so close!! He is guilty and he WILL pay. Just don't know how badly he will pay.

Tomorrow I will gather up all the media stories and post them here. But overall, today was a good day.
Thanks for your continued support - without people like you I never would have made it through this emotionally. Knowing that there were people behind me, who were with me in spirit and mind, made it worth while for me to drive up there every date for the past 2 years. I'm truly grateful for people like you!
And I'm sure that Daisy Duke is too (and all the other animals who have suffered needlessly).


October 21st, 2008, 09:38 PM
Dogmelissa , I'm off to bed so I don't have time to read all your post . But I did read that it was kinda of good. :grouphug:

I will read it all tomorrow.

October 21st, 2008, 11:34 PM
I can't believe that it's being strung out until Dec, though! :frustrated:

I hope the guy gets some serious time in prison :fingerscr although maybe a psychiatric ward would be a better place for him...

October 21st, 2008, 11:53 PM
Quick update: First News article is up:

Crown seeks jail term for Alberta animal abuser
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 | 4:47 PM MT
CBC News
An Alberta judge denied a request from the accused in an animal torture case to change his plea, paving the way for a sentencing date more than two years after the incident.

Daniel Haskett, 20, had pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of justice, but asked to change that to not guilty.

He told the court in July that he lied when he admitted to dragging the family dog behind a vehicle, because he wanted the matter to be concluded and for people to stop harassing him.

On Tuesday, a provincial court judge in Didsbury, about 80 kilometres north of Calgary, denied Haskett's application, which means his guilty plea still stands.

In October 2006, a 17-year-old friend accidentally ran over the Haskett family's dog, Daisy Duke, a lab-border collie cross.

The teen has already been sentenced to house arrest in what his lawyer has called a "poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt."

The court has heard that the dog had a plastic bag taped over its head, was dragged behind a vehicle and hit over the head with a shovel. The animal, with her muzzle and all four legs duct-taped, was found so severely injured that a veterinarian had to euthanize her.

'We were really hoping for a verdict today, so we're very disappointed and I've never seen such a farce of a trial in my life to tell you the truth.'—Heather Anderson, animal activist

In sentencing arguments on Tuesday, the Crown asked that Haskett be sentenced to jail for three to five months and be banned from owning a pet for two years. The maximum sentence is six months in jail or a $2,000 fine.

Haskett's lawyer asked for a conditional sentence with no jail time.

Haskett is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 17.

Heather Anderson, who started a petition to change Canada's animal cruelty laws, was disappointed that the case, which has divided the town as it inched through the court system over the last two years, was not concluded Tuesday.

"It's ridiculous. We were really hoping for a verdict today, so we're very disappointed, and I've never seen such a farce of a trial in my life to tell you the truth. It's just unbelievable," she said.

Haskett has been the target for many angry protesters; at his first court appearance, a crowd surrounded him as he got into a minivan and then kicked and pounded on the vehicle.

In June, a protester yelled obscenities at him and his mother as the RCMP escorted them out of the courthouse.

More tomorrow!

October 22nd, 2008, 07:34 AM
Oh how frustrating not getting sentenced, but good news that the not guilty plea was not accepted :thumbs up.

How could anybody believe this guy as an upstanding citizen, hopefully the judge will see right through those lies. This guy would only give the military a bad name :evil:. But I think his "dreams" of joining the military is busted now with a conviction. :laughing:

Thank you Melissa for the update :grouphug:

October 22nd, 2008, 05:42 PM
Wow - I remember this case but did not realize that it was still going on!

How awe inspiring that you have stayed with this all this time DogMelissa! What an incredible testament to Daisy Duke. :angel2:

I truly believe that everyone gets their just rewards, but sometimes I am disheartened by how long it takes for that to happen. I am glad that the judge dimissed his request to change the plea, and I hope that he gets the fullest punishment allowed by law (which is pitiful IMO). But now that he has the guilty plea on his record, he will be considered a convicted criminal and the next time he assaults a person or an animal, he will find the road much harder. I have no doubt that there will be a next time - I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been other victims.

It has always amazed me that children who torture animals are not taken more seriously since the statistics show that these children are highly likely to commit violent crimes against others as they get older. As was said in another post in this thread - 'virtually every serial killer began by torturing animals'. :frustrated:

October 22nd, 2008, 07:40 PM
"all we did was unintentionally torture her".

:frustrated: unintentionally ? :wall:

I don't know how you do it dogmelissa , to be there in court , listening to all those :loser: and have to keep your cool. It must be hard.

I sure hope he gets the max , even if the max is still not enough.

Thanks for the update. :grouphug:

October 22nd, 2008, 09:25 PM
:frustrated: unintentionally ? :wall: yup, thats like ooops, we tortured her... OOOps! :wall:

I don't know how you do it dogmelissa , to be there in court , listening to all those :loser: and have to keep your cool. It must be hard. I agree, Melissa, you are a very strong person and deserve a round of applause for being there every time. Daisy Duke surely appreciates it, lookin down.

I sure hope he gets the max , even if the max is still not enough. :pray::pray:

Thanks for the update. :grouphug: I add my :grouphug::grouphug: to this!

October 29th, 2008, 05:11 PM
Thanks much for all the support! It is hugely appreciated.
A friend of mine joined me in court this time - first time for her. She is deaf so she was relying on my notes to figure out what was going on, and as she was waiting for things to happen (at many points they just talked a lot and didn't really say anything), she was watching the family and him. She had to leave at one point and came back apologizing for not being a stronger person - his family was totally cool & collected and showed no concern whatsoever. I can understand how that would be hard to take. To be fair, this does bother me more than I let on. But I just keep thinking of all the people here who are waiting for updates, and I keep thinking of my dog at home - who was abused. I think of how I was unable to save Daisy and how there's so many other animals that I couldn't save (like many of the animals described in the other cases - who weren't even referred to by name). But mostly I think of all the animals that *could* be saved if people that could do this are punished - and a message sent to anyone else who doesn't respect animals. It is *that* thought that keeps me going back up there, that keeps me strong while I sit there listening to him lie again and again.

I do believe in Karma. I don't believe that any punishment Daniel will get for this will be retribution, but I do truly believe that at some point in his life, he will pay for what he did to Daisy Duke that day, now over 2 years ago. And when that day comes, I know that Daisy's spirit will finally be able to rest in peace. I can only hope that when my time comes, not only do I get to see all the animals who have passed through my life and given me so much, but I get to see Daisy, waitiing for me on the other side of the Rainbow Bridge. She doesn't need to stay long, but I'd like to see her and give her a hug and tell her how much she changed my life - because she really did.

Ok, on that totally sappy note, I will be going. I'm sorry I haven't posted any other articles on this, but to be honest, the others that I found were pathetic and very short especially compared to the one I already posted. I will be sure to update you with the final results in December.

Take care, and please give hugs and kisses to all the furry ones in your life for me.

October 29th, 2008, 05:24 PM
What a wonderful post, dogmelissa :grouphug:.

I think of Daisy often and picture her as she was being dragged behind the truck, thinking of her saying, please stop, what did I do to deserve this?

I can't believe that we call our society "civilized", a civilized society would not view any violence and would punish applicably.

November 1st, 2008, 02:53 PM
Melissa,thank you for still hanging in there for Daisy-Duke and reporting to us,you know she will never be forgotten and the evil that was done to her:cry:
:fingerscr:fingerscrthat this cruel excuse for a human will be spending his sorry butt in jail:fingerscr

December 17th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Well today was the day.... Sentencing.

I had a horrible sleep last night because we've had terrible weather (a total of about 8" of snow, horrible wind and frigidly cold temperatures), and I knew that the highway would not be in good shape. So I had planned to get up early, and I was not looking forward to getting up or driving.

But I did. And I got there safely (I know you were all worried). I saw lots of cars in the ditch but I didn't join them! :thumbs up:

Court was supposed to start at 9:30; they'd asked it to start early because they wanted to get it done sooner rather than later and were hoping to not interfere with other cases that were previously scheduled that day. However, Daniel was late and there was some concern that he may not be coming. Apparently he'd moved to Edmonton so the thought was that he may not have realized how bad the highway was and hadn't left enough time. So right from the start it was looking poor.
He showed up shortly after 10 so things got started. The judge first discussed (briefly and without too much graphic description thankfully) the events of that day, and what the charges were that he had been convicted of. He then discussed some of the cases that he'd referred to in making his decision (the longest sentence was 3 months continuous in jail for a man who had a history of abusing his cat and finally killed it). He then talked about what the maximum sentence was (6 months imprisonment) and why that was rarely imposed (person pretty much has to have an "extensive" criminal record, be considered somewhat a danger to re-offend and have little to no likelihood of rehabilitation).

They broke for a few minutes to discuss the implications of the change to the code in section 447.1 subsection 1 (which repealed Section 446.5 pertaining to the duration/necessity for restrictions on owning or being responsible for animals). They came back with the agreement that the code that was in effect at the time of the crime was the one that must be imposed. I truly did not understand this because they also changed the maximum sentence for cruelty to animals and they never *once* discussed sentencing him under the new code - it is my understanding that you are charged and sentenced under the law that exists at the time of the crime as quite often things take a long time to get through the courts and though the code doesn't change often, when it does it would open up a HUGE can of worms if a person could be basically charged for a crime or sentenced in accordance with rules that didn't exist when they did their crime. I digress...

It was revealed that Daniel had moved back to Didsbury (living with his mother again), and that the lawyer had only been told that when Daniel arrived at court today - to which I question why the f** was he late if he lived only a few blocks away? I had an 85km drive in possibly the worst highway conditions possibly and I was there on time!! They talked about how his mother still has the other dog, Diesel (shih tzu mix), but if Daniel's sentence included a no-pet-ownership or care clause, they would rehome the dog for the duration of the sentence. His lawyer spoke about how moving back to the community in which the crime was committed was extremely relevant and made if of enormous benefit to him to be sentenced to serve time in the community due to the media attention and community awareness (therefore stigma on him) of his crime.
He also spoke briefly about how if the judge sentenced him to an intermittent sentence (this is jail time served only on weekends), he would be available to serve starting this friday (and being released on monday).

Crown got back up at this point and talked about the no-ownership part of things and how the max is 2 years. He said that Crown supports the maximum because there is always the possibility of an accident which could result in the same behaviour (the judge had talked earlier about how the torture was intentional but did not come out because of intent to injure the dog, but rather as a result of a very poor decision made after an accident). He also talked about how the effect of a conditional sentence (ie probation) is magnified by living in the community in which the crime was committed, but he still recommended REAL jail time as a deterrent to others. He said an intermittent sentence still allows him to be visible in the community and basically to carry on a normal life, which is very much like a conditional sentence. He said REAL jail time is needed to uphold the public's confidence in the justice system. (Did I mention that I truly love this man?? He is so awesome!)

We broke for a few minutes (well, first they dealt with a few other cases and then we broke - and I was honestly very afraid that they were going to push things off. The lawyer kept saying "if this goes to sentencing" and the judge didn't seem to have made up his mind!) and then they came back.

The judge said this was a unique case because he hadn't found any other cases where any sort of injury, especially of that magnitude, was inflicted on an animal following an accidental initial injury.
His sentence was this:
- no restrictions on pets (owning or caring for them) as his actions did not result from malice or hatred of a pet. Also, because he resides in the community, there will be no need for these restrictions.
- 30 day intermittent sentence (to be served on weekends) starting this weekend: he will report to the RCMP in Didsbury at 9am Saturday Dec 22 and be released at 6pm Sunday Dec 21. He will continue every weekend until the 30 days are up.
- Probation for 1 year starting today; report to probation officer within 7 days (he originally wanted immediate reporting, but the sheriff said that the PO was not there until next week). The probation will include requiring him to report to a 'manager designate' (whatever that is) in person once a month or as directed by his PO. It also puts down a curfew which requires him to be within his residence from the hours of 9pm to 6am whenever he's not serving his jail term.
- and finally, he is to serve 40 hours of community service, the type/location to be determined by the PO (I hope it's cleaning trash off the highway so I can find him and drive by while throwing rocks!).

As court was breaking, the lawyers were trying to discuss whether or not part of the sentence was to include a no-contact provision with T (the youth), and I'm not sure what happened, because people were moving around, but I think they said it wasn't necessary as that was part of the sentence conditions of T. (So when his probation is up, which should be in a few months, I think, I will have to check my files, they will be able to do whatever they want from 6am to 9pm on weekdays.

How completely betrayed do YOU feel by this? 30 days to be served on weekends? 40 hours community service? 40 hours???? He's used way more than 40 hours of the court's time for this, he should have to do more. Maybe 400 hours.

I totally feel let down, but there's nothing I can do. Tamara Chaney is starting a new petition, hoping to keep the bill from dying before the House again (I signed it but I don't have much faith that anything will get through the house anytime soon with the crap going on there). The website for that is and I would encourage all of you to visit it and find out how you can help. There was over 100,000 signatures last time, but I don't think that's enough! We can do better!!

I've had a very tiring day so I will go. I will return in the next couple of days with any newspaper articles written about this.

The good news is that this is all done before Christmas and at last Daisy can rest in peace. Her memory will fade from many people, but it will not fade from my mind. She will live on in spirit in my heart. But at last she can rest, knowing that it is over.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and thank you for your continued support. It has been a very difficult 2 years dealing with this.
Much love,

December 17th, 2008, 09:51 PM
Not nearly enough :sad:

:grouphug: I'm sorry it wasn't more, Melissa.

December 18th, 2008, 06:39 AM
OMG, our justice system is a joke.

Thank you so much for the updates, melissa :grouphug:. You are an :angel: for taking so much time out of your life to look out for justice for Daisy Duke.

December 18th, 2008, 07:38 AM
:cry: I can't believe people would do this!!! It breaks my heart! If these heartless people do this in public, what have they done when no one is looking? How can people be so do they look at themselves in the mirror every morning??? I'll never know.
I hope that they prosecute these guys!

December 18th, 2008, 07:39 AM
Melissa,I think you,as well as I and all others,knew this would be the outcome:wall:
At least this Daniel has had his life interrupted,with court-dates,had the people in Didsbury look upon him with disgust and anger,had to move..
Although I would like to see him rot in jail forever..

I believe Daisy,knows how you and all of her loving supporters fought for justice and cared about her,she will now finally be able to rest in peace,it's over.

Melissa,you can be sure I'll never forget about Daisy-Duke and the horror inflicted on her.
I also want to thank you for,practically risking your life to get to the court-house,to keep us informed over the past 2 yrs.:grouphug:

December 18th, 2008, 12:23 PM
As promised, here are the newspaper articles about this.

Calgary Heralld (
Didsbury dog abuser jailed on weekends

By Jamie Komarnicki
December 18, 2008

More than two years ago, police followed the trail of blood left by the limp, broken body of Lab-collie Daisy Duke to the home of Daniel Charles Haskett.

The 19-year-old Didsbury man eventually admitted in court to taking part in a case of dog abuse that horrified the town 80 kilometres north of Calgary and spurred a national campaign to change animal cruelty laws.

On Wednesday, a judge sentenced Haskett to 30 days in jail, which he can serve on weekends.

The decision was greeted by disappointment from local animal rights activists, and relief from Didsbury's mayor, who said the town is eager to lay the incident to rest.

"I'm just glad that it's concluded so that from all sides, it's time to move on," Brian Wittal said, noting that Daisy Duke's death garnered international headlines.

"It was something that was made much bigger than it should have been or needed to be. It built frustrations on all sides,"Wittal said.

"To have it concluded is the important thing."

Haskett tied a tow rope around Daisy Duke's neck, duct taped her mouth and legs and placed a plastic bag over the Lab-collie's head.

At Haskett's sentencing Wednesday, Judge Ian Kirkpatrick acknowledged the actions were a botched attempt at euthanasia after the co-accused in the case accidentally ran over the pet with a car, said defence lawyer Alan Pearse.

Kirkpatrick also handed Haskett a year's probation and a weekday curfew, but denied an application from the Crown for a two-year prohibition on owning pets.

Crown prosecutor Gord Haight said he'd asked for the prohibition bearing in mind that Daisy Duke was a family pet and "there was a trust element involved in the offence."

Haight had asked for a three-to five-month jail sentence.

"I'm glad that at least some period of jail is being served by Mr. Haskett," he said.

Daisy Duke's battered body was found on a Didsbury street on Oct. 7, 2006. After the co-accused, a young offender, accidentally ran over the pet, the pair trussed up the dog and dragged the animal several blocks before running over it a second time and leaving the body on the street.

Haskett, who has been harassed and threatened since news of the gruesome death broke, is hoping to serve his sentence and move on, his lawyer said.

"It's been very hard on him, quite frankly," Pearce said.

"He hopes people leave him alone, which is what he wants."

But Didsbury resident Tamara Chaney, who launched a petition calling for tougher animal abuse laws that garnered more than 110,000 signatures, said the sentence amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist.

"I think it sends the message loud and clear that it's just not a concern, animal abuse is not a concern," she said.

Though she deplored the "lax" sentence, Chaney said it's also renewed efforts to push for better laws to protect animals.

She said she plans to send a new petition to Parliament Hill in the coming months.

CBC News (
Alberta animal abuser gets weekend jail sentence
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 | 4:08 PM MT
CBC News Daniel Haskett will serve his jail term on weekends.

A Didsbury man has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for torturing his family's dog, ending a case that dragged through the Alberta court system for two years.

Daniel Haskett, now 21, had pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and obstruction of justice.

On Wednesday, a provincial court judge sentenced Haskett to 30 days in jail to be served on weekends, a year's probation and a weekday 9 p.m. curfew.

Haskett is not prohibited from owning or being around animals.

"[His] mother has a dog and the dog's very attached to him so that was actually a very big deal for him," said defence lawyer Alan Pearse.

Calling the case a botched attempt to cover up an accident, the judge rejected the Crown's request of a jail term of three to five months and a ban from owning a pet for two years.

In October 2006, a 17-year-old friend accidentally ran over Daisy Duke, a lab-border collie cross, in the town 80 kilometres north of Calgary.

Haskett and the friend taped a plastic bag over the dog's head, hit it over the head with a shovel and dragged it behind a truck.

The animal was discovered so injured that a veterinarian had to euthanize her.

In May, the young offender was sentenced to three months of house arrest followed by two years of probation, as well as 240 hours of community service.

"This was more or less a misguided attempt at euthanasia," said Pearse. Daisy Duke was found to be so injured that a veterinarian euthanized her.

Crown prosecutor Gordon Haight said he was gratified a jail term was imposed.

"Indeed the Crown's position was it would not be accurate even to characterize it as euthanasia. These two individuals were simply trying not to get in trouble and in doing so, inflicted horrendous suffering to this animal," he said on Wednesday.
Wanted harsher sentence

The animal rights activists who have protested outside the Didsbury courthouse before and after every proceeding said they wanted to see a harsher jail sentence for Haskett.

"I think it's a very pathetic sentence you know. Thirty days, weekends? What is that? Pathetic," said Tamara Cheney who started one of several petitions sparked by the case.

One with 110,000 signatures was sent to Ottawa supporting the modernization of Canada's animal-cruelty laws for the first time in a century.

The House of Commons recently passed a new law raising the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals to five years in prison or a $10,000 fine, or both. But the maximum under the old law, in effect when the incident happened, was six months in prison or a $2,000 fine, or both.

Haskett's lawyer had asked for a conditional sentence with no jail time, because his client had suffered death threats in the town of about 15,000 people and had a bullet fired through his living room window.

At his first court appearance, a crowd surrounded Haskett as he got into a minivan and then kicked and pounded on the vehicle. In June, a protester yelled obscenities at him and his mother as the RCMP escorted them out of the courthouse.

"I think he's happy it's over," said Pearse of his client, who left without speaking to reporters.

(I have to post one of the comments on this article: "He should spend his 30 days in a dog kennel." LOL!!! That's the best suggestion I've heard yet!)

CTV News (
Dog abuser sentenced

Updated: Wed Dec. 17 2008 15:30:11

A Didsbury man has been given jail time for abusing a dog so badly that it had to be put down.

Daniel Haskett, 21, pleaded guilty to charges of injuring/endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

He later tried to change his plea but a judge refused the request.

On Wednesday, Haskett was sentenced to 30 days in jail for his involvement in the death of a dog named Daisy Duke. The time will be served on weekends at the Calgary Remand Centre.

Haskett was also ordered to perform 40 hours of community service and will be on probation for one year.

Some animal rights activists are disappointed with the sentence. "There's got to be better laws for these animals because animals are still treated as property here and that's pathetic," says Heather Anderson. "They are living, breathing creatures that give a lot of love and we should respect them more."

Daisy Duke was beaten and dragged behind a truck for 100 metres. The animal's injuries were so severe that it had to be put down.

The maximum sentence the judge could have delivered was six months in jail or a $2,000 fine.

Note: Daisy was actually dragged behind a car, but it's close enough.

What really bothers me is all the people who are commenting that the animal right's activists are equivalent to terrorists, or saying that repetition skews the story. I read one comment that said the loss of a beloved family pet must have been traumatic on the family. Not a single one of those people, who are so brave sitting behing their computers, were in that court room. There were 3 people, and only 3 people, who attended every single court date. One of them was me, the other was a wonderful lady named Ruby (actually we both missed one, but they were different days). The other person was the Crown Prosecutor, Gord Haight. Not even his lawyer was there for every date (remember, he changed lawyers!), there was different judges, and of course Daniel himself only showed at maybe 4 dates. None of those people who are so very worried for his family saw his mother in court, none of them saw his brother, none of them saw his friends, and none of them looked into his face, as they all sat there LAUGHING in court, making fun of us as we cried, making fun of the system (how else do you take it when you're 30 minutes late for a court date in your own town? or miss court dates because you had a 'job interview', though you're unemployed?). Not one of those people saw his smug face when he was told that he would not go to jail for anything other than weekends - do they realize all that a weekend jail sentence involves is sitting at a table eating lunch and dinner for FREE and having to spend ONE night on a cot? Weekenders are not integrated in with the general population because they have access to drugs and weapons (or things that can be made into weapons), so he will not be anywhere near people who really do not like those who hurt innocents. He will get to watch TV, play video games and relax. During the week, he is free to do as he pleases, and though the judge encouraged him to find and maintain employment, I highly doubt there is anyone in the town who will hire him (it would be bad for business!!). So he will be unable to work, which means he's going to be unable to pay income tax or otherwise contribute to society, and he will sit in his mother's living room playing video games and LAUGHING. The people who suggest animal rights activists are terrorists have never looked into the eyes of someone who did what he did and seen what I've seen looking back. They would not be so quick to jump on board the 'activists are the problem' band wagon if it was their pet who was hurt or killed, or worse, their child (because that IS the next step for him). The family is NOT sad about the loss of Daisy. His mother never shed a tear, never even looked UPSET despite repeated descriptions of what was done to her. Beloved pet? To his brother, she was. And that is why his brother (older one) has disowned the family.

Never once did I even show up with signs or flyers, I never approached a vehicle he was in or threw comments at him. I didn't track down his house and shoot at it or leave hate mail or call. I took my dog, once, as a symbol of what abuse looks like. Every single day I look into my dog's ONE and only eye and ask him to forgive people for what they did to him. Daisy isn't here so I can't ask her. I can't imagine the suffering that she endured, and then to have someone suggest that what I did was equivalent to terrorism? That hurts. But I get comfort from knowing that if Daisy *was* here and I were able to ask her for forgiveness, she would look into my eyes and lick away the tears.

Thank you all for the strength, encouragement and support. I would have been unable to get through this without you. Yesterday when I was driving, I know that you were all watching out for me, getting me there and back safely - thank you.

Daisy - I never met you but I love you and I will not forget you. Rest easy, angel. :rip: I will light a candle for you. :candle:


December 18th, 2008, 12:38 PM
Oh dogmelissa :grouphug:. Why can't the judges see what you see and deliver the appropriate sentence. :cry:

Thank you so much for your dedication to Daisy Duke, I bet she is watching down over you as we speak.

December 18th, 2008, 03:58 PM
Aww Melissa,I know this has been incredibly hard for you,I am just sitting here in front of my PC,I did not see this excuse for a young man,or had to listen over and over again to the horror Daisy-Duke had to endure.
Just reading it again,made me physically ill and incredibly sad,I wish I had been there to help her.

I know,anyone who cares deeply about animals cats/dogs/seals or whatever is called an"activist"."terrorist"etc...,it just shows how much we as a country care about all the injustices done to the animals we are sharing this earth with.

The mother of Daniel,probably did not care for Daisy any more than he did.
I remember visiting Alberta ranch-country(Pincher Creek area) many years ago,I hated it,because of the way the animals were treated,be it livestock or family pets.
They had a beautiful brown Doberman,whom the father decided he was a no good dog,led him out back and shot him,I was in shock,could not believe it.
I know Alberta,is not alone in this,but it's the first time I ever experienced such a total disregard for an animals life:sad:

You are a wonderful person with a big heart,you never once gave up on Daisy-Duke and I thank you for that and thank you for reporting back to us:grouphug:

December 18th, 2008, 04:14 PM
Oh Chico, that must have been horrifying for you :grouphug:. I did notice that many people did treat dogs differently in AB than here in ON. I saw many dogs tied up in the garage all alone. :sad:.

People would allow their dogs to ride in the back of trucks, I was mortified that one would jump out and I would accidentally run over it. :sad:

Of course we know that is not all Albertans and that it is not isolated to only AB., happens all over the world.

December 18th, 2008, 04:40 PM
I remember visiting Alberta ranch-country(Pincher Creek area) many years ago,I hated it,because of the way the animals were treated,be it livestock or family pets.
They had a beautiful brown Doberman,whom the father decided he was a no good dog,led him out back and shot him,I was in shock,could not believe it.
I know Alberta,is not alone in this,but it's the first time I ever experienced such a total disregard for an animals life:sad:

Please don't judge all of Alberta because of one person. I have many farming relatives, and none of them would ever do that to an animal. One of my aunts actually rounded up her barn cats and took them in to be fixed because she couldn't stand the thought of killing the kittens (my uncle had often drowned them when there was too many). The same aunt put her german shepherd through 2 surgeries in an attempt to cure him of bowel cancer. In the end, he needed to be euthanized (and he was euthanized, not taken out back and shot), and he was buried in the yard. A different aunt had a big yellow lab that she built a special dog house for because the dog had a problem with her neck and couldn't 'duck' to get into the door of a regular dog house. Though neither of these dogs that I've mentioned were 'pets' (they were farm dogs and did not go in the house), they were very much loved and taken care of.

In any group of people, in any province, in any country, there are going to be a few who are just ignorant. Please don't judge all of Alberta on the actions of a few (or any other group of people for that matter).

I'm not insulted or anything, just frustrated with the whole situation with Daniel and the law and everything else and I just don't want you or anyone else to walk away from this thinking "all Albertans are mental" or something.

Anyhow... thanks again for everything.

December 18th, 2008, 04:54 PM
dogmelissa, chico would never think that way, she is one of the kindest souls I have ever known.

December 19th, 2008, 06:29 AM
Oh no Melissa,I know that,I would never judge a whole province by a few bad people.
One of my sons live in Alberta(Vermilion),he's just like me,loves animals and loves Alberta.
The friends we were visiting with,took us to this huge party at a huge ranch and it was not a good party,lots of drunks and this"macho"guy showing off how tough he was,the dog did not obey him and he shot him.:yell:
Ontario certainly has it's share of cruel people and if we do not start protecting the innocent animals in all of Canada it will never end.

L4H,thank you,but I can be a real "bitch"at times:laughing:

January 19th, 2009, 05:03 PM
Hi, I started to read your post about that poor little dog, I only got to where he was tied to the back of a car and i couldn't read anymore but believe me i can imagine. All i ca say to that without crying is, i hope that beautiful little creature is in a happier and friendlier place right now and as for that scum i hope someone does the same thing to him one day and see how he likes it. I think that people should have to have a licence to keep pets and have their licences reviewed every 6 months that way pets can be happy and loved and not scared and harmed. I'm sorry i couldn't reafd the rest of the post but animal cruely really hurts me.

January 23rd, 2009, 12:34 AM
I can't believe I'm actually posting in here again. How's this for sickening:
I just got an email from Ruby. She lives in a different town, but close to Didsbury (I don't want to say where because I don't want bad people like Daniel to be able to track her down). She says: "The following is taken from our local paper:

Disbury man to face new charges - Just three and a half weeks after
being sentenced in an animal abuse case that captured national
attention, a Didsbury mas was back in court Jan. 5 to face charges on
an unrelated matter. Daniel Charles Haskett, 23, pleaded not guilty in
Didsbury provincial court on charges of theft under $5000 and failure
to attend court. A trial on the charges has been set for Mar. 25."

I can't find anything on the web about this, but I will keep looking. I'm not sure when this was published; it may be too new to be on the web yet.

Like seriously - obviously weekend jail is doing nothing to make him think that jail is a serious thing and I honestly can't believe I'm reading this! 3 f****** weeks and he's arrested again???? GRRRRRRRRR

There really are no words for how this makes me feel.
I will most likely not be going there in March for this, though it is tempting. I have wasted too much of my life on this scum bag, though. I'll see if Ruby is going to go - she is much closer.

Thanks again,

January 23rd, 2009, 07:36 AM
Meilssa,nice to hear from you:thumbs up
This dog-killer shows no regard for the law and IMO should be in jail.
Do-Gooders think jail is no deterrent,maybe not,but it's supposed to be PUNISHMENT to keep ordinary people and animals safe.
If this moron keeps getting a slap on the wrist,his crimes will escalate,without a doubt:evil:
Thank's for keeping us in the know,maybe there will be some justice for Daisy-Duke after all:pray:

January 23rd, 2009, 07:37 AM
People who would do what was done to Daisy Duke are scum and are not reformable. They lack empathy, period. I just wish our laws would reflect the horror of the crimes they commit.

Thanks for keeping us updated on this piece of dirt.

February 4th, 2009, 08:47 PM
I 100% agree with you chico & himies.... I just feel so lost with this. There's nothing I can do; and I know that what I want to do (which is teach him a lesson myself!) would end up with me spending more time in jail than he will! Maybe his community service can be set up so that he's the "bad guy" that they use to train police dogs, only he won't be wearing any protective gear. I think that would be suitable. What about you guys?

So, opinions on whether or not I should spend the 2 hours driving there and back to see what happens in March? The article says it's an actual trial, but I've heard that before with his name and it just kept getting pushed off. I'm not really willing to drive there for nothing but I also kind of don't want to miss it in case it is something. Hmmmm....

February 5th, 2009, 07:48 AM
Melissa,I hear you,whatever you decide to do,we are forever grateful for your vigilance in keeping us updated.
Daisy-Duke knows there are people like you thinking of her.:lovestruck:
I am certain,sooner or later this killer will pay for what he's done,he is obviously a piraya to society and one day he'll be locked up for good:fingerscr

February 5th, 2009, 09:20 AM
You have gone above and beyond what most people would do, so this is your choice to do. I would not want your family or job to suffer because of it though :grouphug: and would totally understand if you did not do it.

If you are asking if we are interested in knowing what becomes of this scumbag, then yes, I would love to know that he got his just rewards for the horrid crime he committed against Daisy Duke, even if the punishment is not related to this crime. I whole heartedly appreciated every update you gave us on this case. Thank you.