By MELISSA N. WARREN / Review Appeal Staff Reporter

Derek Smith, deputy district attorney, shows a photo of Jennifer’s Siliski’s house to jurors yesterday, asking them to remember the condition of the cages and living conditions of the house where the animals were found. (Jim Rodriguez / Staff)

The jury in the Jennifer Siliski animal cruelty trial will return at 8:30 this morning to continue its deliberations on the 30 counts against the 47-year-old Maltese dog breeder.

The number of spectators and volunteers increased to 57 people — all nestled together on the benches behind the prosecution until spillover forced some to sit behind Siliski.

“If she wins, then I have helped better a criminal’s life,” said one volunteer, referring to the seven months of care she has bestowed on one of the 241 seized animals. “I would have enabled her to commit animal cruelty.”

During closing arguments, Siliski’s attorney disputed such accusations and reiterated the same point she made at the beginning of the six-day-long trial.

“I told you in my opening statement that you wouldn’t hear any testimony that my client has committed animal cruelty,” Byrd said. “And you haven’t. The prosecution has put up smoke and mirrors. Their pictures aren’t even related to these charged animals.”

Siliski, of Bowman Road, is charged with one count each of neglect and one count each of torture for 12 dogs and two cats seized from her home kennel in a Jan. 22 raid. The jury also must decide if Siliski abandoned two animals, based on testimony from one witness who said she saw her throw a still-living puppy and from a garbage collector who claims he found a small, white dog in a trash bag after picking up garbage from Siliski’s street.

Testimony by Siliski’s 16-year-old son yesterday afternoon disputed that charge and others, such as allegations that the dog breeder had tattooed the puppies purely for aesthetic reasons.

“These claims are exaggerated,” Byrd said as she went down the list of each count, the alleged medical problems of the dogs and the conditions at the Siliski home. “How can you say Ms. Siliski failed to provide care when Animal Control gave the dogs the exact same care? It’s not fair.”

Prior to Byrd’s hour-long closing, Deputy District Attorney Derek Smith gave a half-hour-long closing argument, telling the jury that the case of neglect and torture does not hinge on the specific medical problems or even conditions. Rather, he stressed that animal cruelty is about “care,” and asked the jury to decide if the “filthy” conditions and medical problems would cause suffering.

“So let’s just throw the diseases aside,” Smith said, listing the 15 diseases found among the animals by vet experts. “If you say that living in a house in these conditions is suffering then she’s guilty. If not, she’s not guilty. If just one person taking care of these dogs doesn’t cause suffering, then she’s not guilty. If so, then she’s guilty.”

In his rebuttal argument, Smith made some spectators smile as he praised the numerous hours they had put in at Williamson County Animal Control and said the defense’s “conspiracy theory” that workers had tried to put Siliski out of business was “outrageous.”

Staff Reporter Melissa N. Warren can be contacted at melissa@reviewappeal.com.

More...Hollybelle Maltese Scandal