Police search for DNA clues in hunt for bodysnatchers (Animal rights protesters desecrate grave)

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | October 13, 2004 | Nick Britten

[Stoat]

Police search for DNA clues in hunt for bodysnatchers
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 13/10/2004)

The people who took the body of an 82-year-old woman from her grave in what is believed to have been an animal rights protest left behind plenty of evidence, detectives say.

Fingertip searches of the area around Gladys Hammond's grave have increased hopes that those responsible can be caught by DNA evidence.

Police said that the bodysnatchers must have spent at least four hours digging up the grave in the grounds of St Peter's church, Yoxall, Staffs, before stealing her body.

"It's extremely hard, physical work, so there are things left behind," an officer said. "Only little things but we are getting stuff tested."

Insp David Bird, from Staffordshire police, said: "We have conducted the most thorough search of the scene and I am confident that we will arrest somebody in relation to this matter. It might not be in the short term, because these tests take time. It's a very intricate job."

The attack on Mrs Hammond's grave has provoked widespread revulsion. It is thought she was targeted as part of an ongoing campaign by animal rights extremists who are trying to close down the guinea pig farm run by her son-in-law, Chris Hall, and his brother, John.

Yesterday John Hall said: "We're horrified that they [animal rights protesters] could reach such a low in their campaign against us to have desecrated Gladys's grave.

"I think this goes a lot deeper than what most people would accept as any form of protest. It is really ghoulish."

He said a private security firm had been employed to patrol Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, Staffs, so the family "could sleep at night".

The attack on the grave happened on Tuesday night last week. Mrs Hammond died in 1997 and was buried a few miles from the farm.

For five years the family, their suppliers and their friends have endured a barrage of hate mail, malicious phone calls, hoax bombs, a paedophile smear campaign and arson attacks by extremists wanting to shut down the farm, which breeds guinea pigs for medical research.

Since June 2003 there have been 31 arrests in connection with protests at the farm, 18 of which have led to convictions or cautions. There are five cases pending.

 

12 October 2004: Animal Extremists blamed for grave robbery of woman's body

9 October 2004: Pensioner's body dug up in 'animal rights attack on family'

 

[Stoat]

This sort of thing underscores the fact that these "animal rights protestors" are simply people who have a seething hatred for all of humanity and have no respect or love of people whatsoever. What absolute, barbaric scum they are.

[Stoat]

No one is suggesting that mistreating animals is acceptable.

When animals are used for necessary medical research I fully support it, as there is at present no realistic alternative (the "computer model" argument of the animal rights crowd is without valid substance).

I don't know how often animals are used for cosmetics testing anymore; I have the understanding that most major cosmetics manufacturers have loudly and proudly distanced themselves from such practices decades ago. Much of what we hear about animal testing by cosmetics firms is, I believe, propaganda put forth by the "animal rights" groups. Don't forget that cosmetics firms are usually publicly-owned, and the shareholders will definitely have a voice in how their company is run.

Most people are, I believe, compassionate toward animals and believe that they should be treated with kindness and respect whenever possible.

That being said, the frequently violent acts done by "animal rights" groups work against their stated cause. Engaging in violent criminal activity is not the way civilized human beings go about changing things. We have a set of laws in place that regulate how animals are treated, and if anyone objects to the way those laws are written there are procedures in place that allow citizens to change them.

In order to have "rights", one must be able to bear responsibility. Animals are not capable of civic responsibility, therefore they do not have "rights" in the technical sense. They do, however, deserver our kindness, protection and compassion wherever possible, and we have laws in place to assure that, including strict laws in the research arena that regulate how live animal subjects are treated.

I love guinea pigs too, but if they are being treated poorly then we must change the laws, not engage in violent behaviors or criminal activity. To do so does not put forth a reasonable argument; quite the contrary.