MESA, Ariz. — In front of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, a vocal group of seven women gathered, urging prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to pursue animal cruelty charges in a disturbing Mesa-based case. This plea comes despite earlier claims from the prosecutors of lacking sufficient evidence.
Local law enforcement had uncovered a chilling journal documenting the abuse and killing of several dogs. The author of this journal, Brook Scalero, 42, was arrested on November 18 after evidence linked her to the deaths of at least three dogs, the remnants of whom were found later.
Scalero’s connection to these crimes was corroborated by her admissions and the gruesome content of her journal. Entries in the journal explicitly described the inhumane treatment of the dogs, including extended periods of confinement in a hot vehicle, leading to their deaths.
For instance, one entry disturbingly noted, “I starve him, dehydrate him, poison him and leave him tied to the steering column so he can’t move for 10 hours a day… If he even thinks of moving, I will beat him repeatedly.” Scalero confirmed to the Mesa Police that the writings were hers, but described them as “creative writings” during questioning.
Samantha DiGiandomenico, a local animal foster, reacted strongly against Scalero’s defense. “She admitted to it, they found the bodies, and it’s detailed in her journal. Claiming it’s creative writing just doesn’t stand,” she argued. DiGiandomenico expressed concern about the implications of not prosecuting such acts, emphasizing the societal message that animals are expendable.
Ally Zacovic, a dog trainer with Paws Fur a Purpose, also expressed her dismay upon receiving communication from Deputy County Attorney Thomas Rinehart indicating that the office would not be proceeding with felony charges against Scalero. The letter outlined that after a thorough review, it was deemed there was no reasonable likelihood of obtaining a conviction on felony charges, considering an alternative misdemeanor prosecution might yield a more stringent outcome.
This prosecutorial decision sparked outrage among animal rights advocates, concerned citizens, and those directly affected by the case. The county attorney’s office asserted that the decision was based on the improbability of securing a conviction, citing insufficient evidence beyond Scalero’s personal admissions.
Critics like Zacovic countered vigorously, questioning, “We have overwhelming supporting evidence. What more do they need? What kind of community are we becoming when such individuals can roam free without accountability?”
The community and advocates are now pushing for a reconsideration of the case, hoping that new information might prompt the county attorney’s office to re-evaluate their stance before the final decision deadline on January 24. They believe the evidence presented, including the disturbing journal entries and physical proof of the deceased dogs, should be more than sufficient to bring the case to trial.
As it stands, the push for justice continues amidst debates over the sufficiency of evidence and the appropriate legal actions to address acts of severe animal cruelty. The broader implications of this case stir profound questions about societal values and the protection owed to all living creatures.