Jury: Diane Eldrup Guilty of Animal Torture in Muddy Paws Case

A jury found Diane Eldrup guilty of 18 counts of animal torture, 18 counts of aggravated animal cruelty and 18 counts of cruelty to animals shortly after 10 p.m. Sept. 8.

"There is no doubt this sends a message not only to Diane Eldrup to others who would do similar crimes," Assistant State's Attorney Michael Mermel said.

Sentencing for Eldrup is set for Oct. 18. Animal torture, a Class 3 felony, carrries a sentence up to five years in prison; aggravated animal cruelty, a Class 4 felony, carries a sentence of up to three years in prison.

Eldrup continues to be free on bail.

During closing statements, the prosecution argued the testimony showed Eldrup knowingly tortured the dogs.

"They had no food, no water; the defendant starved the dogs," said
Raquel Robles-Eschbach, co-prosecutor. "She placed two dogs in airplane crates, with no food, no water, stacked like logs of wood in a closet and shut the door."

She stated Eldrup could have gotten help from the animal control officer who visited on Nov. 16, but did not take it and that shows intent.

Defense attorney John Curnyn said the evidence was not so clear cut.

"This is a troubling case," he said. "The pictures are unpleasant; the situation is unpleasant but you cannot be swayed by unpleasantry."

Curnyn argued it is possible the dogs died of parasites or disease. He pointed to Eldrup's troubles, including foreclosure, divorce and a failing business. He said her whole life had been devoted to animals.

"It doesn't make sense—the worst you can say about Diane is that she's neglectful," he said.

He urged the jury to consider cruel treatment instead of the animal torture and aggravated animal cruelty verdicts.

Mermel told the jury Eldrup intentionally tried to keep people out of the "death camp for dogs."

"There were intentional acts to hide her house of horrors," he said. "Things were much worse than anyone could imagine."

Mermel said there was direct evidence Eldrup intentionally starved the dogs as well as overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Mermel told the jury intent is not the same as premeditation. He also advised the jury not to consider why she starved the dogs. He said the evidence was clear.

"Imagine the final weeks of those two wretched creatures in the closet as if buried alive," Mermel said. "No one would hear their anguished cries as they waited for someone to rescue them."

For more on the Muddy Paws trial, read:

• .
• .
• The Dogs Ruined Her Marriage: Witness Recalls Words of Accused.
• Vets Testify: Muddy Paws Dogs Starved to Death