Lindsey was fired from her job at the Brenham Veterinary Clinic and over 38,000 people signed a petition to revoke her veterinary license. But people wanted the law to recognize that Tiger's life was cruelly and wrongly taken.
So, why did Lindsey get off? The simple answer is that "subpoenas to Facebook failed to produce useable evidence, as the account was deleted the same day law enforcement became aware of the matter," according to Koehn.
But the deeper answer to this question delves into the complexities of law.
"As animal advocates we are strongly disappointed in the outcome of this case," Scott Heiser, of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, told The Dodo. "Sadly the Grand Jury's decision, apparently fueled by a substantial lack of evidence, demonstrates what many would characterize as a highly flawed criminal justice system because it is a system that is designed to let guilty people go free," Heiser said. "Did she kill a cat? She admits that. Was it cruel? In our opinion, yes. But the prosecutors in this case didn't even have enough evidence to prove jurisdiction or venue."
Heiser suggested checking whether the defendant's phone records could give a date and location for the incriminating photograph, but the district attorney's office denied The Dodo's request for that information.
Animals are things in the eyes of the law.
Even if the grand jury had decided there was enough evidence to bring the case to trial, and Lindsey had been found guilty and given the maximum penalty for animal cruelty, which in Texas is a $10,000 fine and two years in jail, it is still not absolutely illegal to kill a cat.
And in Texas, like in many other states, only some animals are considered deserving of protection from cruelty - circus animals, wild animals and lab animals do not enjoy the same protections from Loco's Law, a statute that made animal cruelty a felony in Texas in 2001, only after a puppy named Loco's eyes were gouged out.