This went to court yesterday for a motion to dismiss. First of all, I'm an atheist; zero bias either way.
It started out with testimony from Mr. Geile, then Father Tom's friend, then Father Tom, then Mrs. Geile. From the testimony I heard, I do not see how Mr. Geile determined that Father Tom was a threat to him. The only thing Mr. Geile described as a "threat" was that Father Tom had pointed at him, while yelling at him. Those were not Mr. Geiles words. Mr. Geile stated that "Father Tom was advancing toward him with his arm extended". The other testimony appeared to confirm that Father Tom was merely pointing at Mr. Geile; yelling at him "that he needs to get his dogs under control". Father Tom said that he was in fear that he may be watching his dog get killed right in front of him, so that is why voices were elevated.
Mr. Geile & Mrs. Geile tried, but failed (in my opinion) to paint a picture that either Father Tom, or his friend were forcefully restraining Mrs. Geile on the ground. Mr. Geiles testimony was calm & cool. However, there were a couple of outbursts during Geiles testimony because some people felt that what Mr. Geiles was saying to be outright false. Father Tom was pretty calm during testimony as well, but it was clear he was very distressed about having to talk about this incident. As Tom described what was happening to his dog, then him; I became pretty emotional myself. What made matters worse, was that Mr Geiles attorney, Clay Adkinson; was interrogating Father Tom as if he were a hostile witness - which was not even remotely the case. Father Tom did very well under that pressure, and maintained a straight forward accounting of his version of the story. Judge Wells, had to warn this attorney three times to tone it down, and even told him that if he needed to take a break to blow off some steam, that was an available option.
Mrs. Geiles testimony seemed to contradict Mr. Geiles in most instances. I could tell that the Judge was studying her very closely during her testimony. That, coupled with the behavior of the attorney, and the facts testified to; led to the ultimate denial of the motion to dismiss. Geiles attorney said he was going to appeal the decision, but I firmly believe nothing will come of it. The charges remain, and given the severity of the charge... Geiles will almost certainly have to take a plea deal in order to avoid jail time. Had this been a trial, and had I been a juror, I would have voted to convict from what I heard. Mr. Geiles does not really have a defense at this point, as he admitted in open court that he did in fact punch Father Tom.
I'd like to point out that during one of the breaks, I saw Father Tom in the hallway. Not knowing anything about me, he greeted me with a huge smile. He seemed to have an overwhelming aura of "just being a really nice person". So much, in fact... I felt the need to let him know how well he did in court, and to let him know that I was happy he & his dog were doing alright. For someone who has never been through a court preceding, he handled himself quite well. I think its horrible that a mans dog gets viciously attacked for no reason, then he gets viciously attacked for trying to help his dog.